CDC NIP/NIC Page
CDC NIP/NIC Home Page

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 10:35 AM
106

Preparedness before the Storm: Legal and Policy Barriers to Effective Use of Immunization Information Systems (IIS) in a Public Health Emergency

Anna C. Dragsbaek, Immunization Project, Texas Children's Hospital, 6621 Fannin FC240, Houston, TX, USA and Julie A. Boom, Academic General Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, 6621 Fannin FC240, Houston, TX, USA.


Learning Objectives for this Presentation:
By the end of this presentation, participants will be able to:
1. Identify legal and policy barriers to effective use of an IIS during a public health emergency.
2. Identify possible solutions to these barriers that can be implemented prior to a public health emergency.


Background:
IIS are a valuable public health tool during public health emergencies, as evidenced by the quick and efficient use of the Louisiana Immunization Network for Kids Statewide (LINKS) by almost every state in the country during Hurricane Katrina. Use of LINKS saved millions of public health dollars in vaccine and administration costs. However, there are several legal and policy barriers to the effective use of an immunization registry during public health emergencies, which hamper their utility.

Setting:
Case study of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in Houston TX and an analysis of relevant laws and policies

Population:
N/A

Project Description:
During the Katrina relief efforts, a state of public health emergency was declared in Texas, which suspended the procedural laws and rules “if strict compliance with the provisions, orders or rules would in any way prevent hinder or delay necessary action in coping with a disaster” [TEX. GOV'T CODE ¬µ418.016 (1987)]. Although such a provision exists in most states, there are certain planning activities that must take place prior to an emergency to enable an IIS to be used to its fullest potential.

Results/Lessons Learned:
Laws and policies on the state and federal level need to support the development of IIS in the following categories: (1) the age range of participants in a registry, (2) data sharing between states (3) consent issues (4) safeguarding privacy while supporting data exchange and (5) mandatory participation in an immunization registry.