Pub Hlth Policy & Advocacy_ The Scientific Assurance of Isolation and Quarantine Practice to Protect Public Health

1. Running head: THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE OF ISOLATION….. 1
Pub Hlth Policy & Advocacy_Dr. Obumneke_Amadi- Onuoha _transcript 31
The Scientific Assurance of Isolation and Quarantine Practice to Protect Public Health
Table of Contents
Title page…………………………………………………………………………1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………2
Introduction.............................................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................3
Background……………………………………………………………………….3
Governmental Policy……………………………………………………………..4
Economics perspective …………………………………………………………..4
Current Intervention(s)…………………………………………………………...5
Alternative Intervention(s)……………………………………………………….5
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..5
References………………………………………………………………………..6

2. THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE 2
Introduction
Isolation is the restriction of infected persons to prevent or reduce the transmission of the
infected agent, while in contrast, quarantine is the restriction of healthy persons who have been
exposed to communicable diseases but are not considered infected at the time they are restricted
(According to Bhattacharya, 2013, p.404).
Problem Statement
Even though isolation and quarantine are measures used to control the spread of
infectious or communicable diseases from exposed individuals to unexposed individuals, there
have been several arguments regarding the imposing of the practices on individuals concerning
patients security, identification of the disease stage, receiving appropriate treatment, imposing
restrictions on patient autonomy and invasions of the privacy, however, infectious and
communicable diseases emerge at certain periods in the environment, and became a public health
issue to safeguard the population from it becoming an epidemics. In dealing with outbreaks of
communicable diseases, the use of interventions such interventions requires to be assessed with a
valid scientific methods, supported by with government laws and policies, considered reasonable
to bring the interventions to practice and acceptable by people (Bostick, Levine & Sade, 2008).
Background

3. THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE 3
Historically, dated back to 1882, Eastern European Jewish immigrants were isolated and
quarantined in New York to curb the spread of typhus a contagious disease, and protect the
public’s health. The measure resulted in the decrease in the number of cases’ and deaths due to
the infection (Bhattacharya, 2013, p.404). There have been several periods of contagion
exposure such as the 2003 SARS outbreak,H5N1 influenza virus(bird flu) treats, including the
present Ebola treats and others not mentioned, all which reinforced fears in public safety, again
concerns in the effectiveness of laws and policies guiding isolation and quarantine and how
scientifically strong the practices are. The interventions are not forceful detention of affected
individuals but are voluntary. The implementing have been challenging at both the hospital and
community levels, by that requiring evaluation of reasonable laws and policies to guide it
practice (Bhattacharya, 2013).
Overview of Current Governmental Policy
Federal and State laws authorizes the community and local health department officials to
embrace quarantine or isolation actions as a matter of public protection to govern the detention,
isolation, quarantine, or release of individuals to prevent the introduction and transmission of
communicable diseases, and only on specified disease by executive orders e.g. a law under the
Title 42 of the Code of the Federal Regulation, section 70.6, provided in the public health
service act Section 361(b) of the federal authority was issued as regulation for isolation and
quarantine practice for all states to uphold(Bhattacharya, 2013,p.407).
Perspective of the economics discipline
Mass isolation and quarantine can perpetrate significant socio-economic costs such as
resulting in an individual impact of preventive measures in terms of lost wages and productivity
including organizational impact on affected individuals. The cost analysis of the intervention

4. THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE 4
from different measures including costs to people, costs to individuals, and quality-of-life
measures, divided into direct cost of design and implementation of control programs e.g. material
fees and salaries); indirect costs to individuals e.g. losses in productivity due to the absence of
sick persons), and immaterial costs like those caused by stress and pain presents an increasing
costs per infection prevented, and life saved through isolation and quarantine procedures(Mubayi
et. al., 2010, p. 4-5;Bhattacharya, 2013,p.404).
Intervention/s Currently In Place to Address Issue
The list of communicable diseases for which quarantine or isolation is authorized is
specified in an executive order of the President. State and local health authorities has been
authorized to declare and enforce these measures within borders, they would let people know
that they may have been exposed and would direct them to get assessment or treatments which
usually occurs at a hospital, a health care facility or others. The isolation and quarantine
authority varies depending on state laws, and are granted by the government constitution to enact
laws and promote regulations to safeguard the health and welfare of people within state borders
(CDC, 2014).
Proposed Alternative Intervention to Address the Issue
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) is an alternative intervention
to address isolation and quarantine, it is a legislature written by notable public health entities to
help the government in revising their public health laws to control epidemics and respond to
bioterrorism, the model provides states with the power they need to detect and contain
bioterrorism and other naturally occurring disease outbreaks. The law has been introduced and
adopted in 34 states of the country (Bhattacharya, 2013, p.417-418).
Conclusion

5. THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE 5
The effects of communicable disease undoubtable creates fear and insecurity in the
population both for the contagion and treatment, it also causes socioeconomic dysfunction in the
government and society, therefore it is important that risk assessment is made public health
enforcement to support isolation and quarantine interventions during epidemic with respect to
patient’s rights.

6. THE SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE 6
References
AHRQ (2011).Chapter 4. Isolation/Quarantine. Retrieved from
http://archive.ahrq.gov/research/devmodels/devmodel4.htm
Bhattacharya, D. (2013). Public health policy: Issues, theories, and advocacy. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bostick, N. A., Levine, M. A., & Sade, R. M. (2008). Ethical obligations of physicians
participating in public health quarantine and isolation measures. Public Health Reports,
123(1), 3.
CDC (2014). Understand Quarantine and Isolation. Retrieved from
http://emergency.cdc.gov/preparedness/quarantine/qa.asp
Mubayi, A., Zaleta, C. K., Martcheva, M., & Castillo-Chávez, C. (2010). A cost-based
comparison of quarantine strategies for new emerging diseases. Math. Biosci. Eng, 7(3),
687-717.