Federal response to Hurricane Katrina examined

"Federal Health Policy Response to Hurricane Katrina: What it Was and What it Could Have Been," Journal of the American Medical Association: In a commentary for JAMA, Jeanne Lambrew of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services and Center for American Progress and Donna Shalala, former HHS secretary, examine the response of federal officials after Hurricane Katrina, praising such elements of the response as the provision of emergency services, plans for redesigning Louisiana's health system and congressional efforts to provide health insurance to the uninsured.

However, they write that they find three "major faults" with the federal response: that assistance was inadequate to meet the need, that the response was too late and "may have slowed the recovery of the health system" and that the response "highlighted flaws in the decision-making process."

They propose "policies that could have resulted in improved health and health care delivery following the hurricane," including that the power of the executive branch could have been used to waive program rules, redirect funding to retain care providers in affected areas, redirect funding from certain programs to others in need and create a standing panel to oversee health policy resources during disasters. In addition, they suggest that the Bush administration and Congress should have used the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to appropriate funds for public health programs, that Congress create a permanent, emergency Medicaid authority and that lawmakers and policy makers examine how to make the U.S. health system "accessible, affordable and quality-oriented for all" (Lambrew/Shalala, JAMA).