This policy paper examines how a U.S. state should respond to the threat of an Ebola outbreak, with particular attention to balancing public health preparedness against fiscal constraints. The paper outlines evaluation criteria centered on containment and public awareness, then compares two primary policy alternatives: a communications-heavy approach focused on public education and a more comprehensive, coordinated healthcare and interagency response modeled on WHO directives. Drawing on examples from New Jersey, Canada, and West Africa, the paper recommends adopting the communications-focused alternative, supplemented by contingency funding, as the most fiscally responsible and publicly effective strategy given the low probability of an actual outbreak.
The paper demonstrates structured policy analysis by explicitly defining success criteria before evaluating alternatives. This technique ensures that the recommendation emerges logically from the criteria rather than appearing arbitrary, a hallmark of rigorous policy writing.
The paper opens with a rationale for state-level action, then establishes measurable criteria (containment metrics, public awareness surveys). It presents two substantive alternatives and one rejected option, analyzes their tradeoffs, and concludes with a justified recommendation. Each section builds directly on the previous one, maintaining a tight argumentative chain from problem to solution.
The state response to Ebola should be a coordinated communications effort. This will serve a number of purposes. First, it will maintain fiscal discipline. Second, communication is key to maintaining public order should there be an outbreak of Ebola. Third, communication helps reduce the risk of an outbreak, because all members of the community will know how to avoid spreading the disease.
The recent revelations that the World Health Organization and others mishandled their response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa have done little to calm the public at home regarding this disease. A government that deals in evidence and has a realistic worldview does not need to address irrational panic, but the fact that global and national-level bodies appear challenged to produce a workable plan places the onus on the state to devise such solutions. Already, some states — such as New Jersey — are developing their own responses to a potential Ebola outbreak (CBS, 2014). This is best practice: there are many resources available at the state level that can be put into action in the event of any crisis, and disease outbreaks are just one of many crises that can emerge. The reality is that if a plan is not in place prior to an outbreak, it will be very difficult to address the issue once an outbreak has begun, owing to the fast-moving, fluid nature of such events.
The policy regarding an Ebola outbreak in our state should be measured on medical terms — specifically, containment and limiting the spread of the disease should it occur. All other objectives are secondary and may be the subject of separate policies (e.g., a dedicated communications policy). Ebola containment requires a coordinated effort from a number of agencies, including healthcare officials, communications and media outlets, transportation services, and other major public services. The spread of the disease, measured in terms of number of infected individuals and number of deaths, is primarily medical in scope and should be managed by healthcare professionals. One of the most important success criteria will be keeping the number of infected individuals as close to zero as possible, and ensuring that no member of the general public contracts the illness.
One of the biggest threats with respect to Ebola is the hysteria that can emerge among members of the public, along with the risk of panic and a decline in general social order. When the disease presents itself on American soil, there is a heightened anxiety among the public about its potential spread. This stems in part from a low level of information about how the virus is transmitted, but also in part because many citizens do not believe their civic leaders have a solid containment plan. When the public becomes aware that containment procedures may be outdated, their fear is not entirely irrational. Part of the success criteria for this strategy must therefore be to minimize the kind of destabilizing panic and irrationality that can facilitate the spread of disease, as has been observed in the West African outbreak (Dixon, 2014).
Finally, public awareness measures — tested through surveys — can be used to assess how effective communication efforts have been. Communication is essential to the control of Ebola because the disease does not spread easily. People in the community need to understand how Ebola spreads in order to (a) feel safe and (b) avoid transmitting the virus. A higher level of public awareness and education should be correlated with a lower risk of spread, should the disease enter the state. Furthermore, education and clear information should reduce some of the chaos, anxiety, and disorder that could occur when misinformed people begin to panic.
There are two major alternatives. The first is a communications-heavy package and the second is a healthcare-heavy package. A third option — essentially ceding the state's planning responsibilities to federal authorities — is also a possibility, but has been ruled out for political considerations: as a state, we should have a meaningful say in how we respond to a crisis on our own soil.
The communications plan focuses containment efforts on the public. Funds will be set aside specifically for education under this plan. This option allows healthcare facilities to set their own policies for dealing with an outbreak, with state emergency funding available but limited direct involvement from state officials. This approach leaves healthcare response to healthcare professionals rather than state administrators. The state's role under this alternative is primarily to communicate with the public. The response will include both preventative education prior to any outbreak and clearly defined pathways and funding for direct public communication in the event an Ebola case is confirmed on state soil. This alternative establishes a chain of command and provides for direct communication as well as outreach through conventional media. The public will be informed through routine communications, including steps that individuals can take to keep themselves safe.
The second alternative draws from WHO directives calling for a coordinated effort to contain Ebola. This alternative is costlier and more involved, requiring state officials to work not only with healthcare officials but also with federal authorities who will likely be engaged in any containment process. The state's role under this alternative is considerably greater, encompassing not only the provision of funds but also the direction of actions at the healthcare, transportation, and law enforcement levels. This alternative is more comprehensive because it includes provisions for a scenario in which Ebola escapes a healthcare setting and enters the broader public — a development that would dramatically increase the risk of spread.
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.