The Cost and Public Health System Effects of Active Monitoring and Illness Response for Ebola Virus Disease: A Case Evaluation of Georgia

Abstract

In August 2014, the World Health Organization declared the Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa a public health emergency of international concern. After 2 imported cases of the disease were identified in the United States in autumn 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that all jurisdictions begin active monitoring of travelers at risk of developing Ebola virus disease for 21 days from the last day of a potential exposure to minimize the risk of disease transmission. Here we describe the infrastructure development, monitoring processes, total planned expenditures, and effects on the public health system in Georgia associated with active monitoring and illness response of all travelers from Ebola-affected West African countries from October 2014 to March 2016. We conducted qualitative interviews with Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) staff. We identified state active monitoring and illness response infrastructure investments and monitoring activities and state and federal funds spent in both areas. And, we evaluated whether active monitoring and illness response enhanced Georgia's ability to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks. Developing the infrastructure to support the monitoring and response required investment in information technology, training of public health and medical personnel, increasing laboratory capacity, and securing personal protective equipment. Estimated total expenditures were $8.25 million, with 76% spent on infrastructure and 17% on daily monitoring. The GDPH leveraged internal resources and partnerships to implement active monitoring and illness response. Infrastructure investment increased surveillance capacity, strengthened relationships between the GDPH and medical providers, and led to the creation of infectious disease transport and hospital networks. Active monitoring and illness response increased outbreak preparedness, but it warrants comparison with other possible responses to determine its overall value.