Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 12, Number 9—September 2006
Policy Review

State Plans for Containment of Pandemic Influenza

Scott D. Holmberg*Comments to Author , Christine M. Layton†, George S. Ghneim†, and Diane K. Wagener‡
Author affiliations: *Research Triangle Institute International, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; ‡Research Triangle Institute International, Washington DC, USA

Main Article

Table A2

Overview of 50 state plans for vaccination, surveillance, and containment of pandemic influenza*. PDF Available at www.cdc.gov/eid/pdfs/06-0369-TA2.pdf (131 KB, 2 pages)

State Vaccination
Surveillance and detection
Community containment activities considered
ACIP priority groups Other groups considered† Clinics/hospitals/clinicians Laboratories Syndromic surveillance‡ International travelers Voluntary self-isolation School/institution closings Institution/household quarantine Contact vaccination/chemoprophylaxis
Alabama Yes Yes Yes Possible
Alaska Yes Yes Yes
Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes
Arkansas Yes Children 2–18 y of age Yes Nonprescription medicine use Yes Yes Yes
California (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Colorado Yes Yes Yes
Connecticut Yes Hospitals only Yes
Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Florida Yes Community service perssonnel† and preschoolers Yes Yes Possible Yes
Georgia Yes Yes Yes Possible
Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible Possible
Idaho Yes Possible Yes Possible Possible Possible
Illinois (Yes) Yes Possible
Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible Yes Yes
Iowa (Yes) Yes (Yes) (Yes)
Kansas Yes Yes (Yes) "Will follow generic…response plans.."
Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yes)
Louisiana No pandemic influenza plan posted before Hurricane Katrina
Maine Yes; Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Possible Yes
Maryland Yes Yes Yes (Yes)
Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Michigan Yes (Yes) Yes Yes Possible Yes Yes
Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes, in development
Mississippi (Yes) Yes (Yes)
Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes
Montana Yes Yes Yes
Nebraska (Yes) Yes Yes Yes, in development Possible
Nevada (Yes) Yes Yes Yes
New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yes)
New Mexico Yes Yes Yes (Yes) (Yes)
New York (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yes)
North Carolina Yes (Yes) Yes Yes Yes (Yes) (Yes) (Yes) Possible
North Dakota Yes (Yes) Yes Yes
Ohio Yes Yes Yes Possible Possible
Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Possible Possible
Oregon Yes Yes Yes
Pennsylvania (Yes) Yes Pittsburgh Yes Possible
Rhode Island Yes
South Carolina Yes (Yes) Yes (Yes)
South Dakota Yes (Yes) Yes (Yes) (Yes) (Yes)
Tennessee (Yes) Yes
Texas (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes Yes, in development Yes
Utah Yes (Yes) Possible
Vermont Yes (Yes) Yes Yes (Yes)
Virginia (Yes) Yes Yes Yes
Washington (Yes) (Yes)
West Virginia Yes (Yes)
Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Possible
Wyoming Yes Yes Yes (Yes) (Yes)

*ACIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; (Yes), a program was explicitly considered but not finalized in the state plan; Possible, a program was alluded to but not extensively considered.
†Other groups include nuclear power plant workers, telecommunications and public utility workers, and key government personnel.
‡Syndromic surveillance refers to the immediate electronic collection and reporting of patients in clinics, emergency departments, and other medical venues who have cough, fever, and other symptoms suggestive of influenza.

Main Article

Page created: November 18, 2011
Page updated: November 18, 2011
Page reviewed: November 18, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external