The money and politics of Ebola

Why does it always take a good crisis to make us understand our folly and reset our priorities?

And why must we make political hay of it first -- especially if Republicans can rain on the current Democratic presidential administration? Answer: Money and politics.

The sins of yesterday aside, however, concerns now about possible spread of Ebola in the United States has members of Congress preparing to offer additional funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies tasked to help fight the disease within the U.S. and abroad.

This is funding some of these same Congress members have cut before.

According to Scientific American, the budget for the NIH, the nation's medical research agency, was flat-lined and reduced by $446 million from 2010 to 2014. The Centers for Disease Control's discretionary funding was cut by $585 million during this same period. Worst still, annual funding for the CDC's public health preparedness and response efforts were $1 billion lower for 2013 fiscal year than for 2002.

One analysis shows NIH's purchasing power is down a whopping 23 percent from what it was a decade ago, and its budget has remained almost static. In fiscal year 2004, the agency's budget was $28.03 billion. In FY 2013, it was $29.31 billion -- barely a change, even before adjusting for inflation.

Though the Administration has not yet sought more money since the U.S. was shocked with home-grown Ebola cases, Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, are already making plans to open the federal checkbook if necessary. House Republicans are quieter.

Additional resources might expand quarantine stations, train and equip health workers, test potential treatments and vaccines, and expand our response in West Africa, a Harkin aide told the National Journal.

In September before recessing but after U.S. doctors and missionaries contracted Ebola, Congress had approved an additional $88 million to add to existing funding of the CDC, USAID, the Defense Department, and other agencies. Earlier this month, Congress also gave the Defense Department its approval to transfer $750 million in funding to help combat the West Africa outbreak.

Harkin called it "a critical first step." But, he added, "we must do more." He suggests ramping up surveillance in the 11 countries surrounding the West Africa outbreak, and "here at home, we need to train doctors in what to look for, and strengthen our quarantine stations at the 20 busiest entry points to the U.S. Finally, we must fund basic research for better treatments in the future as well as clinical trials for potential vaccines and therapies that are in the pipeline now. We cannot afford to let any potential vaccine be unexplored."

What a difference a couple of home-grown Ebola cases makes.

But the naysayers aren't quiet, either. As those cut figures were being made public late last week, Mediamatters.org was recording conservative media denying that sliding financial support stalled research on infectious diseases and vaccine development and ignoring evidence that funding shortfalls have handicapped the NIH and the CDC.

On the Oct. 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy said that the "CDC budget wasn't cut at all."

Yet a report from the Center for American Progress, released in March, explained that while funding may appear to have grown nominally, the small amount of growth did not keep pace with overall inflation. CDC's emergency preparedness budget was cut by almost half since 2006. The director of the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases testified at a Sept. 16 Senate hearing that her agency, which is responsible for leading the U.S. response in West Africa, experienced a $13 million budget cut in 2013 alone.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins admitted that there would already be an Ebola vaccine ready if Congress would not have slashed the NIH budget, "NIH has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001. It's not like we suddenly woke up and thought, 'Oh my gosh, we should have something ready here ... Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would've gone through clinical trials and would have been ready."

Certainly by now, everyone with a television has seen the Ebola "cut, cut, cut" political advertisement. The one that surely makes every politician in America (no matter what their favorite color) wince.

But the next time you see the ad, don't think party or color or politics. Think about your mother. Then push the conversation.

Measure that $1 billion saved against the slide last week in the stock market. Measure it against the estimated $1 billion to fan out American soldiers -- many from Tennessee -- in West Africa to build hospitals and clinics and help systems. Measure it against the as-yet unestimated costs to hospitals where care is said to range from $2,000 daily for mild symptoms to more than $5,000 a day for advanced cases. Measure it against biohazard suits said to run $1,000 each.

And, yes, we can slow and stop this scary disease. We've done it before, and unless we dissolve into complete fear and pettiness, we can do it again.

But remember what our mothers so often said: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Upcoming Events