State Requirements for Rabies-Related Animal Control
ABSTRACT Rabies postexposure prophylaxis is an important secondary prevention step but is unnecessary if the exposing animal is not rabid. Effective rabies-related animal control (RRAC) requirements enforced by animal control officers (ACO) are an alternative step to reduce the number of rabies exposures and postexposure prophylaxes. The purpose of this study was to describe the variability of requirements for RRAC by statutes and regulations across the United States.
Current state laws and regulations pertaining to rabies and animal control were reviewed and assessed for 3 primary RRAC activities related to obtaining animals that have potentially exposed humans to rabies, that have been potentially exposed to rabies, or that show signs of rabies. Animal control infrastructure was assessed on the basis of the requirement for, and authority granted to, ACOs for conducting these RRAC activities. State Public Health Veterinarians, State Veterinarians with the Departments of Agriculture, and/or State Epidemiologists were contacted for verification and assistance with interpretation of laws and regulations.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia authorize specific actions related to all 3 RRAC activities. Twenty-four states have laws and regulations that do not clearly address at least 1 of the RRAC activities or limit the authority to domestic animals. Three states have laws or regulations that address RRAC nonspecifically or leave the requirements to localities. Eleven states mandate the placement of ACOs with authority over domestic and wild animals, 7 states require ACOs for control of domestic animals only, and 32 states and the District of Columbia have no statewide requirements for ACOs.
Only 9 states have legal requirements for ACOs with authority over wild and domestic animals and RRAC that addresses all 3 primary RRAC activities. Consequently, RRAC requirements may represent an incompletely tapped rabies prevention mechanism.
SourceAvailable from: Laura A Cooley[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Syphilis diagnoses in the United States have increased substantially over the past decade, and most cases occurred among men who have sex with men (MSM). Nationally, rates of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis reported among men increased, from 3.0 cases per 100,000 population in 2001 to 8.2 in 2011 (1). In 2011, approximately 72% of P&S syphilis cases occurred among MSM* (1), among whom new diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have increased in recent years (2). Infection with syphilis increases the likelihood of acquiring and transmitting HIV; moreover, the occurrence of syphilis in an HIV-infected person is an indication of behavior that might increase the likelihood of HIV transmission (3). The population of Baltimore, Maryland, is particularly affected by syphilis and HIV. In 2011, the Baltimore metropolitan statistical area (MSA) had the second highest rate of reported cases of P&S syphilis (11.4 per 100,000 population) (1) and the sixth highest estimated rate of diagnoses of HIV infection (33.8 per 100,000 population) (2) compared with other MSAs in the United States. Local public health officials have noted a subpopulation of MSM diagnosed with repeat syphilis infection; they believe that this subpopulation might bear a disproportionate burden of both syphilis and HIV infection and that intensifying syphilis and HIV prevention efforts among this subpopulation might reduce syphilis and HIV transmission overall in the Baltimore area.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 08/2013; 62(32):649.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Context: Rabies virus causes a fatal encephalitis and is typically acquired through the bite of an infected mammal. Rabies is preventable through administration of rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), but this must be balanced with the need to avoid unnecessary PEP use. Though not nationally notifiable, some state health departments (SHDs) have made animal bites and use of PEP reportable within their jurisdictions. Objective: We evaluated whether animal bites and PEP were reportable to SHDs as of 2013 for every state in the United States. Design: The list of reportable conditions for each SHD as of 2013 was reviewed on the Internet for every state in the United States to determine whether animal bites or PEP were reportable. We then contacted an SHD representative (typically the State Public Health Veterinarian) to confirm data generated through Internet searches. Health departments in states where PEP was reportable were asked to complete a follow-up survey. Results: Animal bites and PEP both were reportable in 9 states (18%). Another 9 states (18%) mandated animal bite reporting but not PEP reporting, while 12 states (24%) mandated PEP reporting but not animal bite reporting. These events were not reportable in 20 states (40%). The benefits reported by personnel from SHDs with PEP reporting systems varied greatly. Conclusions: Additional investigations focusing on the value of information returned by PEP reporting and identifying best practices for implementation and management are needed. The lack of standardization between current animal bite and PEP reporting systems limits completeness of reporting and comparability of outcomes. National recommendations to standardize case definitions and other data elements might help jurisdictions developing new animal bite or PEP reporting systems.Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 07/2014; 21(3). DOI:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000125 · 1.47 Impact Factor