Bill Overview
Title: One Health Security Act
Description: This bill establishes an interagency policy council that is focused on matters pertaining to One Health and national security. One Health refers to a multisectoral and transdisciplinary approach for achieving optimal health outcomes for people, domestic and wild animals, plants, and their shared environments and ecosystems. Specifically, the council must advise the President about, develop a strategy for, and generally coordinate federal activities related to One Health Security (i.e., the operational and functional security of the United States against naturally occurring, accidental, and deliberate biological threats, including identified threats, criminal acts, terrorist acts, supply chain failure and system failure, cyberattacks, or other relevant threats affecting One Health and national security).
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide who depend on the interconnected health of humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The One Health Security Act focuses on matters that incorporate human, animal, plant health, and ecosystem well-being, which means it impacts individuals depending on or involved with these sectors indirectly or directly.
- The bill aims to advise on national security threats that could be biotic in nature, impacting public health, food systems, and environmental conditions directly impacting populations.
- This legislation has implications for populations that rely on ecosystems and biodiversity for their livelihoods and health, which is virtually every person globally given the interconnectedness of health and ecosystems.
Reasoning
- The One Health Security Act focuses on a broad array of issues impacting all living components of ecosystems, making it relevant to those working in healthcare, agriculture, environmental science, and security sectors. Each sector deals with the consequences of biological threats and ecosystem health degradation.
- The policy's budget constraints suggest implementation will prioritize high-impact strategies, maximally leveraging existing infrastructure and collaborations for One Health-related threats.
- The policy aims not just at proactive measures in health security, but also at enhancing national resilience, especially against biotic signatures like pathogens, which has implications for public health officials, agricultural workers, environmental scientists, and supply chain experts.
- Given the wide-ranging implications of this policy, many may not see immediate direct effects on their daily lives, such as individuals not involved in mentioned sectors or who live away from ecosystem-rich or agricultural environments. In contrast, those in pivotal sectors like public health and environmental sciences will likely experience direct workplace impacts.
- Key factors influencing individuals' perceptions of the policy include current engagement in sectors or occupations likely affected by biothreats, personal experience with exposure to threat events mentioned (e.g., food system crises), and awareness of interactions among human, animal, and environmental health.
Simulated Interviews
Public Health Officer (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could massively improve how we preemptively handle zoonotic outbreaks.
- Interagency collaboration will likely streamline processes at CDC, making responses quicker and more cohesive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic that a comprehensive approach could secure my livelihood especially against pest outbreaks which have been increasing.
- It would be beneficial if this policy supports agricultural resilience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical because the health of our ecosystems directly affects how effective my work can be.
- Cross-disciplinary strategies are going to be essential for future sustainability efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Urban Planner (New York, New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Urban spaces suffer when national policies overlook ecosystem health.
- I hope this policy leads to better inclusion of natural systems in urban planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure how this will affect me directly, but I recognize the importance of future-proofing our ecosystem health.
- This could be a good chance to integrate more tech solutions in environmental monitoring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Veterinarian (Austin, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful this will lead to better resources and information sharing on zoonotic diseases.
- Strengthening One Health infrastructures is crucial, especially here in Texas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Livestock Rancher (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical at first, but if it means protecting our animals and livelihood against increasing threats, I'm all for it.
- Hopefully, funding will reach states like ours that face unique challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education should reflect pressing health and environmental issues; this bill could help update curriculums commercially and academically.
- It might create opportunities to integrate new learnings into public school education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act may serve as a useful legislative tool in strengthening arguments for ecosystem protection in the courtroom.
- A positive step towards marrying health law with environmental policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that strengthens agricultural resilience in the face of climate change is critical.
- Interested to see if this leads to more educational/research opportunities in One Health areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $77000000)
Year 3: $60500000 (Low: $36300000, High: $84700000)
Year 5: $66550000 (Low: $39930000, High: $93170000)
Year 10: $73205000 (Low: $43863000, High: $102487000)
Year 100: $802855000 (Low: $481713000, High: $1123997000)
Key Considerations
- The complexity of interagency coordination in expansive areas of health and security that involve diverse stakeholders.
- The potential difficulty in measuring direct outcomes of improved One Health Security.
- Uncertainty in predicting the incidence and impact of future biological threats, affecting cost and savings estimates.