03/01/2006
New Hanover County Health Department
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries for January 2006
Cumulative: 58.33% Month 7 of 12
•
Revenues
Current Year Prior Year
Type of - Budgeted Revenue Balance % Budgeted Revenue Balance %
Revenue Amount Earned Remaining Amount Earned Remaining
Federal & State $ 1,826,138 $ 1,168,803 $ 657,335 64.00% Mi $1,944,464 $ 912,438 $ 1,032,026 46.92%
AC Fees $ 659,496 $ 371,108 $ 288,388 56.27%$ 580,161 $ 361,237 $ 218,924 62.26% -
Medicaid $ 1,500,300 $ 516,120 $ 984,180 34.40%,~ $1,138,039 $ 457,806 $ 680,233 40.23%
Medicaid Max $ - $ - $ 154,600 $ - $ - 154,600
EH Fees $ 300,212 $ 112,006 $ 188,206 37.31% $ 300,212 $ 141,926 $ 158,286 47.28%
Health Fees $ 128,000 $ 134,888 $ (6,888) 105.38% ; $ 113,545 $ 104,454 . 9,091 91.99%
Other $ 3,235,186 $ 1,851,542 $ 1,383,644 57.23%, $2,470,135 $ 1,333,229 *1$3','390,066 6,906 53.97%
IMF
Totals $ 7,649,332 $ 4,154,466 $ 3,494,866 54.31%$6,701,156. $3311,090 49.41%
Expenditures
Current Year Prior Year
Type of Budgeted Expended Balance - % Budgeted Expended Balance %
Expenditure Amount Amount Remaining Amount Amount Remaining
~j
Salary & Fringe $ 11,283,983 $ 5,769,447 $ 5,514,536 51.13% $ 10,410,730 $ 4,607,852 $5,802,878 44.26%
Operating $ 2,033,945 $ 813,762 $ 1,220,183 40.01% $ 1,636,960 $ 741,580 $ 895,380 45.30%
Ca ital Outlay $ Wr 717,225 $ 203,750 $ 513,475 28.41% $ 216,841 $ 17,638 $ 199,203 8.13%
Totals $ 14,035,153 $ 6,786,960 $ 7,248,193 48.36%~. $ 12,264,531 ' $ 5 367 070 $6,897,461 43.76%
Summary
Budgeted Actual %
FY 05-06 FY 05-06
Expenditures:
Salaries & Fringe $11,283,983 $5,769,447
Operating Expenses $2,033,945 $813,762
Capital Outlay $717,225 $203,750
Total Expenditures $14,035,153 $6,786,960 48.36%
Revenue: $7,649,332 $4,154,466 54.31%
Net County $6,385,821 $2,632,494 41.22%
Revenue and Expenditure Summary
For the Month of January 2006 10
NHCHD BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVED GRANT APPLICATION STATUS FY 05-06
Da (BOH Grant - - Requested Pending Received Denied
Child Care Nursing (Smart Start)
•
2/1/2006 Continuation funding for existing grant
- ro ram $186,600 $186,600
Health Check Coord. (Smart Start)
Continuation funding for existing grant
program $45,800 $45,800
Family Assessment Coord. (Smart Start)
Continuation funding for FAC portion of
Novi ator ro ram $113,000 $113,000
NC Institute for Public Health -Accreditation
assistance with improvement in areas
(policies/procedures & continuing ad training
log). - $17,034 $17,034
Tabled by BOH Pediatric Primary Care (United - -
not approved Way/NHRMC) Start-up funds to support new
for submission rims care program for pediatric patients $30,000 $0
Cape Fear Memorial Foundation- Obesity
1/4/2006 Grant (3 year period) - $300,000 300,000
Ca a Fear United ay- Panorex Grant $38,000 $38,000
NC Of Tice of Minority Health 8 Health
Disparities- Interpreter Grant - $20,000 $20,000
NACCHO Grant-Addressing Disability in
Local Public Health. Collaboration with
12/7/2005 UNCW. - $25,000 $25,000
• Office of Research, Demonstrations and
11/2/2005 Rural Health- Pediatric Prima Care Grant $50,000 $50,000
Health Carolinians- Contract Coordinator $5,000 $5,000
10/1212005 No activity for October 2005.
9/7/2005 No activity for September 2005.
Wolfe-NC Public Health Association
Prenatal Grant for FY 05-06 and FY 06-07-
8/3/2005 assistance for diabetic prenatal patients. $5,000 - $5,000
'allocating
North Carolina Alllance(NCAH) for $5,000 from
Secondhand Smoke- Local Control existing PA
Initiative-if approved and awarded PA funds • allocating budget- 'Grant was
to be used for educational and $5 000 from approved by not approved
purposes existing PA NHCLC by RWJ
media campaigns only. budget 9/19/05 Foundation
7/6/2005 No activity for July 2005. -
NC Dept of Insurance- Office of State Fire .
6/1/2005 Marshall- Risk Watch Continuation Grant $ 25,000 $ 25,000
HUD (partnership with City of Wilmington)
Lead Outreach and Education Program (3
year funding) $ 275,000 $275,000
Ministering Circle- Good Shepherd
Ministries Clinic supply & Equipment - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $
No activity for May 2005.
Cape Fear Memorial Foundation- Living
4/6/2005 Well Program $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $
National Safe Kids Coalition- Mobile Van for
• 3/2/2005 Car Seat Checks $ 49,500 $ 49,500 $
Smart Start- Child Care Nursing Program $ 239,000 $ 170,000 $ 69,000
Smart Start- Health Check Coordination
Pro ram $ 43,800 - $ 43,800
Smart Start- Navigator Program $ 155,000 $ 44,000 $111,000
2/212005 No activity for February 2005.
Champion McDowell Davis Charitable
1/5/2005 Foundation - Good She herd ClinAs of 2/14/200 $ 56,400 $ 56,400 11
o i iw on receive since as repo .
Program did not apply for grant.
' Dr. Robert M. Shakar, Jr., Chairman called the Personal Health Committee Meeting of the New
• Hanover County Board of Health (NHCBH) to order at 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8,
2006 in the Thomas Fanning Wood Conference Room of the New Hanover County Health
Department located at 2029 S. 171h Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present:
Marvin E. Freeman, Sr.
Sandra L. Miles, DDS
Robert M. Shakar, MD
Members Absent.
Stanley G. Wardrip, Jr.
Cheryl Lofgren, RN
Others
Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Ellen Harrison, PHN, School Health
Janet McCumbee, PHS Manager
Renae Lopez, Health Educator, Health Promotion
Elisabeth Constandy, Health Promotion Supervisor
David E. Rice, Health Director
Marilyn Roberts, Recording Secretary
Two issues for discussion were presented.
Cell Phones While Driving
• . Following up on an issue brought to the attention of the New Hanover County Board of
Health by Mr. Wardrip
• Dr. Shakar did research on this issue to find some type of legislation. Dr. Shakar had a
conversation with past board member Hank Estep for past history information. All-roads
are mandated by the State. In the past, public was alerted through professional public
service announcements, billboards, etc. Dr. Shakar found that cell phones are a
distraction; although it is not the number one distraction. Challenges we have - if we
pick out one, why not another?
Mr. Burpeau of the County Attorney's office referred to the latest rules; referred to the
issue of the Halifax Smoking Case. State Laws pre-empts local jurisdiction. Local
jurisdiction does not have any power over roads. Roads are extensively regulated by the
State. One solution is to come up with State legislation.
• Mr. Rice brought forth to the committee email from Jill D. Moore, UNC School of
Government -
"Moore, Jill D"
<moore@soa.unc.ed
u> To <drice(alnhcgov.com>
02/03/2006 05:11 cc
PM
• Subject RE: Use of Mobile Telephones in Automobiles
13
Mr. Rice: `
In my August 2000 letter, I said it was unclear whether a local board of health had the authority
to regulate the use of mobile phones by drivers. At that time, the only clear law we had on BOH
rule-making
authority was GS 130A-39 and a 1996 NC Court of Appeals opinion, City of Roanoke Rapids v.
Peedin (colloquially known among health directors as the "Halifax county smoking case"). That
case enunciated a five-part test that local board of health rules must pass to be valid.
My August 2000 letter focused on the Peedin test, but I also noted another concern: whether a
local board of health rule might be invalidated on the ground that the local board was attempting
ton regulate in an area the operation of motor vehicles that is already regulated in great
detail by state law. In other words, I thought state law might preempt a local rule pertaining to
the operation of motor vehicles. At the time, I couldn't cite you any law that specifically
addressed the preemption of local BOH rules, I could only articulate the concern.
Since.then, a NC Supreme Court case has specifically addressed state preemption of local BOH.
rules. A 2002 NC Supreme Court decision, Craig v. Chatham County, struck down local BOH rules
regarding swine farms.
The Court decided that state law preempted the local BOH rules, because state law already
provides for "a complete and integrated regulatory scheme" regarding swine farms. In
determining that there was a "complete and integrated regulatory scheme," the court relied in
part on two statutes that contained statements of purpose or intent. The Court said those
statutes supported a conclusion that the General Assembly intended to preempt local regulation
of swine farms. However, it also specifically stated that an express statement of purpose or
intent to preempt local rules is not required the state legislature can create a regulatory
scheme that "is so complete in covering the field that it is clear any regulation on the county level
would be contrary to the statewide regulatory purpose."
Would a local BOH rule that regulated a motor vehicle operator's use of a mobile phone be
preempted by state law? I interpret the Craig case to mean that it would be, if a court.
determined that the state has already provided a complete and integrated regulatory scheme for
motor vehicle operation. I think a court might well reach that conclusion. Chapter 20, Article 3,
Part 10 of the General Statutes addresses the operation of vehicles and the rules of the road. It
does not contain an express statement of purpose or intent to preclude local regulation..
However, it addresses issues ranging from DWI, to speed limits, to aggressive driving, to right of
way and the list goes on. In other words, it addresses many different driver behaviors, which.
could support an argument that it is a regulatory scheme that "covers the field."
I can't make an authoritative statement about whether state law in this area covers the field.
Nevertheless, my conclusion is this: I think there's a good chance that if you enacted a local BOH
rule regulating the use of mobile phones by operators of motor vehicles, and someone
challenged it in court, the court would invalidate it on the ground that it is preempted by state
laws, which already provide for a comprehensive
and integrated scheme for regulating the operation of motor vehicles.
Jill Moore
UNC School of Government
CB 3330 Knapp-Sanders Building
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330
919-966-4442
mooreCasog_unc.edu
-----Original Message---- •
From: drice(@nhcgov.com [mailto:driceOnhcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:37 PM
14
To: Moore, Jill D
Subject: Use of Mobile Telephones in Automobiles
•
Hi Jill
On August 23, 2000, you sent me a legal opinion regarding the use of mobile telephones (pdf file
attached). On April 4, 2001, the New Hanover County Board of Health (NHCBH) passed a
resolution in support of programming and actions to reduce motor vehicle crashes related to
driver distraction (pdf file attached).
In January, 2005, the NHCBH was asked to consider requiring drivers to put down their cell
phones and pay attention to the road.
Please review your previous correspondence and update me on the ability of a local board of
health to consider this type of regulation. Also, please let me know of other similar efforts in
North Carolina.
Thanks,
David E. Rice, Health Director
New Hanover County Health Department
2029 South 17th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: 910-343-6591 Fax: 910-341-4146
driceaa nhcaov com
htto•//www.nhchd.ora
(See attached file: Correspondence- August 23, 2000.pdf)(See attached
file:
Resolution.pdf)
• Dr. Miles explained there are very strong rules for new drivers dealing with distractions.
• Ms. Lopez stated that State has been very supportive of car seat laws.
• Statistics show that (New Hanover County) Wilmington is one of the most dangerous
cities to drive in - we need to promote safe driving.
• Health Promotion to make contacts with law enforcement, UNC-W campus community,
etc. to promote public awareness- through PSAs, etc.
Motion: Dr. Shakar moved and Dr. Miles seconded. Motion to recommend to the Executive
Committee of the New Hanover County Board of Health to work with local authorities to work
on public awareness for preventive measures for driving safety.
Athletic Physicals
• Athletic physicals for schools are done only twice a year and physical examinations
only last one year and usually run out in time for playoffs. Boys physicals were
performed at Coastal Family Practice - girls were at Cape Fear Outpatient Rehab.
Physical examinations are not just for high school - for all kids (sometimes it is the
only time a child sees a doctor).
• Dr. Shakar explained that the hospital is looking at liability issues and are looking at
someone to perform physicals that are protected and if the Health Department
sponsors it, where do we sponsor the physical examinations.
15
i.'
• Ms. Janet McCumbee reported. that we have enough rooms to accommodate these
physicals.
• There would have to be some type of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in •
place where they are held. Legalities need to be researched if done off site. Site
location an issue.
• Dr. Shakar to contact Dr. Spicer, Vice President of Medical Affairs at New Hanover
Regional Medical Center. Dr. Spicer is the liaison between physicians and
administration.
Credentialing of the physicians and nurses also an issue - may involve background
check, drug screens, confidentiality forms to be signed. Dr. Shakar to speak to Dr.
Spicer for paying for cost of having the credentialing done. Retired physicians and
volunteer nurses would be involved.
Motion: Dr. Shakar moved and Dr. Miles seconded. Motion to recommend to the Executive
Committee of the New Hanover County Board of Health to work with legal to see if we can
support this event off-site, if hospital does not participate, we could have it at the Health
Department and having those who will participate be credentialed one month before start date of
physical examinations for kids.
Adiournment•
Dr. Shakar adjourned the Personal Health Committee Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Dr. Robert M. Shakar, Jr, Chairman
Personal Health Committee
16
s
NEW HANOVER COUNTY: CELL PHONE ON THE ROAD
December 30, 2005
Stanley Wardrip Jr, EMT-P/AAS
BOH Public Member
For the sixth year in a row studies by the AAA has shown New Hanover County as one of
the worst places to drive in North Carolina. Accident rates has increased in this .
community every year for the past five years, and our insurance rates has risen between
two and seven percent in the past two years. New Hanover County has rank number one
for "best chance of being in an accident" and "best change of being Injured".
Since the invention of the car, driver awareness -or lack thereof- has been a safety
concern. Hundreds of things inside and outside the car can divert a driver's attention from
the road. Each year, more than 42,000 people are killed and more than 3 million are injured
in more than 6 million motor vehicle crashes on the nation's roads. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that driver distraction is a contributing
cause of 20 percent to 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes-or 1.2 million accidents.
One researcher has estimated that driver inattention may cause as many as 10,000 deaths
each year and approximately $40 billion in damages.
A government study released in June 2005 Indicates that the distraction of cell phones
and other wireless devices was far more likely to lead to crashes than other distractions
faced by drivers. Researchers for the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tracked 100 cars and their drivers
• for a year and concluded that talking on cell phones caused far more crashes, near-
crashes and other Incidents than other distractions. According to a study by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, drivers that uses cell phones while driving are four times
more likely to get Into crashes serious enough to injure themselves,
By requiring drivers to put down their cell phones and pay attention to the road, this new
law will help make our roads safer and save lives.
RECENT STUDIES:
A study from the University of Utah published in the winter 2004/2005 issue of Human
Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that
motorists who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17
percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. An earlier University of
Utah study by the same researchers found that drivers talking on cell phones were less
likely to recall seeing pedestrians, billboards or other roadside features.
A study funded by the North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program {2004}
founded:
- An estimated 58.8 percent of the state's licensed drivers have used a cell phone while
driving.
- The average reported time per day spent talking on a cell phone while driving was 24.5
minutes; while the median reported time was much lower at 5.0 minutes. Talk time
decreased with increasing age, and was higher for males than for females.
17
f
4
Users generally perceived talking on cell phones while driving to be less distracting and •
less of a safety concern than did non-users. Users were also less likely than non-users
to support legislation that would prohibit anything other than hand-held phone use, and
were less likely to support stricter penalties for cell phone users involved in crashes.
- Cell phone crashes were nearly twice as likely to involve rear-end collisions (45.1%
versus 25.6%)
Cell phone crashes were somewhat more likely to occur during the mid-day or
afternoon hours. They were also more likely to occur in urban areas, on local streets,
and at roadway locations with "no special feature." They were not found to be
overrepresented. at Intersection locations.
Compared to non-users, drivers who were using their cell phone at the time of their crash
were more likely to be male, under the age of 55, and driving a sport utility vehicle.
- The most commonly identified driver violations for cell phone users involved in crashes
were failure to reduce speed (23.5%), traffic signal violation (9.6%), speeding (4.9%),
following too closely (3.5%) and failure to yield (3.5%).
A study done by the National Public Services Research Institute for AAA in 1991, 'The
Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention°, used a driving simulator to test
reaction responses while tuning a car radio, having a simple conversation on a cellular
phone, dialing a cellular phone and having a complex conversation on a cellular
phone. The conclusions were:
- All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant increases In response times or non- •
response to highway traffic situations.
Intense or complex conversation leads to the greatest Increases in overlooking
significant highway traffic conditions and the time to respond to them.
- The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers over age 50 Is two to three
times as great as that of younger drivers and encompasses all three aspects of cellular
phone use -.placing calls and carrying on simple and complex conversation. The effect is
to increase non-response by 33 - 38%.
Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no relationship to the distracting
effect of cellular phone use.
{2} •
18
• Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions
The results of a recent studies conducted by researchers from the University of
Toronto, "Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle
Collisions", were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February of
1997. Studies were made of 699 drivers who had cellular phones and were involved in
traffic crashes resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each
motorists cellular phone bills were analyzed for the day of the crash and the week
prior to the crash:
The results of the study showed that the risk of collision when.using a cellular phone
was four times higher that the risk when the cellular phone was not being used. Calls
close to the time of the collision (i.e., within 5 minutes) presented a greater risk than
calls placed 15 minutes or more prior to the crash. The risk was similar for drivers who
differed in personal characteristics, such as age and driving experience. The study
also found that cellular units allowing hands-free operation offered no safety
advantage over hand-held units.
The researchers cautioned that "data do not indicate the drivers were at fault In the
collisions; it may be that cellular telephones merely decrease a driver's ability to avoid
a collision caused by someone else."
Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, which
suggests that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of
an event.
The authors noted that motor vehicles are a leading cause of death in North America
and the most frequent cause of death for children and young adults. They also point
out that driver error contributes to over 90% of collisions.
State and Federal Laws:
The number of state legislatures debating measures that address the problem of cell-
phone use while driving and other driver distractions continues to rise. According to the
National Conference of State Legislatures, over two-thirds of states looked at bills that
would restrict the use of cell.phones while driving in the first part of 2005. Four states -
Colorado, Delaware, Maryland and Tennessee banned their use by young drivers in
2005. In May, the city of Chicago banned the use of hand held cell phones while driving;
imposing penalties of $50 or $200 (the latter if the driver is involved in an accident).
In October 2005 a Connecticut law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving
went Into effect. The measure goes further than some similar laws in other states and
municipalities. Drivers in Connecticut can be fined $100 not only for using a cell phone,
but those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined for other
driving distractions such as putting on makeup or turning to discipline children in the
back seat. In January 2004 New Jersey passed a bill prohibiting the use of cell phones
while driving and in April of that year the District of Columbia (DC) followed suit. In New
Jersey fines range between $100 and $250; in DC fines are $100. New York was the first
state to enact such legislation in 2001. Drivers there face fines of $100 for the first
violation, $200 for the second and $500 thereafter.
• {3}
19
States with cell phone legislations: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, •
District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota {eff 7/06}, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and Texas.
countries that restrict or prohibit hand-held cell phones In cars
Australla y sP Greec6ln vxa Portugal, 4n * Sweden'y~ r - .
3~ Phlkppnes ' Sw~erlandr
AusMat} , ' Ireland
Brftekl,~,, Isreel ~p F., Romania= ° 7" rTelwan r:r4
Brezilc 4 Italy„.F T~,u..,s `Singapore ' '.Turkey = f ( -
!'ihlle~ t is Japan v Ehy_,e . t t p Simenla .n~4 yx it g _ ' ° :t -
Denmedc Norway rSs.. S Africa
Q'I
Poland S s -
n
a , } ti3 _ i
' GeRnanys,k.t Pal
Local Action:
Many counties, cities, towns and municipalities across the United States have considered
restrictions on cell phone use while driving. More than two dozen local communities-in
Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah-
-have passed ordinances that prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving.
These include: Miami-Dade County, Fla., Pembroke Pines, Fla., Westin, Fla., Brookline,
Mass., Bloomfield, N.J., Carteret, N.J., Hazlet, N.J., Irvington, N.J., Marlboro, N.J., Nutley, •
N.J., Westchester County; N.Y., Brooklyn, Ohio, North Olmstead, Ohio, Walton Hills, Ohio,
Lower Chichester, Pa., Conshocken, Pa.,, Lebanon, Pa., York, Pa., and Sandy; Utah.
Local debate over the use of cell phones and other interactive communication devices
while driving has had a significant effect on debate at both the state and national levels. In
states where local communities have passed restrictions, the legislature may feel pressure
to address the issue to avoid a piecemeal approach where the boundaries of the law may
not always be clear to motorists. In New York, for example, the Legislature passed its
statewide ban of hand-held phone use while driving after three large counties enacted
similar prohibitions. In Florida, the Legislature preempted local laws after several
communities, including Miami-Dade County, banned hand-held phones.
•
20
• TABLE 2.6 Support for Possible Legislation Regarding Self Phone Use While Driving
Cell Cell
Cell Phone Legislation Phone Phone- P-value
Users Non-Users
(n=500) (n=150)
Illegal to talk on hand-held phone % For 70.6 76.7
except in emergency, talking using %Against 25.8 20.7 N.S.
hauds-free device O.K.. % Unknown 3.6 2.7
Illegal to talk on any type cell phone % For 26.8 63.3
(hand-held or hands-free) except in % Against 69.8 32.7 p<.001
case of emergency. % Unknown 3.4 4.0
Drivers in accidents while talking on %For 53.8 78.0
phone automatically cited for careless %Against 39.8 15.3 p<.001
and reckless driving and heavily % Unknown 6.4 6.7
penalized on insurance premiums.
For Al phone use status, based ou regression models incorporating age and sender. N.S.=Non-sumif.
ONE-WEEK CRACKDOWN ON DRIVING AND CELL PHONE USE: 1,331 TICKETS:
{Westchester County NY}: Copied from Westchester Current News 03/31/04 - -
If you were driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone last week, you may have been among the 1,331 people.
ticketed by police. If you were guilty of this infraction and weren't caught this time, look out
County Executive Andy Spano sold that the combined effort of the Westchester County Department of Public -
Safety and 31 local police departments got the word out the hard way to drivers: It's against the law to talk on a
• hand-held cell phone while you drive.
"This wasabout the safety of the driving public, including the people who flaunt the state cell phone law," said
Spano. "During one week, county and local police issued a remarkable 1,331 summonses, compared to 8,000 in
all of 2003. We hope those people who were ticketed - as well as those who escaped this time -will now change
their behavior. All It takes is a split-second distraction for there to be an accident."
For one week, beginning Monday, March 19, the various police departments teamed up to focus attention on the
issue of driver distraction caused by using a hand-held cell phone while driving.
Spano said the initiative was so successful that it will be done again - but the next time there will be no advance
notice to the public." The public should remember that If they are going to use a cell phone while they drive It
must be a hands-tree device. Using a hand-held phone is illegal next week and the weeks thereafter, even It we
don't have a 'sting' going on at a given moment" _
In April 2001, Westchester County became one of the first municipalities in the country to enact a law to regulate .
cell phone use while driving. This law was superseded later that year bya state-wide ban, which provides for
fines of up to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and $500 for subsequent offenses..
According to the county's department of Public Safety, there were 226 cell phone summonses written in 2001;
5,856 In 2002; and 8,384 in 2003.
County Public Safety Commissioner Thomas Belfiore said, "I am appreciative of the attention given to this
important matter by the county police departments. Their outstanding enforcement efforts helped educate the
public and enhanced safety on the roads we patrol."
Chief Robert D'Angelo of North Castle, president of the Westchester Chiefs of Police Association, said, "9 am
proud of the contribution in this effort of my own department -and all the departments that participated."
County Legislator Louis Mosiello, the author of the original Westchester cell phone and driving law, said, "The
reason we passed our law - and that the state then passed a state-wide ban - was to save lives. But too many
people don't take this law seriously enough." Mosiello has asked the state to consider increasing the penalty for
violations so that offenders face points on their driver's license.
• {5}
21
Legal Liability:
As legislatures have debated the merits of restrictions on cell phone use while driving, a
second battleground over driver cell phone use has emerged in the courts. With
increasing frequency, legal cases are testing whether drivers--or, in some Instances the
driver's employer-should be held civilly or criminally responsible for crashes caused by
the driver's use.of a cell phone.
Employer and Manufacturer Liability: Although only a handful of high-profile cases have
gone to court, employers are still concerned that they might be held liable for accidents
caused by their employees while driving and conducting work-related conversations on
cell phones. Under the doctrine of vicarious responsibility, employers may be held legally
accountable for the negligent acts of employees committed in the course of employment.
Employers may also be found negligent if they fail to put in place a policy for the safe use
of. cell phones. In response, many companies have established cell phone usage policies.
Some allow employees to conduct business over the phone as long as they pull over to
the side.of the road or into a parking lot. Others have completely banned the use of all
wireless devices.
In December 2004 a civil case involving a car crash caused by a driver using a cell phone
for business reasons was dismissed when the driver's employer, Beers Skanska Inc.,
agreed to pay the plaintiff $5 million. The plaintiff in the case being heard in Georgia's
Fulton County Superior Court was severely injured In the crash. The suit is among the
most recent of several cases where an employer has been held liable for an accident
caused by a driver using a cell phone. See background section on Employer and
Manufacturer Liability.
In mid-October 2004 in the case of Yoon v. Wagner a Virginia jury awarded $2 million in •
damages to the family of a young girl who was killed by a driver using a cell phone at the
time of the accident. The plaintiff also filed a suit against the driver's employer after it
became clear through an examination of phone records that the driver had been talking to
a client when she hit the girl.
In an article published in the June 2003 edition of the North Dakota Law Review, attorney
Jordan Michael proposed a theory of cell phone manufacturer liability for auto accidents if
they fall to warn users of the dangers of driving and talking on the phone at the same time.
The theory holds that maker liability would be similar to the liability of employers who
encourage or demand cell phone use on the road. Holding manufacturers liable would
cover all persons who drive and use cell phones for personal calls. Michael notes.that
some car rental agencies have already placed warnings on embedded cell phones in their
cars.
f1. Ll
~ D
•
22
• Conclusion:
Increased reliance on cell phones has led to a rise in the number of people who use the
devices while driving. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell phone use.
First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing. Second, people can become
so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the act of.driving is
severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants and pedestrians. Since the
first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning hand-held cell phone use while driving,
there has been debate as to the exact nature and degree of hazard. The number of cell or
mobile phone users in the United States has grown from fewer than 100,000 in January,
1985 to an estimated 300million in July, 2005. With the explosion in ownership has come
Increased use of cell phones while driving. Data collected by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) as part of Its Fall 2004 National Occupant Protection Use
Survey revealed that an estimated 12.9% of passenger car drivers are using cell phones at
any time while driving.
Driving while using a cell phone is by far the most immediate hazard to both the cell phone
user and everyone in their immediate vicinity. You must consider the consequences and
the lives that are in your hands when you choose to take your mind off the road! In today's
fast paced/high tech world all too many people have forgotten that driving is a huge
responsibility and is responsible for way too many deaths! Simply because you hold the
keys to not only your life but the lives and futures of others as well. The most important
aspect to remember is that It's not only your live endangers anymore, distractions in the
wrong place, at the wrong time, have proven deadly time and time again.
"Make safety your top priorityl By requiring drivers to put down their cell phones and pay
• attention to the road, this new law will help make our roads safer and save lives." - Gov.
George Pataki, New York
"Cell Phone Safety Is Your Most Important Call!!
f')
23
9
F Mr. William T. Steuer, Chairman, called the regular business meeting of the New Hanover County
Board of Health to order at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 2000.
Members Present:
William T. Steuer, Chairman Gela M. Hunter, RN
Wilson O'Kelly Jewell, DDS, Vice-Chairman Mr. Robert G. Greer
Henry V. Estep, RHU Anne Braswell Rowe
Michael E. Goins, OD Estelle G. Whitted, RN
Members Absent:
W. Edwin Link, Jr., RPH
Philip P. Smith, Sr., MD
Melody C. Speck, DVM
Otbers Present:
Mr. David E. Rice
Frances De Vane, Recording Secretary
Invocation:
Dr. Wilson Jewell gave the invocation.
Minutes:
Mr. Steuer asked for corrections to the minutes of the July 12, 2000 New Hanover County Board of
Health meeting. The Board of Health approved the minutes of the July 12, 2000 Board of Health
meeting.
Public Comment:
Proposed Regulation for the Use of Mobile Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle
Dr. Joseph Hooper, former Board of Health Chair and New Hanover County Commissioner, thanked the
Board of Health for the opportunity to appear before the Board to present a proposed regulation to
prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones while driving an automobile. He expressed hand-held mobile
phones are a threat to the safety, cause injuries and automobile accidents, and are a health hazard to
New Hanover County citizens. Dr. Hooper advised other states have pending mobile phone usage
regulation and some municipalities and other countries have banned the use of cell phones. He chose to
submit the Proposed Regulation for the Use of Mobile Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle to
the Board of Health, because under North Carolina General Statue 130-A-I.1 the Board has the authority
to promote and make public health and safety regulations.
• Ms. Rowe asked if the proposed cell phone regulation would infringe on individual rights. Dr. Hooper
• responded cell phones need to be regulated for safety reasons, and the proposed regulation has nothing to
do with the freedom of speech. Mr. Steuer asked if the Board should wait for the state or federal
24
governments to restrict cell phone usage while driving a motor vehicle. Dr. Hooper encouraged the ,
Board of Health to consider the recommendation as presented.
• r
Mr: Steuer thanked Dr. Hooper for presentation to the Board. The Proposed Regulation for the Use of
Mobile Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle will be presented to.the Executive Committee of
the Board of Health for their consideration.
Recognitions:
Service Awards
Susan O'Brien- 25 Years
Mr. Rice recognized and congratulated Ms. Susan O'Brien, Laboratory Director, as a recipient of a New
Hanover County Service Award. He acknowledged Ms. O'Brien is a cornerstone of the Health
Department, and he commended her for 25 years of dedicated public health service.
Personnel
New Employees
Joan Hulette, Clerical Specialist I, Communicable Disease
Maureen Lamphere, Public Health Nurse 1, Communicable Disease
Lenora Kay Lunceford, Clerical Specialist I, Communicable Disease
•
Harvey Eugene Young, Environmental Health Specialist Environmental Health
Department Focal:
WIC Outreach
Ms. Nancy Nail, Nutrition Director, presented a department focal on WIC Outreach She explained the .
New Hanover County Health Department received a WIC 'Outreach Grant ($10,000) that provided an
outreach worker from mid-May through June. The objective of the WIC Outreach Grant was to recover
the caseload lost as a result of Hurricane Floyd. Outreach campaigns included storefront set-ups, radio
spots and public service announcements, newspaper articles, and community visits. WIC informational.
booths were set up at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Roses from 10:00. a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on high volume
shopping: days. Public service announcements were aired in English and. Spanish on WAAV &
WMYT/WDVV. An article entitled Women, Infants, and Children. Program Improves Health of Low-
Income Children was featured in the Wilmington Journal. To reach the target population outreach .
workers were made to doctor's office, WIC vendors, Childcare. Centers, housing authorities, churches,
and Headstart Center to.encourage new and former clients to participate in the WIC Program. As a
result of these efforts, 17 additional appointments were scheduled for new WIC participants.
Mr. Steuer thanked Ms. Nail for her presentation.
Monthly Financial Report - June 2000:
O Ms. Cindy Hewett, Business Officer, presented the June Health Department Financial Summary Monthly •
Revenue and Expenditure Report that reflects an earned revenue remaining balance of $224,914
(94.74%), an expenditure remaining balance $974,896 (89.95%), and a cumulative percent of 100%.
25
Au3
Proposed Regulation for the Use of Mobile Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle
Mr. Steuer presented Dr. Joseph W. Hooper's,proposed regulation to prohibit the Use of Mobile Telephones
While Operating a Motor.Vehicle to the Executive Committee. Dr. Hooper, former Board of Health
Chair and New Hanover County Commissioner, presented the regulation to the Board of Health at their
August 2, 2000 meeting. The issue was referred to the Personal Health Committee for study.
Mr. Rice contacted Ms. Jill D. Moore, Attorney, Institute of Govemment, UNC at Chapel Hill, to get
information regarding whether a local board of health has the authority to regulate the use of mobile
telephones by drivers operating motor vehicles on public highways. Mr. Rice concluded it is unclear
under existing law whether the Board of Health has this authority. He stated public health risky
behavior is viewed as a cause of injury and could be addressed to increase public awareness level either
by education or regulation.
Ms. Rowe emphasized this issue needs to be addressed. It is a public health issue. It is not safe to drive
with one hand on the wheel with conversation distracting the motor vehicle driver. Mr. Steuer expressed
this issue is not restricted to New Hanover County.
Mr. Rice introduced Mr. David Howard, Injury Prevention Health Education, Women's Preventive Health
Services. Mr. Howard advised the usage of cell phones and the proposed regulation is not a simple issue
to address. He reported according to a Lexis-Nexis article from the Coastal Area Health Education
Center, 30 states had introduced legislation on this matter but none have passed.
Mr. Howard reported the use of mobile phones is highly prevalent on New Hanover County roadways.
The perception of many is that the use of mobile phones while driving causes less than optimal driving
performance. This perception is backed by opinion and study evidence by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). The study concluded cellular telephones do increase the risk of crash.
Recommendations of the report include in-vehicle systems should be made more compatible with safe
driving, improved data collection, improved consumer education, evaluation of technology and
crashworthiness, and the monitoring of the Emergency Medical Services for overload of 911 system.
This NHTSA report stated states do enforce existing reckless and/or inattentive driving laws.
Mr. Howard addressed the issue of driver inattention, distraction, and proper driving skills. The NHTSA
report disclosed it's not just the phone, it's everything and anything taking a driver's attention from
driving their vehicle safely and according to highway rules. The report recommends stronger
enforcement of existing State laws governing reckless and inattentive driving. Mr. Howard distributed
copes of the N.C. Statutes addressing reckless and/or inattentive driving provided by the. Wilmington
Highway Patrol. He advised that according to the N.C. League of Municipalities no other municipalities
in North Carolina have legislation addressing this issue.
Mr. Howard concluded the preemption by State traffic laws must be looked at before addressing a local
regulation. Mr. Rice reiterated public health does not stop at jurisdiction boundaries; however, all issues
should be studied. Mr. Estep stated the enforcement of the proposed regulation would be monumental.
After speaking with Ms. Moore of the Institute of Government, Mr. Burpeau advised the Board's main
challenges of the proposed regulation appear to be jurisdiction issues, that the regulation doesn't address
the traffic issue, and if the Board has the authority to pass the regulation. He informed as the Board of
Health makes its decision regarding the regulation, each exception should have a. health basis with no
exemption' The regulation could be challenged by vendors, realtors, homebuilders, citizens, and
businesses. Mr. Burpeau contacted the Attorney General's office and the question is would state law
26
keep the Board of Health from pursuing the regulation. He stated if the Board eides this is a health
issue, he will assist the Board of Health with legal issues.
Mr. Steuer reiterated the issue is not solely a local issue and would be highly contested by groups. He suggested the
Board support public awareness and educational programs on safe driving addressing cell phones and other driving. •
distractions. Mr. Howard will. confer with the Governor's Highway Safety Program to address this issue on
a state level.
Motion: Motion.passed to refer the issue of the Proposed Regulation for the Use of Mobile Telephones
While Operating a Motor Vehicle to the Personal Health Committee for further study and.to provide
preventive education to.raise public awareness of in-vehicle technology including the safety of the use of
mobile telephones as well as other driving distractions including behavior, eating, and diverse
conversation.
Mr. Estep suggested preparing a Department Focal on the Proposed Regulation.for the Use of Mobile
Telephones While Operating a Motor Vehicle to cover in-vehicle technology and legal aspects of the
issue. Mr. Link emphasized the use of mobile phones while driving will promote public awareness to
other driving distractions, rules, and skills.
Strategic Planning Process
Mr. Rice reminded the Board to mark their calendars for the Strategic Planing Retreat on October 6 and 7,
2000. Mr. William T. Herzog, MSPH, School of Public Health, UNC@ Chapel Hill, is to serve as
facilitator of the retreat to beheld at the Marriott Courtyard. He reported he has received approximately
two-thirds of the retreat responses from the Board of Health and retreat participants. Mr. Rice is
preparing a pre-packet retreat to be distributed two weeks prior to the Strategic Planning Retreat. It will
include the Health Department Organizational Capacity Indicators - 1998-99 from the AEIOU Surveys.
Revision of Health Director's Evaluation Form •
Upon the request of the Board of Health, Mr. Rice presented a Revision of the Health Director's
Evaluation Form. He stated the performance rating form was.clarified to make it simpler and more
accurate. The Board of Health completes the form on an annual basis. Mr. Steuer explained the forth is
improved and eliminates the complicated numerical totals.
Motion: Motion passed to recommend to the Board of Health the approval of the Revision of the Health
Director's Evaluation From.
Ad i ou rnment•
Mr. Steuer adjourned the Executive Committee meeting of the Board of Health at 8:00 p.m.
David E. Rice, Health Director
New Hanover County Health Department
27
DRAFT
A REGULATION
• OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH.
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Health is charged pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 130A-1.1 with promoting and contributing.to the public health of the
citizens of New Hanover County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Health believes that the operation of a motor vehicle on the
public roadways while using a telephone may cause the operator to maintain less than full
attention to the operation of said motor vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Health finds that the regulation of the use of mobile.telephone
while operating a motor vehicle in the County will enhance the safety of those persons operating
motor vehicles and other persons using the roadways;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH that a regulation be.adopted to read as follows:
® Section 1.0 Definitions:
As used in this Ordinance:
(1) "Mobile Telephone " means, including but not limited to cellular, analog,
wireless and digital telephones.
(2) "Use " means to use a mobile telephone in:
(A) Dialing
(B) Answering
(C) Talking
(D) Listening
(3) "Park" means for an automatic transmission vehicle that the vehicle is in
the Park gear; for a standard transmission vehicle that the vehicle is in the
neutral gear and the brake is being utilized or otherwise stationary.
Section 1.1 Use; Restrictions:
(1) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway while
engaging in any conduct defined as the "Use" of a mobile telephone unless
the operator maintains both'hands on the applicable steering device.
(2) Division (1) of this section does not apply to a person who is using the
mobile telephone:.
(a) To contact public safety forces, or
(b) While maintaining the vehicle in the Park position either on public
28..
or private property, or
O (c) With a "hands free device which allows the operator to maintain •
both hands on the vehicle while using the mobile telephone.
Section 2.1 Penalties
(A) Whoever violates any of the provisions of this regulation shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor, subject to a fine of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars.
All fines imposed pursuant to this regulation shall inure to the benefit of
the New Hanover County Board of Education.
This regulation shall be effective
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2000.
29
a~~ol
OVER C~yJNEW HANOVER COUNTY -
HEALTH DEPARTMENT p
2029 SOUTH 17T" STREET
WILMINGTON, NC 28401-4946
N01R TELEPHONE (910) 343-6500, FAX (910) 341-4146 a..rwna. awry r. [w,noar.
DAVID E. RICE, M.P.H., M.A. LYNDA F. SMITH, M.P.A.
Health Director Assistant Health Director
DRAFT AGENDA
DRIVING DISTRACTION / MOBILE PHONE REGULATION
PERSONAL HEALTH COMMITTEE MEETING
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17TH, 11:00 AM
I. Larger Issue of Driver Distraction
A) Other Distractions - only phone regulation may not have desired effect
B) Why pick out the Phone? - novel, visable, high usage, length of calls
C) In-vehicle Technology -will improve lessening distraction
D) Public Health Approach - calls for promotion + regulation
11 Data on Driver Distractions and Phone Use
A) Not supportive of only regulatory action just on phone use
B) Lacks evidence of higher amount of distraction due to phone
111. Mobile Phone Regulation by B.O.H.
® A) Public Health v. Traffic Regulation - basis for challenge .
B) Enforcement - who, resources, priority, risk of limited effect
C) Opposition - users & industry ...team up v. debate w/ stakeholders
N. Comprehensive Programming
A) Formal Resolution from B.O.H. supporting programming to promote
lower driver distractions: Can be sent to N.H.C. Comm's, State and
Federal Representatives, media, local Industries / Businesses, Civic
organizations, other local Gov't bodies (school board for example)..
individual persons of influence
B) Team with local businesses that have a stake (mobile phone
businesses, fast food, parent org's, car dealers, DOT, city/county
planning, law enforcement, etc.) - <~~,~..n
C) Regulations and Policies as a component of overall program?(y / ~J,-
D) Some specific ideas: U
Lei N
driving tip sheets to decrease distractions (mobile phone industry
has one already, can make one for all distractions)
getting distraction data on local crash reports by law enforcement
- monthly crash data on radio and TV (drive time, evening news)
- message P.S.A.'s: "Drive Time is not Down Time", "Pay Attention
When Driving, Not High Insurance Rates, Hospital Bills, Repair Bills",
"Take Pride in Our Community, Drive Attentatively", "Drive with
Common Sense, Not Emotion"
Driving Risk Rating Quiz (printed, and verbal for radio)
Local Law Enforcement Campaigns focusing on Distracted /
Inattentive / Reckless Driving
Timeline could begin this Spring with planned evaluations regularly
" 3
P s ia&W - Q 1~+iatl7"f 0
Mr. David Howard, Health Educator, advised the New Hanover County Safe Communities/Safe Kids
Coalition is requesting this specially equipped trailer to conduct Child Safety Seat Check events; for
® trauma coordination of the Southeastern Regional Advisory Committee; for Child Passenger Safety
media coverage; and for training purposes, traveling resource, and for events, fairs, etc.. It is a
partnership effort between the New Hanover County Sheriff's Department and the Health Department.
The Sheriff's Department is to provide insurance on the trailer, tow, and store the trailer at their facility.
Motion: Dr. Speck moved and Dr. Goins seconded for the Board of Health to accept and approve the
Safe Kids Trailer Grant Application for $8,740 from Safe Communities, North Carolina Governor's
Highway Safety, to purchase a child passenger safety trailer and equipment and to approve submission of
the associated budget request to the New Hanover County Commissioners. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Resolution in Support of Programming and Actions to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes Related to
Driver Distraction
Dr. Jewell recommended the Board of Health to accept and approve a New Hanover County Board of
Health and Sheriff's Department Resolution in Support of Programming and Actions to Reduce Motor
Vehicle Crashes -Related to Driver Distraction and/or Poor Driving Behavior as submitted by. the
Personal Health Committee of the New Hanover County Board of Health.
Mr. Rice informed Assistant County Attorney Kemp Burpeau and Sheriff Joseph W. Lanier reviewed
and support the resolution. Policy pertaining to road safety must be passed by the state.
Motion: Mr. Steuer moved and Mr. Link seconded for the Board of Health to accept and approve a New
Hanover County Board of Health and Sheriffs Department Resolution in Support of Programming and
Actions to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes Related to Driver Distraction and/or Poor Driving Behavior as
submitted by Personal Health Committee of the New Hanover County Board of Health. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -
Comments:
Board of Health
Dr. Speck presented an article entitled Dashboard Dining Cited as Road Safety Threat from the American
Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety that analyzed 26,145 automobile crashes from
1995-1998 in the United States. It concluded dashboard diners (19%) are a greater threat to driver
distraction than vehicular phones. Other driver distractions included attention to something outside
vehicles (20%), i.e. billboards/signs/other people and crashes; use of CD players and radios (11%); and
other occupants (9.4%) i.e. children. Ms. Rowe advised 35 states are addressing the vehicular phone
issue and the Resolution to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes Related to Driver Distraction passed by the
Board is a good step forward.
31
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT:
RESOLUTION.IN SUPPORT OF PROGRAMMING AND ACTIONS TO REDUCE MOTOR VEHICLE •
CRASHES RELATED TO DRIVER DISTRACTION AND/OR POOR DRIVING BEHAVIOR
WHEREAS, According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1999 data, New
Hanover County ranks first among `North Carolina counties in total crash rate;' nonfatal injury
crash rate, crash injuries'per 1000 people; third in crashes per 1000. registered vehicles; sustains
a crash-related injury every two hours; and has a'monetary crash cost per hour of $22,962, and
WHEREAS, In North Carolina motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of Injury-related deaths .
for all ages, and the leading cause of death for persons up to 34 years of age. Motor vehicle
crashes are also a leading cause of non-fatal injury to persons up to age 34, and the leading cause
of..traumatic brain and/or,spinal cord, injury,, both of. which can cause. life-long disability, for. the
victims with great cost to family, friends, and communities, and
WHEREAS, A year 2000 study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
found higher risk of crashes due to mobile phone use distraction; also concluded many
dlstiactions have the potential tobause crashes at similar magnitude, and
wr.. His= _ _
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Governor's Task Force for. Healthy Carolinians lists the.reduction
of motor vehicle injuries as one of it's priorities, and
WHEREAS, The,New Hanover County Board of Health and Sheriff's Department recognize motor
vehicle crashes as a major impediment to community health and safety, and
WHEREAS, The New Hanover County Board of Health and Sheriff's Department recognize driver •
distraction, inattention, and poor driving behaviors as significant contributors to crash injuries
and deaths.'
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The New Hanover County Board of - Health and.. Sheriff's
Department support programming and actions by government, private business, community
groups, schools, individuals, and others to reduce motor~vehlcle crashes related,to driver
distraction, Inattention, and/or poor driving behaviors.
Adopted the day of 2001.
Wilson O'Kelly Jewell, DDS, Chairman
New Hanover County Board of Health .
(Seal)
Joseph W. Lanier, Sheriff
New Hanover County
Attest:
Secretary to the Board of Health
32
David E Rice To: Elisabeth Constandy@NHC, sharrelson@nhcgov.com -
cc:
01/23/2006 03:38 PM SubjVd: Fw: Use of Mobile Telephones in Automobiles
fYl Forwarded by David E Rice/NHC on 01/23/2006 03:37 PM -
David E Rice/NHC
01123/2006 03:37 PM To .moore@iogmail.iog.unc.edu
cc
Subject Use of Mobile Telephones in Automobiles
Hi Jill
On August 23, 2000, you sent me a legal opinion regarding the use of mobile telephones (pdf file
attached). On April 4;2001, the New Hanover County Board of Health (NHCBH) passed a resolution in
support of programming and actions to reduce motor vehicle crashes related to driver distraction (pdf file
attached).
In January, 2005, the NHCBH was asked to consider requiring drivers.to put down their cell phones and
pay attention to the road.
• Please review your previous correspondence and update me on the ability of a local board of health to
consider this type of regulation. Also, please let me know of other similar efforts in North Carolina.
Thanks,
David E. Rice, Health Director.
New Hanover County Health Department
2029 South 17th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: 910-343-6591 Fax: 910-341-4146
drice@nhcgov.com
http://www.nhchd.org
Correspondence-August 23, 2000.pdf Resolution.pdf -
•
33
0$/23/2000 10:11 7177b11/tlb llVOi ur w~ i ~ ^w
r<
Facsimile Cover Sheet N-A
INSTFMTE OF GOVERNMENT
CB #i 3330, Knapp Building
UNC-Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330
To: David Rice
Agency: New Banover County Health Department
Far: 910341-4146
Fro m: Jill Moore
Phone: 919/9664442
Fax: 919/962-0654
Email: moaLe-@,joSmiul.io&.unp.edu
• Date: August 23, 2000
Pages including this cover page: 3
Comments: Original being sent via us mail.
34
00/23/2000' 10 12 9199622706 INST pF-GIN T PAGE 62/03
i
INSTITUTE Of GOVERNMENT
August 23. 2000
David Ritz, Health Director
New Hanover County Health Department
2029 South 174 Street
Wilmington, Noah Carolina 28401
Dear Dr. Rice:
you asked me whether a local board of health has the authority to regulate the use of
mobile telephones by drivers operating motor vehicles on the public highways. I have
completed my research and I conclude that it is unclear under existing law whether a rule
on this issue would be within the local board of hcahh's authority. This letter summarizes
the law that would govern the issue if the rule were adopted and subsequently challenged.
Local boards of health "have the responsibility to protect and promote the public health •
(and] the authority to adopt rules necessary for that purpose." G.S. DoA-39(a).
There is nothing in the statutes that further explains the meaning of terms such as "protect
and promote" or "necessary for that purpose." However, the North Carolina Court Of. .
Appeals in a 1996 case provided a five-part test for determining when a local board of.
health role is within its authority:
[A] board of health acts within its rule making powers when it enacts a regulation
which (1) is related to the promotion or protection of health, (2) is reasonable in
light of the health risk addressed, (3) is not violative of any law or constitutional
provision, (4) is not discriminatory, and (S) does not make distinctions based upon .
policy concerns traditionally reserved for legislative bodies.
City of Roanoke Rapids a Peedim 124 N.C. App. 578, 587, 478 S.E.2d 528 (1996).
In the Peedin case, the Court of Appeals struck down a smoking control rule adopted by
the Halifax County Board of Health. The Court concluded that the Halifax Board's rule
failed part (5) of the above test. According to the Court, the rule failed because it applied
different standards to different types of restaurants (e.g., large versus small-capacity
restaurants) when it lacked a health-specific rationale for doing so. The Court stated that
The university of Noah Carolina at Chapel Hill _
- UP 3330 Krupp Building • Chalvi Hill, NC 27559.3330 •
919 9Rb5.1At • 919 962A454 trasl
35
Dr. Rice
August 23, 2000
Page Two
the distinctions had "no foundation in consideration of public bealth" but were instead
made out of concerns for economic hardship and difficulty of enforcement-matters that
a board of health lacks authority to consider in adopting a rule. The Court concluded;
-the statutes cannot be held to permit the Board to consider factors other than health in
promulgating its rules."
As you consider the development of your rule, I would advise you to consider carefully
each of the five factors enunciated in Peedln and, when appropriate, include findings in
the rule that address the factors. For example, I would recommend that you specifically
make note of the studies you told me about that demonstrate an increased risk of injury
associated with the use of phones in vehicles. Unfortunately, the Peen Court did not
offer guidance as to how the first four factors in the five part test would be applied; thus.
I am not able to predict whether your proposed rule would satisfy those factors.
Another issue I considered is whether a board of health would be precluded from making
a rule that affects the operation of motor vehicles, since that matter is usually regulated
by the North Carolina General Assembly. I consulted with two of my colleagues who
specialize in motor vehicle law, Jim Drennan and Ben Loeb. They told me that there is
nothing in North Carolina's motor vehicle law that expressly prohibits a local
government unit from acting in this area, but there is also nothing in the law that
expressly authorizes it. Most local actions that affect motor vehicle law have specific
facilitating language in the statute or a local actof the General Assembly supporting,
them.
I hope this information is useful to you and your Board. Please call me if I may be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely. Jill D. Moore
Assistant Professor
•
36
CNN Report: Cell phone talking while
driving on-.the rise
Friday, December 16, 2005; Posted: 10:30 a.m. EST (15:30 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) More people than ever are turning their cars into personal
phone booths, with a million and a half drivers gabbing on cell phones at any given
time. Women and young people are the most common yakkers.
About 10 percent of the people on the road during the day are using cell phones, up from 8
percent in 2004, the government reported Thursday. Six percent of drivers were holding the
phones to their ears, up from 5 percent last year. The National Highway Traffic Safety .
Administration, which issued the report, recommends that motorists use cell phones while driving
only during an emergency.
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia prohibit talking on hand-held cell
phones while driving. The new data could add fuel to the debate over whether drivers should be. .
limited in their use of cell phones on the nation's highways.
Cities such as Chicago and Santa Fe, New Mexico, require handsfree devices in automobiles.
But eight states Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma and .
Oregon bar local governments from restricting cell phone use in vehicles, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures.
• Researchers have tried to figure out the possible risks of driving and dialing. A study published by
the British Medical Journal in July found drivers using cell phones were four times as likely to get
into a crash that could cause injuries serious enough to land them in the hospital.
But the study, conducted by the Virginia-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, suggested.
that using a handsfree device instead of a hand-held phone may not necessarily improve safety.
Researchers found that both phone types increased the risk. Industry officials contend cell
phones are just one form of distraction: many drivers eat fast food, push buttons on their stereo,
apply makeup or talk to other passengers.
"Talking on a cell phone is one of many possible distractions and by narrowly focusing on just this
one could create a false sense of security with drivers," said John Walls, spokesman for CTIA The Wireless Association.
Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures said state lawmakers have lacked
the kind of conclusive data that was used in the past to bolster arguments for tougher drunken
driving or seat belt laws.
"You don't have that wide body of accepted evidence yet on the driver distraction debate,"
Sundeen said.
The NHTSA survey was conducted between June 6 and June 25 at 1,200 road sites across the
nation. Trained observers watched vehicles go by and charted what the driver was doing. The
ages.of drivers are estimates based on their observations.
The survey found that 10 percent of drivers between 16 and 24 were holding cell phones to their
ears, compared with 8 percent in 2004. Only 1 percent of drivers ages 70 and above were using
handheld cell phones.
• Many states have sought restrictions for young drivers using cell phones. Ten states and the
District of Columbia carry the prohibitions, with many of the laws approved in the past year. The
37
National Transportation Safety Board, meanwhile, voted in September to recommend that all.
states make it illegal for teenagers and new drivers to talk on the phone while driving.
Brian Schaffner, 24, who works for a political consulting firm in Washington, D.C., said his cell
phone is "almost a part of me" and admits using it behind the wheel. But he doesn't think it affects
his driving. "I'm probably young and arrogant, thinking that I can't hurt myself, but for the most
part I feel perfectly safe using when I drive," Schaffner said.
Women were more likely than men to use handheld phones behind the wheel, with 8 percent of
women driving and talking into their cell phone, compared with 5 percent of men.
For the first time, the government examined drivers manipulating, hand-held devices at the wheel,
including dialing, typing a text message or playing a video game. Only 0.2 percent of drivers were
observed fiddling with the gadgets.
Richard Roy, a state legislator in Connecticut who sponsored the state's ban on handheld
devices, predicted the new data would help states pursuing similar laws.
"It will make it easier for other lawmakers to a get a law passed," Roy said.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
•
38
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005
state laws vary on driving distractions. `WRITE THE STORY THIS ~TTORYTHIS
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer -
New Hampshire is the only state that doesn't require adult motorists to wear seat belts, but it
does ticket drivers for eating, drinking, talking on a cell phone or fussing with.their makeup
while behind the wheel.
The state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" passed the nation's first law against distracted
driving in 2001. Since then, every state has looked at ways to keep drivers' minds on the road,
but lawmakers in most states are choosing to focus more narrowly on restricting cell phone
use while driving.
Under New Hampshire's law, drivers face fines of up to $1,000 if police find that any
distracting activity caused to an accident, according to Peter Thomson, who heads New
Hampshire's Highway Safety A¢ency.
In other states, the list of illegal distractions is shorter, including 38 states that prohibit drivers
from watching television. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting cell
phones while driving, while 19 states also track mobile phone involvement in auto crashes.
Cellular communications companies and even some road-safety advocates argue that limits on
• cell phones miss the mark, saying New Hampshire's approach is better.
"If you're going to have a law, it should cover all distractions," said Jonathan Adkins of the
Governors Highway Safety Association, the nonprofit association that represents state road
safety offices. But a bill to punish distr acted driving was voted down in a Maryland Senate
committee this year, and similar bills in the Tennessee House and Senate are, so far, stuck in
committees.
Laws against cell phones come in different varieties. New Jersey, New York and the District
of Columbia require drivers to use a hands-free cell phone. School bus drivers are not allowed
to talk on cell phones, except in emergencies, in Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of
Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
And teen drivers are banned from talking on cell phones in the District of Columbia, Maine
and New Jersey. Both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly now have voted to bar
teens from using cell phones for the first 18 months after they earn their license, but a measure
hasn't yet been sent to the governor.
In a move that protects drivers' freedom to use cell phones, seven states have passed laws that
prevent a patchwork of varying municipal rules on the subject. Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma and Oregon restrict local governments from enacting their
own laws on cell-phone use while driving.
• This legislative season, lawmakers in 26 states have proposed 62 bills limiting cell phone use
39
while driving, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures?(NCSL). The most
common proposals, in 14 states, would require that drivers use a headset to talk. Bills awaiting
approval in 10 states would restrict younger drivers from cell phone use. And legislation in
. three states Connecticut, Indiana and New York - would completely ban cell phone use by
drivers.
The Governors Highway Safety Association supports cell phone restrictions for younger
drivers, said Adkins. But there is no evidence that requiring a headset makes using a cell
phone any safer, he said.
A University of Utah study released in February found that 18- to 25-year-old drivers talking
on a cell phone with a headset reacted as slowly as 65- to 74-year-old drivers without cell
phones. Older drivers also reacted more slowly while talking on cell phone, the report said.
Wireless phone companies, on-the other hand, point to research that using a cell phone is
among the least common distractions for drivers. A 2003 study funded by AAA found that
fiddling with radio dials, eating and drinking, talking with passengers; grooming, reading and
writing were more common activities for drivers than talking on a phone.
"There are numerous distractions that face drivers," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association The Wireless Association, a
lobbying group for cell phone companies. "For some reason, there is this laser-like focus on
cell phones," he said.
The existing data suggest that cell phones are a factor in a tiny fraction of crashes. A 2003 r
report by NCSL said that crash data from seven states showed that cell phones were a factor in
less than 1 percent of accidents. But the information is not conclusive, because there is not .
usually any physical evidence of cell phone use at a crash site, said Matt Sundeen, a
transportation researcher at NCSL.
Send your comments on this story to: letters(a~stateline.gLg. Selected reader feedback will be
posted in the Letters to the editor section.
40
e
HSRC - Distracted Drivers Page 1 of 1
c
N1YeTSITY OF NORTH CAROUNA
• C(i
GHWA
Y SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER Search
® SAFETY • MORIUTY • INFORMATION
Li, safety information research publications t_ news about us websites Pedestrian & Bicycle Inf
home > safety information -
Attentlon status of Distracted Drivers
drivers in crashes
Behind the wheel, drivers must constantly decide where to focus their
attention. While the safest choice is to remain focused on their driving, a
• host of other objects and actions compete both inside and outside their
vehicles to tempt drivers' attention away from the road ahead.
HSRC has conducted research and given congressional testimony into the
. w areas of driver distraction and the effect of the popular electronic devices,
such as cellular phones, on the safety of our roads.
Download distracted Driver Distraction
driver photos and images -
here. Driver's Use of Cell Phones
•
s
home : safety information : research :publications: news : about us : websites : pbic : sitema
The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center: CB# 3430, Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Phone: 919-962-2202 or (in NC) 800-672-4527 Fax: 919-962-8710 - -
email webmaster
•
41
htt, ,/h,nxnv hcrr nnr. Pr1n/nrnhinfn/r9ictrartf-,(i htm 111 W? ()()A
HSK Driver Distraction Page 1 of 2
H
C1417=7SAFETY CUM"
RESEARCH CENTER
SArEry • MOrLLITY , 0. INFORMATION search
safety information research publications news 13 about us L websites Pedestrian & Bicycle Inf
home > safety information > distracted drivers -
Driver Distraction
In May 2001, The UNC Highway Safety Research Center released its first
study into driver distraction. Funded through the AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety, the report shed significant light into the role of driver distraction in
auto crashes, as well as the types of distractions most commonly
experienced by drivers, finding that distractions were not always what the
public might perceive.
In August 2003, Phase Two of the "Role of Driver Distraction" was
completed. During Phase One, crash data was analyzed to determine the
most frequent causes of crashes involving driver distraction, yet
. researchers felt that this only glimpsed into the actual nature and causes of
distractions drivers process while behind the wheel. In Phase Two's
groundbreaking. study, "Distractions in Everyday Driving," HSRC
researchers placed cameras in the vehicles of study participans to record
the nature of real-world and real-time driver distractions..
Phase 1 Phase II
Top Ten Driver Distractions Frequently Asked Questions.
about this groundbreaking study
Outline of Results
Methodology. and Data Outline of Results Methodology,
Limitations - Basic information and Data Limitations - Basic
compiled from the May 2001 information compiled from the
study. August 2003 study.
Congressional Testimony - Researcher's Remarks
Testimony presented by principal
investigator, Dr. Jane C. Stuffs,
on May 9, 2001 to the House
Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit.
Press Releases
"Unique UNC research confirms drivers face multiple distractions
August 6, 2003
"Distracted drivers pose safety hazard. according to new UNC
Highway Safety Research Center study", May 8, 2001
Research Publications
42
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/pubinfo/distracted_distraction.htm 1/30/2006
HSRC - Driver Distraction Page 2 of 2
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes. J.C. Stutts, D.W.
Reinfurt, L.W. Staplin, and E.A. Rodgman. Washington, D.C.: AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2001.
(Publication is in PDF format, 834K)
Products
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes: An Analysis of 1995-1999
Crashworthiness Data System Data. J.C. Stutts, D.W. Reinfurt, and E.A.
Rodgman. In Proceedings, 45th Annual Meeting, Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Des Plaines, IL: Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2001. P. 287-301. Ordering
information at www.carcrash.org
home : safety information : research : publications : news : about us : websites : bp_ic : sitema - -
The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center: CB# 3430, Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Phone: 919-962-2202 or (in NC) 800-672-4527 Fax: 919-962-8710
email webmaster
•
•
43
httn://www.hsrc.une.edu/pubinfo/distracted distraction.htm 1/30/2006
H~sxu -Cell Phone use W rule 1)nvmg Page 1 of 2
THE UNIVfR97Y OF NORM CAROLINA
HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH CENTER. search
® SAFFrY • MONUTY • INFORMATION
safety irrformatian research [ publicationsnews E about us [X;websites E Pedestrian & Bicycle Inf
home > safety information > distracted drivers _
=t 'x Cell Phone Use While Driving
With the burgeoning popularity of cellular phones, HSRC researchers
expanded their driver distraction research to further investigate the use of
rc cell phones while driving.
F The first report, released in November 2001, analyzed data from N.C. crash
report narratives from 1996 through August 2000 to isolate dell phone-
related crashes. A pilot study was conducted with 3 of 8 troops from North
Carolina State Highway Patrol to determine more recent reports of crashes
involving cell phones.
A second report compiled the following year and released in spring 2003,
explored public opinion and driver behavior through a telephone survey and .
with an additional 2-month data collection period expanded to include all
NC State Highway Patrol units.
How Do You Use Your Cell Phone While on the Road? Public opinion
vs. behavior . •
How many crashes in North Carolina involve cell phones?
Characteristics of crashes involving cell phones
Press Releases
"Study shows drivers use cell phones twice as likely to cause rear
end collisions" March 25. 2003
"Cell phones and driving: How dangerous is the combination?"
December 1. 2001
Research Publications
Cell Phone Use While Driving in North Carolina: 2002 Update Report
Final Project Report to the North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety
Program. November, 2002.
(Publication is in PDF format, 715K)
Cell Phone Use While Driving in North Carolina November, 2001.
(Publication is in PDF format, 1MB)
44
http://www.hsrc..unc.edu/pubinfo/distracted_cell.htm 1/30/2006
Safety Implications of Driver Distraction Page I of 2
nhts Research and
,peofl`2S4I: - eo 16?~:h~.. r i z; +c a ~E - < zw ~fF i`u:, R" F{Q'yr
sz.ra;._RN
Safety Implications of Driver Distraction When Using In-Vehicle
Technologies
4v Human Injury Prevention for Drowsy & Distracted Driving
• A Bibliography of Research Related to the Use of Wireless Communications Devices From
Vehicles - February 2005 (also available in text format)
Driver Distraction: Understanding the Problem, Identifying Solutions - January 2005 (also
available in text format)
. "volume I: Findings-National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving Attitudes and
Behavior - 2002" (also available in PDF format)
40 Intelligent Transportation Systeme (ITS) Research
. "Examination of the Distraction Effects of Wireless Phone Interfaces Using the National
Advanced Driving Simulator,- Preliminary Report on a Freeway Scenario Study"(PDF)
• . "An Overview of The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study and Findings" (PDF)
4, Volpe - Safety Vehicle Using Safety Vehicle Using Adaptive Interface Technology - SAVE-IT .
NHTSA Policy and FAQs on Cellular Phone Use While Driving
Congressional Testimony - Driver Distraction
Statement of L. Robert Shelton, Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
before the Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States House
Of Representative May 9, 2001
NHTSA held a Public Meeting and Internet Forum that focused on the potential safety implications
associated with driver distraction while using advanced in-vehicle technologies that allow drivers to
phone, fax, E-mail, obtain route guidance, view infrared images on a head-up display, operate
multimedia entertainment systems, or use the Internet.
Although the Internet Forum is now closed for comments, interested persons can read the technical
papers and other contributions that had been made by researchers as well as the general public,
through the link below.
if you would like to submit your comments about driver distraction to NHTSA, please send them to
the docket we have set up for this purpose at http://dmses. dot.gov/submiU The docket number is
NHTSA-1999-6270
• The public meeting was held on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, at which representatives of the public,
industry, government, and safety groups were invited to share viewpoints, information, and.
recommendations regarding strategies and research to help minimize the safety consequences of
distraction from these in-vehicle technologies. Information about the public meeting can be found in
45
httn://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.&ov/departments/nrd-13/DriverDistraction.html 1/30/2006
Safety. Implications of Driver Distraction Page 2 of 2
several of the links below.
• Notice Describing Internet Forum and Public Meeting •
• Agenda for Public Meeting
• Public meeting transcript and speaker presentations
• Internet Forum - Driver Distraction
• Driver Distraction Internet Forum: Summary and Proceedings
This 81 page report summarizes the July 5-August 11, 2000 virtual conference
NHTSA sponsored to focus on the risks associated with driver distraction when using
various in-vehicle electronic technologies. The report summarizes the technical
research and public comments submitted to the forum.
Summary of NHTSA Driver Distraction Expert Working Group Meetings
This report describes results of several meetings of technical experts to identify .
research initiatives that could help advance our understanding of the driver distraction
safety problem .and. possible solutions.
• NHTSA Wireless Communications Report: An Investigation of the Safety Implications of
Wireless'Communications in Vehicles
The wireless communications industry is perhaps matched only by the personal
computer field in the rate at which new products and features are being introduced to
the marketplace. In the two years since the research for this report was initiated, the
technology has changed dramatically and what was once a novelty, used primarily by
businesses, has now become commonplace among the masses. Today, cellular
telephones are owned by more than 50 million Americans and new technological •
breakthroughs have seen 'a migration from analog to digital' architectures along with .
the recent introduction of "Personal Communications Services (PCS)" as a competitor
to the cellular market. Driven by these developments, new capabilities beyond voice
communications are being made available at an accelerated rate, compelling the user
to upgrade to palm-size devices that allow activities such as checking of e-mail,
"surfing the net," receiving stock quotes - from the classroom, the beach or perhaps
from our vehicles.
• NHTSA Report: Driver Distraction with Wireless Telecommunications and Route Guidance
Systems
Concerns have been raised in recent years about the distraction potential of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies including driver information systems such
as route navigation systems. Results for this reserach suggest voice recognition
technology is a viable alternative to visual-manual destination entry while driving.
NHTSA Report: HAND-HELD OR HANDS-FREE? THE EFFECTS OF WIRELESS PHONE
INTERFACE TYPE ON PHONE TASK PERFORMANCE AND DRIVER PREFERENCE
Elizabeth N. Mazzae, MSE National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle
Research and Test Center East Liberty, OH
Thomas A. Ranney, Ph.D. Transportation Research.Center Inc. East Liberty, OH
Ginger S. Watson, Ph.D. and Judith A. Wightman, MA University of-Iowa, National
Advanced Driving Simulator, Iowa City, IA
46
http://www-nrd,nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/DriverDistraction.html 1/30/2006
'T H[ RP11 P1 ORIVIR 01 1ROC110H
IN JR01111 [RO H[
g
~ ; WA
f
~1 4 f
• i~
H ft
3
E ~ vS 2 ~1 Lv
Prepared by
Jane C. Stuffs, Ph.D.
Donald W. Reinfurt, Ph.D.
Loren Staplin, Ph.D.
Eric A. Rodgman, B.S.
University of North Carolina
Highway Safety Research Center
Chapel Hill, NC
Prepared for
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.; Suite 201
Washington, DC 20005
202/638-5944
• www.aaafoundation.or>?
May 2001
47'
t David E Rice/NHC To Kemp Burpeau/NHC@NHC
0211312006 08:14 AM cc ershakar@aol.com, jmccumbee@nhcgov.com,
sharrelson@nhogov.com, Kim Roane/NHC@NHC
bcc
Subject Fw: sports physicals
Hi Kemp,
In addition to the driver distraction issue, the Personal Health Committee addressed the
issue of sponsoring sports physicials, either at the current site or at the Health
Department facility. Our question is: Would NHCHD be protected if we sponsored
this event off site? Would we need to develop a MOU with the off site location? I've
attached the Personal HealthCommittee draft minutes for your review. The Sports
Physicals issue is located near the end of the minutes. I have also attached an earlier
email regarding Sports Physicals.
LLJ
Personal Health Committee Meeting - February 8, 2006.doc
Thanks,
David E. Rice, Health Director
New Hanover County Health Department
2029 South 17th Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Phone: 910-343-6591 Fax: 910-3414146
drice@nhcgov.com
http://www.nhchd.org
Forwarded by David E Rice/NHC on 02/13/2006 08:09 AM
David E Rice/NHC
10/31/2005 03:41 PM To Andre Mallette/NHC
cc jmccumbee@nhcgov.com, chewett@nhcgov.com@NHC,
sharrelson@nhcgov.com, Pat Melvin/NHC@NHC
Subject Fw: sports physicals
Andre':
Dr. Sam Spicer (NHHN), Dr. Rob Shakar (Board of Health), Dr. David Esposito, Bonnie
Brown (Medical Society), and Jim Strickland met with NHCHD Staff today to discuss the
possiblility of the Health Department becoming the sponsor of a free clinic for school
sports physicals. On August 22, 2005, Health Department Staff met with Pat
Melvin,Legal, Risk Management. and Cathy Morgan from Human Resources. Based on
that meeting, I've attached a series of questions and concerns. Please review the
attachments, Dr. Spicer's email, and let me know if Dr. Spicer's proposal will meet the
intent of HR's concerns.
LLJ
Sports Physical Consideratiom.doc volunteer physician.doc
Thanks, Dave
Forwarded by David E Rice/NHC on 10131/2005 02:59 PM
® "Sam Spicer"
<Sam.Spicer@nhhn.o To drice@nhcgov.com
rg>
cc ershakar@aol.com, daespo@bellsouth.net,
10/31/2005 02:53 PM bonnieieffreysbrown@earthlink.net, "Jack Barto"
<Jack.Barto@nhhn.org>, "Virginia Barkman"
48
Virginia. Barkman@ n h h n.org>
er"a Subject sports physicals
• Thank you for consideration of sponsoring the New Hanover county annual sports
physicals event.
As requested today, I will send you a confirmation of names of NHHN
credentialed physicians just prior to the date you specify. The physician's listed
will have had confirmation ofNHHN medical staff membership, current
malpractice coverage, NC lisc and criminal background check. There are
currently many older physicians who do not have a background check, but we will
do that for the physicians that will most likely be doing the exams this spring.
If we can help in any other way, please let me know. Thanks.
sam
Samuel S. Spicer MD
Vice President of Medical Affairs
New Hanover Health Network
P.O. Box 9000
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-9000
(910) 342-3515 office
(910) 815-5489 fax
• sspicerg.nhhn.org
49
New Hanover County Government
Sports Physical Considerations/Questions for Current Providers
Liability Considerations
• NC Statute intends to relieve the burden of liability associated with the establishment and
operation of the "free clinics", but clearly the door is open for litigation against the New
Hanover County Health Department (NHCHD) for Gross Negligence. We need to strive
to protect ourselves as much as possible upfront. Good deeds from volunteers can have a
negative impact.
• All volunteers of the Health Department are automatically protected under the NHCHD's
Medical Professional Liability Insurance.
• County would need verification of each volunteering physician's Medical Professional
Liability Insurance be obtained through a Certificate of Insurance, preferably naming the
NHCHD as an additional insured, although some insurance carriers will not want to do
this. We should establish a file on each doctor and retain the Certificate, along with a
Volunteer Application.
Question: Will the physicians be willing to complete volunteer application and provide
Certificate on Insurance?
• We currently have contracts in place with volunteer physicians for our Neurology Clinic.
We may need a contract for each physician or at least a memorandum of understanding.
• Currently the county requires criminal background checks for volunteers and also drug
screens for medical personnel.
Questions: What will we need to put into place to ensure background checks and drug screens
are being done or can we get records that may already be in place for these volunteers? Who
will pay for these checks, if not previously done? Does the Medical Society recruit the
volunteers?
• Physician performing the exam should sign the form.
Question: Would physicians agree to sign the forms for their part of the physical?
Process Questions
Will the Medical Society continue to assist with organizing this event and advertising it?
Would the current buildings be used for the sports physical clinics, or is the NHCHD to be the
site?
50
I
How many volunteers have been involved.(all disciplines)?
Have there been escorts in the room with the physician, since parents are not allowed in the
clinic?
Does one of the stakeholders currently keep a copy of the finished Physical form? (We would
need to keep a copy of the form to be held in accordance with state records' retention policies.)
Who does the follow-up on referrals made for abnormal findings?
What happens to children/teens with referrals when they do not have insurance to be evaluated or
re-screened?
What is done during the clinic when the parent is not there, the physician has a question for that
parent, and is not able to approve that child for sports for lack of information?
Why are there different physical forms for the free clinics than the ones for a child going to a
private office?
Has WHAT or the New Hanover Community Health Center been approached about this?
Cost Considerations and Questions
Who pays for the supplies for the clinics? •
The.clinic would increase the NHCHD's Medical Professional Liability Insurance premium as
the rating basis will increase due to number of patient contacts. (Minimal amount- $500
possibly)
ifNHCHD staff is involved in the organizing and staffing these clinics, personnel costs are
involved. They will be taken away form their other duties to deal with the sports physical clinics.
51
G.S. 90-21.16 Page 1 of 1
r
§ 90-21.16. Volunteer health care professionals; liability limitation.
(a) This section applies as follows:
(1) Any volunteer medical or health care provider at a facility of a local health
department or at a nonprofit community health center,
(2) Any volunteer medical or health care provider rendering services to a patient referred
by a local health department as defined in G.S. 130A-2(5) or nonprofit community
health center at the provider's place of employment,
(3) Any volunteer medical or health care provider serving as medical director of an
emergency medical services (EMS) agency,
(4) Any retired physician holding a "Limited Volunteer License" under G.S. 90-12(d), or
(5) Any volunteer medical or health care provider licensed or certified in this State who
provides services within the scope of the provider's license or certification at a free
clinic facility,
who receives no compensation for medical services or other related services rendered at the facility,
center, agency, or clinic, or who neither charges nor receives a fee for medical services rendered to the
patient referred by a local health department or nonprofit community health center at the provider's
place of employment shall not be liable for damages for injuries or death alleged to have occurred by
reason of an act or omission in the rendering of the services unless it is established that the injuries or
death were caused by gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the
person rendering the services. The free clinic, local health department facility, nonprofit community
health center, or agency shall use due care in the selection of volunteer medical or health care
providers, and this subsection shall not excuse the free clinic, health department facility, community
health center, or agency for the failure of the volunteer medical or health care provider to use ordinary
care in the provision of medical services to its patients.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to relieve any person from liability for
damages for injury or death caused by an act or omission on the part of such person while rendering
health care services in the normal and ordinary course of his or her business or profession. Services
provided by a medical or health care provider who receives no compensation for his or her services and
who voluntarily renders such services at facilities of free clinics, local health departments as defined in
G.S. 130A-2, nonprofit community health centers, or as a volunteer medical director of an emergency
medical services (EMS) agency, are deemed not to be in the normal and ordinary course of the .
volunteer medical or health care provider's business or profession.
(c) As used in this section, a "free clinic" is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization
organized for the purpose of providing health care services without charge or for a minimum fee to
cover administrative costs and that maintains liability insurance covering the acts and omissions of the
free clinic and any liability pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. (1991, c. 655, s. 1,; 1993, c. 439,
s. 1; 1995, c. 85, s. 1; 2000-5, s. 4; 2001-230, ss. 1(a), 1(b).)
•
http://www.ncga. state.ne.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTMLBySection/Chapter_90/GS_90-21... 2/22/2006
52
T ~T7 Er °.ka i #.'d r'r~ ~e f MA, 6BIRD FLU 101 T g OR1 I~1fhi'll
What is Avian Influenza and
what's the risk to us?
~,ry~~sv cmoir~ r ° IN TY Thomas Morris, MD, MPH I„t ER
s
XIMMEASIP
Daniel Wilson, DVM TIM- f
Public Health Regional Surveillance Team -
Region Two Rumor often outruns the News. And the News with the
accurate facts or Truth takes a long time to catch up.
"Bird Flu" - Avian Influenza Reports of "Bird Flu" are everywhere
~ z
. i A/115N1 jTt
Inllue.. is not a virus confined to humans. It can
cause widespread mortality to other animals. There Is TOM In Japan. There is v Disne World In Tokvo. E i v, Work.
Geographic Distribution 2006: the EU & Africa get H5N1
® ...n.. -..w.y. - 1878: Fin,
jr- Identified eased I
r 19I4M Flnt
U.S. cases
.ayl "rv ~a.e.,:.`.+ ( I ~la~euy ~ ,n fyvT'"Y+&`p
Worldwide distribution
• Reservoir Free flying aquatic birds: Ducks, geese,
shorebirds, gulls, terns, auks
1
Human Cases 2003-06: 93/173 (53.8) Who's Flu? There *is* a Difference!
t
Z• Health Officials around the world are worried about
a PANDEMIC influenza. Like the Spanish Flu again.
7~.t' Presently, the Health Departments and local
v.R providers are giving vaccinations (`flu shots" for the
yearly SEASONAL influenza.
e
( 1N t Y"'"~ ? What started up in SE Asia and China in 2003 and
tti±' t'S Mfr j>r~ i ; moving around the world affecting birds of all sorts is
Highly Pathogenic AVIAN Influenza (`Bird Flu')
E-1 I
V' S
Seasonal Influenza in NC: 2005-06 I*UTQ The `Force Multiplier' to any
1GEN}5- situation - True or False
MPWENIA WRVFIl4NCE. XC ID0130M
InM•nzKMIMnnS•nnY SM1 P•wxzRW unl
• = The Prevention & Treatment t (P Ni -
Is Information
r
r\~ to the Public LR<r,'F t
.7 41 R 0
J
Good News: the flu vaccine is a good match to the seasonal flu NC t p ,F
viruses going around this year. Flu activity is WIDESPREAD toNC ate' i
Pandemic Influenza - 1918 WHO 6-phase scale of Pandemic Alert
I INFLUENZA
' oaassmalRlbbRelal ..Ir...
+ - > WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel
to any areas affected by H5NI avian influenza
1 had a little bird,
Its name was Enra. > WHO does not recommend screening of travellers
I opened the window, The impact of pandemic flu was enormous. coming from H5N1 affected areas
And in-flu-en U. There was no vaccine and a poorer > WHO advises travellers to avoid contact with high-
Ditty of 1918 understanding of prevention strategies, risk environments in affected countries
like hanJwashing&coughm& www.who.int/csr/di,easelalian influen.0anAndex.html
2
115NI cases - Iraq 30 Jan 2006
Raniya(near Sulaimaniya) 15 yo Wrl died on V Jan 2006 after. - ^M~ 1 t`\•.
ever. x rat with 5N1aviSympuenza. a ,y,_
x comb tewiW HNI.vl.alaaevu _r~Fy f•-? P
Contact with sick bit& was establahed.
s X16 rwu, AUSNavtl Medical Rdmreh Unit -trAy~_ T,!{t
/ stationed Cairo, Epps, provided the
a( iRax preliminary laboratory continuation.
~ e• 39 yo um1c de,damil symptom, an 24 Jan ~Y
.w •°°1 ~w'~
• 2006; died on 27 is. 2m or. severe
e "n ` 11 sphatory distant. He cared for her - t wq_
rxrwi+~ dud., her dinner; bord .,,at. he, an'
Que SnuBl been established. _
ARABIA
• "u A 54 yo woman was hmphaRted on lB Jan
2006 wits ua filar rymplome.
North Carolina's Role & Response Zones
• HSNI Avian flu is a threat to the agriculture Infetled Presides,
- oe,opuhte,nbporel,Cao
industry. NCDA is planning accordingly. - Epidemioloelt link, to positive
are tested vefthm<e hone
• H5Nl Avian flu presents a risk 2Mile E.dmionZme .P
read .11 florin within 69 hours V ,
communications problem for the local health Iseromp& PCs) ,tom 7!-
movements. Placemenbetopped J
departments- the risk is exposure to sick until 7day, mlbwbit.il
....ties to 44
f_'_Lta
birds 6 Mile Control Zone ,
The NC Division of Public Health has - re all norm within I week
- Ted, all Rocks witin I we to
•
developed a Pandemic Influenza Response Witsmnt
Plan. - fvnlv.a6cu4 .~,r 1.pra.sae
b EeWWWM
- noa~oenw mine mud rxm;<,
.won. tie) nalpm whom a mle t~wlmi
Treatment Poultry
• No specific treatment Euthanasia
e
• Supportive care and antibiotics for _
secondary infections
C
• Antivirals (Amantadine) effective in
reducing mortality,
- Not approved in food
animals
- Results in resistant
viruses
40
3
Disposal
ST 'OP ` Farm Bio-security
illllltillillit ~a
OK
Conclusion & Recommendations RFP for Federal Pandemic Flu ($3.913)
~P-
• Flu vaccine and education prior to event 4
• Common message during event (Unified Command) t. _
• Cooperation with environmental health
. Understanding of risk factors from poultry workers.
• Priority access to anti-virals or other mediations 5
during Al disease outbreak.
- Medical first responders k
-Poultry industry workers -
- Agriculture emerging disease strike team
NC awarded $2.55 M which counties are submitting RFPs
The Right Message, The Right Info KFC's
rl\ti li' ~j - _ nk?
~ •~S ~ TAYIFLUBECUE'
KFC announces new Bird Flu Dipping Sauce
•
4
Influenza Influenza (Flu)
• Seasonal Flu is a contagious respiratory
illness caused by influenza viruses.
Seasonal/Avian/Pandemic • AN-inn Flu is caused by avian influenza
viruses. which occur natumth' among birds.
,Niles M.., Health Ph.,um • Pandemic Flu is flu that causes a global
Nem H.mm'a Co.w HNIh DePminn'1 outbreak or pandemic, of serious illness
K
that spreads easily from person to person.
CurreatIv there is no pandemic flu.
iR1a0M a.. awa.CUt) ~
Gp ~d
10 things you need to knmr about pandemic influenza
Pandellllc 1. Pandemic influenza b different from avian influenza.
2. Influenza pandendcs are recurring events.
• A pandemic (fnnll Greek pan all + dens 3. Ile norid may be on the brink of another pandemic.
people) is an epidemic (an outbreal: of an J. All countries nia be affected.
infectious disease) that spreads wor(dlvide, or S, uidespread Mum mill occur.
• at least across a large region. 6. Medical supplies will be Inadequate.
7. Large numbers of deaths mill "me.
8. Eemmmic and social disruption mill be great
9. Lrcery country must be prepared.
10. RHO nfll alert the mold when the pandemic threat
increases.
veiam• x..m..amn + rename m. x.•.. w.r s
enae.aw amear.rn
Phases of an Influenza Pandemic New Hanover County
World Health Organization, 2005 Health Department
Increase uptake of seasonal flu vaccines
among all county residents - completed
roaaryaemen..aMae. t Streamline mass taccumtion process -
hanm. completed
rituaedleanadn..*a" d Distribution Sites for mass distribution of
medicines and vaccines - completed
• Public Health Education Campaign
• Local Health Information Tema (LH T)
.Vin Nnam~Cmt f LSIaeM Mtlmwmbr
HMGLaba BYt RpDb
•
1
Public Health Tips
• Get a Flu Shot
• Stav at home if ill
• Wash hands often - f-
• Do not touch eves or nose ~J
• Cover your mouth
LLIIIOd N.•&•~Wry ) LNMIt Nw RmwCwLLl •
NW O.}b.V 8Y\L'q~bM
•
2
1
• - PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PLANNING s,.
SELF-ASSESSMENT - LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
8
This self-assessment contains activities that are conducted at the state
level, local level, or both. Because the level at which they take place
may vary across states, states are asked to determine for each whether
the responsibility lies at the state or local level (or both), thus creating a
state and a local version of the checklist. States are responsible for .
returning both the completed state self-assessment, and aggregated
results for the local assessment. nr N•ww CJNiiY
CYYYLYNi •iii•i(iYN
Note: All references to operational plans or planning in the checklist
could refer to the Project's separate Pandemic Influenza Plan or/a
component of the Project's overall All-Hazards Plan.
Project: New Hanove Count ;Health Department
Name of Person Who Completed Scott Harrelsbu Thomas Morris, MD
this Assessment: Althea ahnsony
Title: Healt tP anner
Telephone: 910 348¢778
-on nhc ov.com
• Email Address: aljohits
Date: 2/ /06 y
Community Preparedness Leadership and Networking [Preparedness Goal 1-Increase the use and
development of interventions known Op~revent human illness from chemical, biological, radiological
agents, and naturally occurring hea th threarsl
NIA-
In State PH
Completed Progress Not Started es onsibili Elements
? "D ? A Pandemic Preparedness Coordinating Committee representing
XX C all relevant stakeholders in the jurisdiction and accountable for
articulating strategic priorities and overseeing the development
and execution of the jurisdiction's operational pandemic plan
has been developed.
? ? The accountability and responsibility for key stakeholders
engaged in planning and executing specific components of the
?ILI operational plan are delineated, and the plan includes timelines,
deliverables, and performance measures.
? XX ? ? • It is clear which activities will occur at state, local, or
? coordinated level.
? XX ? ? • . State role in providing guidance and assistance to local/regional
? level is defined.
? XX ? ? The operational plan for pandemic influenza response is an
? integral element of the overall state and local emergency .
• response plan established under Federal Emergency Support
Function 8 (ESF8) and compliant with NIMS.
Public Health Emergency Preparedness Supplement 1 of 8
r
N/A-
In State PH
Completed Progress Not Started Responsibility
? XX ? ? The operational plan addresses integration of state, local, tribal, •
? territorial, and regional plans across jurisdictional boundaries.
? ? XX ? ? • Agreements with neighboring jurisdictions are formalized and
address communication, mutual aid, and other cross-
jurisdictional needs.
? XX ? ? Legal authorities for executing the operational plan, especially
? those relevant to case identification, isolatiof , quarantine,
movement restriction, healthcare services, tnmergency care, and
mutual aid, are transparent to all stakeholde rsr
XX ? ? ? ? The process for requesting, coordinadna droving requests
It . for resources to state and federal agencies has been made clear
to all stakeholders. ~y
? XX ? ? An Incident Command System for life pandemic plan that is
? based on the National Incident Management System has been
created. ~ X<,
? XX ? ? This system has beh-exerc'sed along with other operational
? elements of the plan. V A
XX ? ? ? ? The authority responsible'for declaring a public health
emergent. at the~state nd local levels and for officially
activatin7t6elpandemic influenza response plan has been
identified.
? XX El ? State~and local law enforcement personnel who will maintain
? public order and help implement control measures have been
identified'.
? ? XX ? ? •tW iv: will constitute a "law enforcement" emergency has been •
deteyrmined and law enforcement officials have been educated so
they can pre-plan for their families to sustain themselves during
the emergency.
? X?X ? oN Plans are flexible so they can be adapted to the magnitude and
seven of the pandemic and to available resources.
? XX ? Provision of psychosocial support services for the community,
? including parents and their families, and those affected by
community containment procedures are addressed.
Surveillance [HHS ~pyl~ent 1. Preparedness Goal 3-Decrease the time needed to detect and report
chemical, biol -i al„radiological agents in tissue, food, or environmental samples that cause threats to
the publics health. Preparedness Goal 5-Decrease the time to identify causes, risk factors, and
appprroo naTe \n ntions for those affected by threats to the public's health.]
/p N/A-
In Stale PH
Com le Progress Not Started Responsibility Elements
XX ? ? ? ? Traditional surveillance for seasonal influenza (e.g., virologic,
outpatient visits, hospitalization, and mortality) including
electronic reporting, is conducted year round.
XX ? ? ? Capacity for rapid identification of unusual influenza strains has
been improved by working with federal partners to enhance
laboratory-based monitoring of seasonal influenza subtypes.
XX ? ? ? ? Procedures to implement enhanced surveillance once a
pandemic is detected to ensure recognition of the first cases of
2
N/A-
In State PH
Completed Pr ress Not Started Ros onsibili Elements
• pandemic virus infection in time to initiate appropriate
containment protocols have been developed.
XX ? ? ? ? Animal and human health surveillance systems are linked and
information is routine) shared.
XX ? ? ? ? Systems to obtain and track information daily during a pandemic
on the following items has been developed:
o the numbers of newly hospitalized cafes,
o newly quarantined persons, and hlt
o hospitals with pandemic influenza cases
Public Health and Clinical Laboratories [HHS Supplement 2. Preparedness Goal Grease the
time needed to detect and report chemical, biological, radiological agents in tissue, food~,_
environmental samples that cause threats to the public's health. ]
In Not State te P H,,,
Completed Progress Started Responsibility / E ements
? ? ? XX ? Surveillance for influenza-,like illnesses (ILI) among laboratory
personnel working withitael influenza viruses has been
instituted,) Y
XX ? ? ? ? • An operationalplan to augment the capacity of public health and
clinical laboratories to meet the needs of the jurisdiction during
a randemic has been developed.
? ? ? XX ? • This operational plan has-been exercised.
• ? ? ? XX ? • Qpall he itifl enza diagnostic testing proficiency and adherence to
osafety containment and biomonitoring protocols is assessed
public health and clinical laboratories at least annually.
XX ? ? ? ? Frontline clinicians and laboratory personnel are aware of
protocols for safe specimen collection and testing, know how
and to whom a potential case of novel influenza should be
reported, and know the indications and mechanism for
submitting specimens to referral laboratories.
Healthcare and Public 'Hea :Partners [HHS Supplement 3. Preparedness Goal 6-Decrease the
time needed to provide co termeasures and health guidance to those affected by threats to the public's
health.] Y
N/A-
In' Not State PH
Completed Pr re s Started Responsibility Elements
? ? ? The role of public health in coordinating with the healthcare
sector in delivery of care during a pandemic has-been defined.
XX ? ? ? ? Public health knows what the healthcare sector needs or expects
of it before and during a pandemic.
? XX ? ? ? • The necessary memoranda of agreement/understanding between
public health and the healthcare sector are in lace.
? XX ? ? ? • An operational plan for the healthcare sector that addresses the
following elements has been developed:
o healthcare of persons with influenza during a pandemic,
o legal issues that can affect staffing and patient care
o continuity of services for other patients,
3
N/A-
In Not State Pit
Completed Progress Started Responsibility Elements
o protection of the healthcare workforce, and
o medical su pply contingency plans
? XX ? ? ? This operational plan has been exercised.
? XX ? ? ? • All components of the healthcare delivery network (e.g.,
hospitals, long-term care, home care, emergency care) are
included in the operational plan, and the special needs of
vulnerable and hard-to-reach patients are addressed.
? XX ? ? ? A plan for ensuring real-time situational awareness of patient
visits, hospital bed and intensive care needs, edical supply
needs, and medical staffing needs during-a\t an is has been
developed.
XX ? ? ? ? An operational plan for provision oftnoortyary services during a
pandemic has been developed.
• The plan for mortt. serv Abe en tested.
? ? XX ? ? A current roster of al( I \ tivA 'formerly active healthcare
personnel available.fonemergency healthcare services is
maintained.
? ? XX ? ? What will constitute a ~dical staffing emergency has been
defined.
XX ? ? ? ? The operational plan to initiate appropriate credentialing of
volunteer healthcare personnel (including in-state, out-of-state,
r
international, returning retired, and non-medical volunteers) to
HIM-Staffing needs during a pandemic has been exercised.
? ? XX ? ? The healthcare facilities in the jurisdiction have exercised a plan
forosolating and/or cohorting patients with known or suspected •
influenza, training clinicians, and supporting the needs for
q personal protective equipment.
? ? XX ? The healthcare facilities in the jurisdiction have exercised an
operational plan to initiate, support, and enforce quarantine of
potentially exposed healthcare personnel.
Infection Control and~Climcal Guidelines [HHS Supplements 4 & 5. Preparedness Goal 6-Decrease
the time needed to provid, e countermeasures and health guidance to those affected by threats to the
public's health.]
t
(,/t,,~ N/A-
:/Not State PH
Competed -^Pr ress - Started Responsibility Elements
Q ? ? Messages have been crafted to help educate healthcare providers
about novel and pandemic influenza, and infection control
guidelines.
? y XX ? ? ? • An operational plan has been developed to regularly update
providers as the influenza pandemic unfolds.' .
? ? XX ? ? • This plan has been tested.
Vaccine Distribution and Use [HHS Supplement 6. Preparedness Goal 6-Decrease the time needed
to provide countermeasures and health guidance to those affected by threats to the public's health.]
N/A-
In P
In Not State PH
[Completed Pro ress Started Res onsibility Elements
4
N/A-
In Not State PH
• Com Icted Progress Started Responsibility Elements
? XX ? ? ? An operational plan for vaccine distribution, use, and monitoring
which covers the following elements has been developed:
o Plan for vaccinating occupationally-defined and other
priority groups
o Storage
o Security during transport, storage, and administration
o Cold chain requirements
o Location of vaccination
o Personnel who will vaccinate
o Availability of necessary equipment nd supplies
o Training requirements for inyrtolve~dTer nel.
o Tracking number and priority \of., mac me recipients
o Vaccine safety monitoring
o Contingency plan for admitsi"stration under IND or EUA
(Investigational Ne D~ ;or Emergency Use
Authorizatio
o Address needs oflyulnerable populations
? ? XX ? ? • This operational plan has~be'en tested
? ? XX ? ? Written agreements•docu'ment the commitments of participating
ersonneV d or anizations in the vaccination operational plan.
? ? XX ? ? • Citizens are informed and know in advance where they will be
va'cc'inated.
Antiviral Drug Distribution and Use [HHS Sup lem nt 7: Preparedness Goal (-Decrease the time
• needed to provide countermeasures and health n idae to those affected by threats to the public's
health.]
N/Ai4'
In Not Slate P
Completed Progress Started Re oosibibt Elements
XX ? ? ? Plans for distribution and use of antiviral drugs during a
pandemic via the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), as
appropriate, to healthcare facilities that will administer them to
priority groups have been developed. These plans cover:
o Storage
o Security
o Distribution
~ o Tracking
o . Adverse events monitoring .
o Contingency plan for administration under IND or EUA
(Investigational New Drug or Emergency Use
Authorization
XX ? ? ? ? • The plans have been tested
Community Disease Control and Prevention (including managing travel-related risk of disease
transmission) [HHS Supplements 8 & 9. Preparedness Goal 6-Decrease the time needed to provide
countermeasures and health guidance to those affected by threats to the public's health.]
N/A_
In State PH
Completed Progress No( Started Responsibility Elements
5
XX ? ? An operational plan to investigate and contain potential cases or
? local outbreaks of influenza potentially caused by a novel or
pandemic strain has been developed. Ask
? XX ? ? • This plan has been exercised.
? XX ? ? A containment operational plan that delineates the following
? items has been developed:
o the criteria for isolation and quarantine,
o the procedures and legal, authorities for implementing and
enforcing these containment measures and
o the methods that will be used to support;-service, and
monitor those affected by these containment measures in
r
healthcare facilities, other residen tal. fa''ctlit.les, homes,
communi facilities, and other settin s
XX ? ? ? ? • This plan has been exercised. n
? XX ? ? • An operational plan to implementlvarious levels of movement
El restrictions within, to, and from th_ e jurisdiction.
XX ? ? ? ? This plan has been,e ex rcis&V
? ? XX ? ? Citizens have beeri(infofined in advance what containment
procedures may be usedpiri the community.
Public Health Communications [HHS Supplement 10. PfeparedneGoal 4-Improve the timeliness
and accuracy of communications regarding threats to the public health.]
N/A- Yy
In State PH
Completed Progress Not Started Responsibility - Elements •
? XX ? ? Readiness to meet communications needs in preparation for an
? influenza pandemic has been assessed, including regular review
a and updating of communications plans.
? XX ? ? Plans for coordinating emergency communication activities with
? y private industry, education, and non-profit partners (e.g., local
Red Cross chapters) have been develo ed.
? ? XX Lead subject-specific spokespersons have been identified and
trained.
XX ? ? '^C ? Public health communications staff have been provided with
training on risk communications for use during an influenza
pandemic.
? XX~ ? Up-to-date communications contacts of key stakeholders are
F1 , maintained.
Q X " ? ? Plan for providing regular updates to key stakeholders as the
\ 1 pandemic unfolds has been developed.
N\ ? XX ? ? • This plan has been tested.
ZEEDI
? ? ? • Community resources, such as hotlines and websites to respond
to local questions from the public and professional groups have
been developed and are maintained.
? ? XX ? ? The Health Alert Network in the jurisdiction reaches at least
80% of all practicing licensed frontline healthcare personnel and
links via the communications network to other pandemic
responders.
? ? XX ? ? The appropriate local health authorities have access to EPI-X •
and are trained in its use.
6
N/A-
In State PH
Complete d Pr ress Not Started Responsibility Elements
• XX ? ? ? ? Redundant communications systems/channels that allow for
expedited transmission and receipt of information are in lace.
Workforce Support: Psychosocial Considerations and Information Needs [HHS Supplement 11.
Preparedness Goal 6-Decrease the time needed to provide countermeasures and health guidance to
those affected by threats to the public's health.]
N/A-
In State PH
Completed Progress Not Started Responsibility Elements -
XX ? ? ? ? A continuity of operations plan for le ssentia ,department
services, including contingency pla ning f~r increasing public
health workforce in response to abseent~eism among health
department staff and stakeholder r6ups that have key
responsibilities under a community s response plan has been
developed. I n~
? XX ? ? A plan for ensuring4vailabil ty of psychosocial support services
? (including educational and training materials) for employees
who participate in or provide support for the response to public
health emergencid,suXas influenza pandemics has been
develo ed\K\
7
o'
~Q.~~
~~2
~ 9L
N
J N
O O T
N U)
m
U i 01
CO) c y (n 0 , ; e
O C N O
N N N 8
U c6 -o Z' • ~
Z a s E~
? , d W a
V
LL ui
Z U)
N N c _
J 0 N ci m
~ C U N ' 40 av ' =c Z
W '
> m m
Q N j m W E
C N Z ? ZS ~CF c ac
W
N p fC a r v ao
Z r 8 r _ avN
Lij cu t;
~ J ~ N n
J ' 1,7p m
N
LL Co
Z N o c
pm ° Eo
O = c
~ N Z
Z
N w J U o
O
N
y ° N
° oFQ a
y H v m o
OD h t0 w; li M N V O v
`m
'I'l'I %
c 4 ~ a d o
°y' a 2 O
N Y ti ~ .Qi
o y y
Q (~E7
~ V] C. ~ ~ •r U
d O O W
m ~ 00 -
00A. -0 .w -S
ll~~ O
0. a O d C OO
u *a
b" N O U '•C"' .'R C V y x
w •O N :p
y aCi a N ° aEi W
- R > U b .cc -C
114
cli
o ° q y A
> v v y
N v w 2s fl. o y d ® z
0 lad
` cbo o
7 C d to N y .C ° T Q 0C o
-0 cc
N U y 5 o q
N U vi °
'N i0, Y N N Cd V N N ti d
O it ~d •C p N a>i p, a~ Cp EE atoi O N
P4 E~ C7 A
a d 3 0 a Z W py 0.0
NEW HANOVER COUNTY 44%
Zz
= HEALTH DEPARTMENT _
Animal Control Services o~=
• • C F
180 Division Drive """"""°"'COUNTY HEA&
Wilmington, NC 28401
TELEPHONE (910) 341-4197 FAX (910) 341-4349
TO: The New Hanover County Board of Health
FROM: Dangerous Dog Determination Hearings
CONCERNING: The cases heard 2005
NUMBER OF CASES HEARD-----------------96
DECISIONS:
DANGEROUS-----------0
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS------------84
NOT GUILTY-------------4
• EUTHANASIA------------8
AGE OF VICTIMS:
CHILDREN--------15
ADULTS----------55
ANIMALS----------26
Cases also involved dogs already declared and not obeying the rules.
REQUIRED MEDICAL ATTENTION-----All with scratched or broken skin.
Several of the animals had high medical bills.
NOT UNDER CONTROL -------------all
"Healthy People, Healthy Environment, Healthy Community"