Involving State Houses of Assembly in Public Health Emergency Readiness

The Critical Role of State Houses of Assembly in Public Health Emergency Preparedness

Public health emergencies, including pandemics, natural disasters, and biological threats, pose significant risks to human lives, economies, and national security. Effective preparedness and response are essential to mitigating these risks. While federal governments and public health agencies often take the lead during such crises, state-level legislative bodies, particularly State Houses of Assembly, play a crucial but often underappreciated role. Their involvement can strengthen legal frameworks, allocate necessary resources, and ensure robust oversight in public health emergency preparedness.

State Houses of Assembly possess constitutionally acquired authority to enact laws and policies that directly affect public health infrastructure, emergency management, and healthcare delivery. Their legislative functions include:

• Passing health-related laws and amendments to address emergent threats
• Approving state budgets, including allocations for health emergencies
• Creating or amending legal frameworks for coordination between ministries and agencies during emergencies
• Authorising emergency protocols, such as quarantine or disease surveillance regulations

Oversight is an essential function of the legislature. Through committees, public hearings, and audits, State Houses can supervise the execution of emergency preparedness plans, assess the effectiveness and competence of state health agencies, ensure accountability in the use of emergency funds, and hold public officers accountable for lapses in response.

State legislators also serve as conduits between the government and the public. Their proximity to local constituencies allows them to understand the specific health vulnerabilities of communities, advocate for resources and interventions tailored to local needs, and mobilise public support and compliance with public health measures.

Challenges in Engaging State Legislatures

Despite their critical role, several challenges hinder effective engagement of state legislatures in public health emergency preparedness:

Limited Awareness and Technical Capacity

Many legislators lack a detailed understanding of public health systems, epidemiology, and emergency response protocols. This knowledge gap often results in delayed or uninformed legislative actions, misaligned budget priorities, and resistance to evidence-based health measures.

Weak Legal and Institutional Frameworks

Some state-level laws are obsolete or insufficient for modern public health challenges. Legal ambiguities can lead to jurisdictional conflicts, a lack of coordination, or slow response times.

Partisan and Political Interference

In some cases, public health crises become politicised, especially when legislative-executive relations are strained. This may lead to deliberate obstruction of public health legislation, delays in budget approval, and public distrust in emergency responses.

Inadequate Stakeholder Involvement

Public health agencies often focus on executive coordination, neglecting to engage early and continuously with state legislatures. The exclusion can lead to a lack of ownership and weak implementation of emergency plans.

Strategies for Enhancing Legislative Engagement

A proactive legislature can close legal gaps and enact laws that preventively define emergency powers, inter-agency roles, and citizen rights during health crises. For example:

• Legislation for the establishment of a State Public Health Emergency Operations Centre
• Enacting laws that define isolation and quarantine procedures with due legal protections

Legislative support is crucial for setting up emergency health funds, approving budget lines for supplies, and ensuring distribution during crises. Legislators can advocate for isolated emergency funds, immediate release of funds to health ministries, and independent audit mechanisms.

Through their oversight functions, legislators ensure that preparedness plans are not only established but also operationalised. Health committees can request frequent briefings from the Ministry of Health, review preparedness assessments and simulations, and conduct hearings on gaps and recommend remedial action plans.

Engaging legislators ensures that preparedness plans reflect various community needs. Their involvement guarantees that preparedness is not “one-size-fits-all,” but context-specific, integrating marginalised populations.

Building Capacity and Institutionalising Engagement

Strategies for enhancing legislative engagement include capacity building and sensitisation through:

• Workshops and conferences: Organise regular training for lawmakers on public health systems, international health regulations, and emergency management.
• Technical briefs: Provide easy-to-digest briefs on emerging health threats and legislative implications.
• Exchange programmes: Facilitate learning visits between states or with national-level institutions to expose legislators to best practices.

Institutionalising legislative involvement includes:

• Standing committees on emergency preparedness: Establish dedicated legislative committees focused on emergency health preparedness.
• Legal directives: Institute statutory reporting by administrative agencies to the legislature on preparedness indicators and contingency plans.

Strengthening collaboration with executives can also help strengthen legislative engagement through:

• Joint planning meetings: Encourage inclusion of legislators in executive emergency planning forums.
• Memoranda of understanding: Develop MoUs between health ministries and legislatures outlining roles during emergencies.
• Early involvement: Bring lawmakers into the early stages of policy development, not just during the enactment or approval phases.

Engaging civil society and the media can further enhance legislative engagement by partnering with civil society organisations to pressure for legislative accountability and transparency; using the media to educate the public on the roles of legislators in emergency preparedness, creating public demand for active legislative involvement, and implementing digital dashboards where legislators can monitor preparedness indicators and receive real-time updates on emergencies.

Use geographic information systems to help lawmakers visualise risk zones and prioritise interventions in their constituencies.

Lessons from Global Experiences

In Nigeria, State Houses of Assembly played varying roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Lagos, for instance, the legislature passed laws enhancing the powers of the governor to implement lockdowns, quarantine rules, and contact tracing mechanisms. Meanwhile, other states saw legislative delays that hindered timely response, highlighting the need for uniform legislative readiness.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Philippine Congress enacted the “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act”, granting the president emergency powers. Although passed at the national level, local assemblies were tasked with enforcing budget realignment and local emergency declarations. Their proactive involvement enabled decentralised response effectiveness.

In the U.S., many state legislatures amended emergency laws post-COVID to include limits on executive powers and to define legislative oversight mechanisms. This proactive legal reform has created more balanced emergency management structures while emphasizing the legislature’s central role.

Evaluating and Enhancing Legislative Involvement

To evaluate and enhance legislative involvement, states can adopt Public Health Emergency Legislative Engagement Indexes, tracking metrics such as:

• Number of public health emergency laws passed/amended
• Frequency of legislative briefings by health ministries
• Budget allocation and disbursement timelines for health emergencies
• Attendance and output of legislative oversight hearings
• Constituency-level preparedness initiatives led or supported by legislators

The engagement of State Houses of Assembly in public health emergency preparedness is not merely a procedural necessity; it is a strategic imperative. Legislators are uniquely positioned to craft laws, oversee policy implementation, and represent the health interests of their constituents. By equipping them with the necessary tools, knowledge, and institutional frameworks, governments and partners can create more resilient public health systems.

The lessons of COVID-19 and other health crises make clear that a “whole-of-government” approach must include a proactive and prepared legislature. Through strategic engagement, State Houses of Assembly can become not only enablers of emergency response but also champions of long-term health security.