Administration avian flu plan questioned by House panel

House Government Reform Committee members on both sides of the aisle Friday questioned whether President Bush's plan to contain a possible avian flu pandemic provides enough assistance to state and local governments that must distribute medication and contain the virus.

While Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., praised Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who testified before the panel, for being "proactive," he said he has "already heard concerns from the Department of Health in my home state of Virginia about the limited amount of money for stockpiling the federally recommended amounts of anti-viral treatments."

Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif, expressed similar concerns, citing the comments of Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee, among others. But Leavitt noted that the federal government would be responsible for purchasing 70 percent of the necessary anti-viral medication and would assist states in distributing it.

Earlier this week, the administration unveiled its strategy for combating a potential pandemic, asking for $7 billion for drug production, containment and surveillance. But panel members were divided over whether the approach would be effective.

Waxman was skeptical that the agencies responsible for handling the emergency are up to the task. "The administration has given a key role to the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA ... But given the abysmal performance of [those agencies] in responding to Hurricane Katrina, this is a huge misjudgment."

Some GOP panel members were equally critical. Criminal Justice Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder of Indiana said the administration's plan was belated and "insufficient" to head off the "inevitable devastation" of a pandemic. But others, including Rep. John Duncan of Tennessee, suggested the administration and Congress may be overstating the scope of the problem.

When members asked why the administration was not doing more to stockpile and distribute the anti-viral Tamiflu, Leavitt explained that Tamiflu has only been shown to be effective at reducing the duration of the common flu. It has not yet been proven as a treatment for avian flu. "Any sense that Tamiflu is synonymous with preparedness is wrong," Leavitt said.

He said while increasing the availability of the drug is a key component of the administration's strategy, having a plan that hinges on "one anti-viral that may or may not be effective would be a mistake."

Davis and several other panel members acknowledged that they had not known Tamiflu was not a proven cure. In light of that information, Davis added, the administration's proposal to invest in developing effective anti-virals was a good step.