Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunn County Health Department explains communicable‑disease surveillance; WEDS follow‑up operates with limited state funding
Summary
Health department director outlined communicable‑disease surveillance work using the Wisconsin Electronic Disease Surveillance system (WEDS), noting statutory reporting requirements, limited state general purpose revenue funding ($4,500), and the department’s reliance on levy and nursing staff for follow‑up.
The Dunn County Health Department described its communicable‑disease surveillance and control activities to the county board, emphasizing statutory responsibilities, routine case follow‑up, outbreak control and limited state funding for the program.
“Kudos to our nurses,” Health Department Director Katie Gallagher told supervisors while outlining the program. “We get a whopping $4,500 from the state. That's GPR funding. And we have no other funding. The rest is from levy.” Gallagher said about two and a half nurses work on Wisconsin Electronic Disease Surveillance System (WEDS) follow‑up in the county and that local health departments are statutorily required to follow up on reportable diseases under DHS administrative rules (DHS ch. 140 was cited in the presentation).
Gallagher explained the reporting framework: licensed clinicians and laboratories must report specified diseases to local health departments via WEDS, and local public‑health staff use the data to prevent spread, control outbreaks and connect patients to care. She described local examples — tick‑borne disease (Lyme), one active tuberculosis case per year on average, sexually transmitted infections trends and seasonal foodborne illnesses — and cited contact tracing, observed therapy for TB and outreach to providers as routine responses.
The director also described how local outreach and improved provider testing have reduced local gonorrhea case counts after a previous increase; she urged supervisors to use inspection data and public health resources. No board action was requested; the presentation was informational and staff offered to answer follow‑up questions and to provide additional program detail if the board requested it.
