The Risks of Using Ebola Funds to Fight the Zika Virus

— -- The battle over Zika funding continues on Capitol Hill this week, as Senators are expected to move a new $1.1 billion bill forward and House Republicans work on a separate funding measure using “unobligated” Ebola funds.

The House proposal calls for $350 million in unobligated Ebola funds to help fund their new $622 million proposal to fight Zika, about one-third of the $1.9 billion that President Obama has requested.

“The legislation funds these efforts in a responsible way, using existing resources –- including excess funding left over from the Ebola outbreak -– to pay for it,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said in a statement.

The White House has threatened to veto the measure, saying it is inadequate and it could only fund efforts to fight Zika through September.

But questions remain about whether using Ebola funds to fight Zika virus is good budgeting or dangerous to public health.

The definition of “unobligated” funds

While some funds previously allocated in the fight against Ebola have yet to be spent, they are aren’t actually “unobligated.”

Outlined in the Ebola proposal for both Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was establishing a “global health security capacity in vulnerable countries” including a 5-year plan to help fight Ebola.

So, while the money hasn’t been spent, it has been promised to prop up health systems in West African countries.

“The cycle we are seeing has been repeated over and over again,” ABC News’ Chief Health and Medical Editor and former Acting CDC Director, Dr. Richard Besser explains. “By taking money away from Ebola activities and disease surveillance in Africa, we all become vulnerable to the next disease outbreak on that continent. Disease surveillance and response capacity isn't something that you can just buy. It involves training and supporting people so that when a crisis hits, they can identify the problem quickly and respond effectively. Without sustainable funding, these essential systems are not built and sustained and we all become vulnerable.”

The status of the threat from Ebola

Although the Public Health Emergency for Ebola was lifted at the end of March 2016, last month West Africa saw 13 new cases.

Andy Sechler, a physician and senior health advisor for Last Mile Health, who’s worked in Liberia for the past six years, said funding like what was promised to the Global Health Security Agenda means fulfilling health goals in Liberia that can have global impact.

“Our goal is to provide a health worker in every village so everyone, everywhere has a health worker,” he said.

At the time of the Ebola outbreak, he said there were between 50-100 doctors serving the entire country of Liberia. But placing trained health care providers in communities and remote villages can provide “a mechanism to detect future outbreaks.”

“If you have one in every village, in every far off area of Liberia, they are able to pick up outbreaks before they snowball,” he said. “Nigeria contacted thousands of people with their community health network to quickly quell the outbreak there, whereas the affected countries didn’t have any ability to do that at that time.”

If the ongoing efforts to stop Ebola were pulled due to a lack in funding, healthcare workers are fearful an Ebola resurgence could be possible.