Evaluating the Move: What ASPR's Integration into the CDC Means for U.S. Emergency Preparedness

Why ASPR’s Independence Has Mattered

ASPR was elevated to an operating division within HHS in 2022 to reflect its growing scope and importance. It plays a central role in federal coordination for public health emergencies, from pandemics to natural disasters to bioterrorism. ASPR oversees the Strategic National Stockpile, supports the deployment of the National Disaster Medical System, and works through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to develop and secure medical countermeasures.

This elevation was designed to ensure ASPR had both the authority and visibility to direct national preparedness and response efforts with agility and independence. The shift away from that model prompts concern that the unique mission of emergency coordination could be diluted within a broader public health agency not primarily focused on operational response.

The CDC, while a cornerstone of public health surveillance, research, and disease prevention, is structured and staffed around long-term public health goals. Its strengths lie in understanding and tracking disease trends, guiding prevention strategies, and providing scientific expertise. But emergency operations require different tools - rapid logistics, interagency coordination, on-the-ground surge support, and dynamic decision-making under time constraints.

Efficiency vs. Effectiveness in Emergency Response

HHS has framed the realignment as a modernization effort, suggesting that combining ASPR and CDC functions could reduce silos and better connect disease detection with intervention. There is logic in seeking more seamless coordination between early warning systems and response operations. However, true modernization should enhance capability - not just shift organizational charts.

Effective emergency response relies on systems that are designed and resourced to act quickly, mobilize personnel and assets, and adapt to evolving threats in real time. These operational demands do not always align with the governance, oversight, and consensus-based decision-making processes that characterize many large public health agencies.

This is particularly relevant as the CDC continues implementing internal reforms after the COVID-19 pandemic. Its own capacity has been under scrutiny, and absorbing ASPR’s responsibilities may stretch leadership, funding, and workforce resources unless accompanied by significant additional support.

The restructuring also includes a broader reduction of approximately 10,000 full-time positions across HHS. Without transparency on where these reductions will occur, there is justified concern that cuts could weaken surge response systems and readiness infrastructure at the very moment those systems need expansion and reinforcement.

Potential Benefits - With the Right Protections

There are theoretical benefits to closer integration. If designed thoughtfully, the CDC could gain greater access to response assets while improving the pipeline between early threat detection and large-scale emergency mobilization. Shared systems might streamline workflows, reduce administrative overhead, and create a clearer national picture of evolving risks.

However, these benefits are not guaranteed. Realizing them will depend on:

• Maintaining dedicated preparedness funding insulated from shifting agency priorities

• Preserving clear operational command structures during declared emergencies

• Ensuring that essential programs - such as the Strategic National Stockpile, BARDA, and NDMS - retain their independence and flexibility to act quickly

• Continuing strong collaboration with state and local health departments, as well as private sector and NGO partners, who rely on ASPR’s convening authority

Without these protections, there’s a risk the nation could lose momentum in its efforts to improve preparedness following recent crises. Integration cannot come at the cost of agility or coordination capacity.

Moving Forward

This organizational change comes at a time of increasing and overlapping threats to public health and safety. From climate-driven disasters to global pandemics and complex humanitarian emergencies, the United States needs a strong, nimble, and well-coordinated emergency response capability. Any structural transition that affects this mission must be designed with clarity, caution, and full input from stakeholders on the front lines.

Improved coordination within HHS is a worthwhile goal. But consolidation should not be mistaken for effectiveness. A meaningful transition will require a detailed implementation plan, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, robust resource commitments, and mechanisms for accountability.

If implemented with discipline and transparency, this move could improve collaboration between public health surveillance and emergency operations. If rushed or poorly scoped, it may introduce delays, confusion, or fragmentation - especially during high-stakes events when time and clarity matter most.

Ultimately, the test of this restructuring will not be how streamlined it looks on paper, but how it performs during the next crisis. The stakes are high. What happens next will shape the nation’s capacity to respond when it matters most.

Click here to see how Health Response Alliance can support your readiness efforts.