First introduced in the House by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), PAHPA had broad implications for the United States Department of Health and Human Services's (HHS) preparedness and response activities.

[3] In January 2018, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held two separate hearings on the reauthorization of the PAHPA law.

The conclusion from many witnesses who testified before the hearings is that "decreased and episodic funding from the United States government has stakeholders questioning the true commitment federal lawmakers have for sustaining the nation's preparedness and response capabilities during a catastrophic event linked to infectious diseases, natural disasters or chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agents.

Private sector witnesses expressed concerns about the decreased or lack of federal funding for preparedness and response, saying that it's gotten to the point where the U.S. government's reputation is at stake with companies and public health and medical professionals.

[2] "Unfortunately, over the last several years, the private sector has become more skeptical of the government's commitment to biodefense," testified Brent MacGregor of Seqirus, a global influenza vaccine developer and manufacturer.

"[10] The chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), said, "I look forward to a timely, bipartisan reauthorization of this crucial legislation to ensure we are prepared to respond to natural disasters like hurricanes, and protect Americans against bioterror attacks and infectious disease outbreaks, like the Zika virus or a pandemic influenza.

"[6] The purpose of reauthorizing PAHPA is to protect public health from threats coming from exposure to infectious diseases, natural disasters or chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agents.