I downloaded and read part of the full report and scanned some of it. I have no way of identifying any 'bad' biases, and I've heard of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for decades, so I'll assume there are no partisan biases being hidden. And I'm still not impressed with the long list of failures they give. It's too general. I looked at the list of factors they used for their table of good and bad states on preparedness, and it's just not impressing me. Montana and Nebraska rate a 5, for different reasons, but that's what I'd expect of states that are sparsely populated and rural. I have no reason to expect the same disasters that would occur in Florida and Connecticut, which also rate a 5, and again for different reasons. It just doesn't correlate to lump disparate states with different 'failures' to meet TAHF and RWJF expectations.

I tend towards states' rights, and I expect Montanans and Nebraskans to take into account their geography, population, and special interests and to account for themselves as they see fit. I don't, for example, think Nebraskans need to have the same concerns over pandemics as the people in Connecticut, and I see no reason for Montana residents to have the same concerns as Floridians over natural disasters.

This report seems to me to expect each state to have the same level of preparedness for each concern of the authors, and I don't buy that.