Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) was launched with World Bank assistance in November 2004 to detect and respond to disease outbreaks quickly. It is currently being continued as a part of NHM. According to IDSP website:

• Surveillance units have been established in all states/districts (SSU/DSU). Central Surveillance Unit (CSU) established and integrated in the National Centre for Disease Control, Delhi.
• Training of State/District Surveillance Teams and Rapid Response Teams (RRT) has been completed for all 35 States/UTs.
• IT network connecting 776 sites in States/District HQ and premier institutes has been established with the help of National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) for data entry, training, video conferencing and outbreak discussion.
• Under the project weekly disease surveillance data on epidemic prone disease are being collected from reporting units such as sub centres, primary health centres, community health centres, hospitals including government and private sector hospitals and medical colleges. The data are being collected on ‘S’ syndromic; ‘P’ probable; & ‘L’ laboratory formats using standard case definitions. Presently, more than 90% districts report such weekly data through e-mail/portal (www.idsp.nic.in). The weekly data are analyzed by SSU/DSU for disease trends. Whenever there is rising trend of illnesses, it is investigated by the RRT to diagnose and control the outbreak.
• States/districts have been asked to notify the outbreaks immediately to the system. On an average, 30-40 outbreaks are reported every week by the States. 553 outbreaks were reported and responded to by states in 2008, 799 outbreaks in 2009, 990 in 2010, 1675 outbreaks in 2011, 1584 outbreaks in 2012, 1964 outbreaks in 2013, 1562 outbreaks in 2014 and 311 outbreaks have been reported till 15th March 2015.
• Media scanning and verification cell was established under IDSP in July 2008. It detects and shares media alerts with the concerned states/districts for verification and response. A total of 3063 media alerts were reported from July 2008 to November 2014 and 122 till 31st March 2015. Majority of alerts were related to diarrhoeal diseases, food poisoning and vector borne diseases.
• A 24X7 call center was established in February 2008 to receive disease alerts on a Toll Free telephone number (1075). The information received is provided to the States/Districts surveillance Units for investigation and response. The call centre was extensively used during H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009 and dengue outbreak in Delhi in 2010. 2,77,395 lakhs calls have been received from beginning till 30th June, 2012, out of which 35,866 calls were related to Influenza A H1N1. From November 2012, a total of 50,811 calls received till November 2013 out of which 1499 calls were related to H1N1.
• District laboratories are being strengthened for diagnosis of epidemic prone diseases. These labs are also being supported by a contractual microbiologist to mange the lab and an annual grant of Rs 2 lakh per annum per lab for reagents and consumables. Till date 29 States (65 labs) have completed the procurement. In addition, a network of 12 laboratories has been developed for Influenza surveillance in the country.
• In 9 States, a referral lab network has been established by utilizing the existing 65 functional labs in the medical colleges and various other major centers in the States and linking them with adjoining districts for providing diagnostic services for epidemic prone diseases during outbreaks. Based on the experience gained, the plan will be implemented in the remaining 26 States/UTs. A total of 23 identified medical college labs in Bihar, Assam, Odisha, Tripura, Kerala, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur has been added to the network during 2012-13 to provide support in adjoining districts.
• Considering the non-availability of health professionals in the field of Epidemiology, microbiology and Entomology at district and state levels, MOHFW approved the recruitment of trained professionals under NHM in order to strengthen the disease surveillance and response system by placing one Epidemiologist each at state/district head quarters, one Microbiologist and Entomologist each at the state head quarters. The post of a Veterinary Consultant at State Surveillance Unit has been approved by the MOHFW recognizing the Mission Statement of One Health Initiative. 408 Epidemiologists, 181 Microbiologists, 25 Entomologists and 3 Veterinary Consultants are in position as on 31st March 2015

Complex question, but with very heterogeneous answer according the country. In Colombia for example, surveillance is restricted to certain communicable diseases and some other non-communicable diseases. But there are many tropical and ID conditions highly important, non included. In Venezuela, for instance, data from surveillance is not public since 2014, as the goverment hide epidemiological information, particularly about dengue and chikungunya. Then, this is critical to understand the health situation in these countries, but for many conditions other sources are used in order to estimate the morbidity of such diseases.

Finally, please if you consider this answer appropriate, please upvote it using the green up arrow click. Thanks.

The status of public health interventions, depends on 

• Burden of disease
• Evidence on causal pathways
• Roll of Risk factors
• Availability and affordability of effective interventions

http://icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2010/november/1123.pdf

In Argentina, at a federal government level, important advances have been made on public health’s surveillance, at least over the last ten years.

For instance, the “Sistema Nacional de Vigilancia de la Salud” (SNVS) (Public Health Surveillance National System) is a network that allows timely reporting and communication between the various actors (agents or parts) involved in the surveillance, prevention and control of disease’s risks and threats.

As described at http://www.msal.gov.ar/index.php/home/funciones/area-de-vigilancia, the SNVS integrates clinical monitoring strategies for laboratories, monitoring units and specific programs through a platform mounted on the internet.

All this structure allows real-time reporting at various administrative levels of the country (municipal, provincial, national) over different health events under surveillance. Then, the systematic analysis of the available information serve as a guide for public health actions in each of the levels involved.

The SNVS is designed in a modular fashion (or in modules) to allow independent development of the units and to supporting each other in their different strategies of surveillance.

Some of the main federal public health surveillance strategies are: ("C2") Clinical surveillance: http://www.msal.gov.ar/index.php/home/funciones/area-de-vigilancia/226-vigilancia-clinica-c2, Vigilancia por Laboratorios (SIVILA) (Laboratories surveillance): http://www.msal.gov.ar/index.php/home/funciones/area-de-vigilancia/225-sivila  and  Vigilancia Centinela (UC).

As well as other different federal health programs include their surveillance and monitoring systems, for instance, TBC: http://www.msal.gov.ar/dinacei/index.php/ciudadanos/vacunas-del-calendario/344-tuberculosis, Immunizations: http://www.msal.gov.ar/index.php/programas-y-planes/51-programa-nacional-de-control-de-enfermedades-inmunoprevenibles, etc.

Further information at http://www.msal.gov.ar/index.php/home/funciones/area-de-vigilancia and http://www.saludinvestiga.org.ar/rasp-msal.asp

Hope this helps!

The core capacity requirements (e.g., surveillance, response, reporting) are often a local or intermediate government responsibility. WHO has developed a toolkit to help national authorities establish a legislative and regulatory framework for the IHR functions, including examples of national legislation and regulations already adopted by some Member States. Nevertheless, no matter how comprehensive, the guidance guarantees neither political will nor adequate legal resources to overhaul a national legal framework for public health. Different countries are using different mechanisms, including new legislation or regulations, memoranda of understanding between levels of government, and various other legal tools to ensure compliance, often on top of a contradictory patchwork of pre‐existing public health laws.    

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/The_International_Health_Regulations_White_Paper_Final.pdf

"Global public health surveillance is critical for the identification and prevention of emerging and re-emerging diseases, both for infectious and non-communicable diseases that account for the greatest burden of diseases, even in very poor countries. It should provide health information in a timely manner so that countries have the information that they need to fight epidemics now or to plan for the future." 

Regarding my country Serbia, the health centers provide public health surveillance.The Institute of Public Health of Serbia is main institution for PHS!

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6103a4.htm?s_cid=su6103a4_x

http://www.ianphi.org/membercountries/memberinformation/serbia.html

Invaluable inputs from the RG community. 

In my opinion, a pertinent issue in the public health service is the lack of basic infrastructure and medical/paramedical staff at 'grassroot' levels. Take the following example/data:

1. As on 31 march 2014, there were 25020 PHCs across India. Being the first point of medical care, each PHC is expected to service a population of around 28000 (taking the rural population at 700 million and completely ignoring the semi-urban population and Panchayat Unions affiliated to municipalities and city corporations, who also depend on PHCs). A PHC is supposed to have 01 doctor, 14 paramedical staff and 4-6 beds. There are 4833 Community Health Centers (CHC) which are to have 04 doctors and commensurate staff. The total number of doctors required therefore works out to 44352. (based on data from Government website: https://nrhm-mis.nic.in/RURAL%20HEALTH%20STATISTICS/%28A%29%20RHS%20-%202014/Rural%20Health%20Care%20System%20in%20India.pdf)

2. There are 34842 doctors (as on 2012) in PHC and CHC put together. This amounts to a 21.4% shortfall. As per government statistics the deficit in support man power is between 40 - 60% across various categories.(Source:  http://mohfw.nic.in/WriteReadData/l892s/492794502RHS%202012.pdf)

Both the above inputs lead to the following inferences:

1. Public health care delivery in India is affected by lack of medical/paramedical personnel.

2. The collection of data is also affected due to the same deficiencies in healthcare workers and doctors who can judge the pattern.

On the off-side, India has 381 medical colleges producing approx 50000 doctors per year. Nearly 17000 of products of private medical colleges and they generally pay at least 15 - 60 lacs (1 lac=100000 INR) as 'donation' to secure a seat. It takes another 20-50 lacs to complete the course. Having spent such substantial sums, they would obviously enter private medical practice earn their millions back. The doctors passing out of government institutions (who have spent substantially lower amounts) find that their colleagues from private institutions make good money and therefore enter the fray in order not to be considered meek and substandard by others. In addition to government service that they may enter, they also run private clinics or work as 'consultants'. Rural poor and collection of data, thus, can wait.

My apologies for saying so that collection of data and categorization is important. But it is more important to critically look at the ability of the system to deliver even basic services.

Have a great day.

The (WHO) defines public health surveillance as the “continuous, systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health-related data needed for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public health practice”.

Well, I have lived, for several years, in a number of developing countries & I have never witnessed consistent activities in accordance with the aforementioned definition. There are scattered short-term random actions because proper proceedings require financing from "generous" donors (and it is rare to find them) since the available money in a typical 3rd world country is allocated first & foremost to the security of the emperor's regime. Health & education have lower ranks in the list of priorities in such countries.

The potential usefulness of surveillance as a public health tool to address problems beyond infectious disease was emphasized in 1968 when the 21st World Health Assembly recommended the application of surveillance principles to a wider scope of problems, including cancer, atherosclerosis, and social problems such as drug addiction (WHO 1968). Many of the principles of surveillance traditionally applied to acute infectious diseases have also been applied to chronic diseases and conditions, although some differences in surveillance techniques have been observed

https://medtextfree.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/6-16-public-health-surveillance/

 i appreciate Ankur Sharma for the detailed discussion on IDSP in India . I agree with him that diagnostic tests & adequate man power  should be available in all rural & urban centers .  With these data , it should be possible to get the Incidence & Prevalence rates of the common Infectious & Non Communicable diseases from various states in the country & evolve guidelines for diagnosis & management of common diseases . Srinivasan Rajamanickam has also highlighted the problem of Infrastructure in health care .