Displaying 361-380 of 2310 results for

Exercise Excellence: Michigan Reflects on a National Level Exercise Exercise Excellence: Michigan Reflects on a National Level Exercise Adrianna Evans Learn how Michigan's health department collaborated with state and federal partners for a radiation preparedness exercise. In March 2025, the Department of Energy hosted a national level exercise designed to promote radiation readiness. This exercise, called Cobalt Magnet 25, brought together a wide variety of interdisciplinary partners from federal, state, local, and international governments, among other partners. Michigan hosted the exercise. ASTHO’s Director of Preparedness, Adrianna (Annie) Evans, sat down with representatives from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) to learn about their experiences with Cobalt Magnet 25, how they’ve applied lessons learned one year later, and how those lessons might be applied to different threats. This blog post will be the first in a series “Exercise Excellence” that shares insights and perspectives from emergency preparedness exercises. This first blog post will share insights from Michigan on Cobalt Magnet 25 overall preparation, planning, collaboration, and more. Tell us about your experience with Cobalt Magnet 25. Jason Smith, Emergency Management Coordinator: While Michigan State Police, our state’s emergency management agency, took a key role with the U.S. Department of Energy on lead exercise planning, MDHHS served as lead exercise planner, player, and co-chaired a public health and environment working group alongside partners from Ontario and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. MDHHS leveraged this opportunity to initiate internal play and engage local public health and health care partners across the region. This included representation from two health care coalitions, five local health departments, and four major health care systems — many of which were outside the directly affected communities for this scenario. MDHHS activated our emergency coordination center. Overall, the Cobalt Magnet 25 Full Scale Exercise featured over a thousand injects emphasizing field sampling, decontamination, and reception centers. Our participation spanned preparedness, laboratory, environmental health, behavior health, disability health, and communications, including our public information officers. This experience strengthened cross-jurisdictional coordination and enhanced MDHHS's operational readiness for radiological incidents. Terra Riddle, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Response: From my perspective, Cobalt Magnet 25 was impressive. Each player jurisdiction had the opportunity to make the exercise meaningful. It was really great to see all the partners come together and how each jurisdiction worked through these scenarios. It was unique in the communications world due to the depth, richness, and realness of the exercise play. Jay Fiedler, Director, Bureau of Emergency Preparedness, EMS, and Systems of Care: I participated when the larger group convened as part of the planning process. I hadn't seen something like this before in an exercise of this caliber. One of those activities was a briefing held for departmental leadership of state and federal agencies leading into the full exercise. I also served in the response coordinator role in our Community Health Emergency Coordination Center during the exercise itself. What was the preparation and planning process like for this exercise? Fiedler: This was roughly a yearlong planning process facilitated by a federal contractor, but it required extensive engagement with our state and federal partners. Jason worked in regular planning meetings and activities throughout that year. Some ways that the players were pulled together in meetings leading up to the exercise were really valuable for creating partnerships. Our partners from Ontario joined us. We don’t always get to work with them. That helped facilitate enthusiasm for the exercise itself and enhanced coordination between all the players involved. Smith: In addition to the exercise planning itself, the beauty of Michigan hosting Cobalt Magnet 25 was the opportunity to capitalize on existing trainings, whether it be through Counter Terrorism Operations Support, general radiological emergency preparedness training, and programs through CDC — primarily their public health decision-making course for radiological emergencies. There was a lot of training going on behind the scenes to build up awareness and capacity over the year. I thought the education opportunities made the exercise itself a success. Riddle: I'm glad you mentioned that, Jason, because it brought up another thought about the in-depth training led by the federal partners in the communications world. They invited our partners at the state and local levels to participate in radiological and communications training that was pretty niche. Our partners appreciated that this training prepared them for the exercise and it has spurred lot of conversation since about where we go next. This type of scenario requires a lot of collaboration with government agencies across levels of government, different fields, and even other countries. How did you manage that collaboration and what lessons did you learn? Riddle: The big takeaway is that trust built before a crisis sustains coordination during a crisis. This exercise required management across local, state, federal, and international partners with clear roles, consistent communication channels, and shared objectives early on. Fiedler: The pre-meetings were a unique aspect of this exercise and the connections built were really valuable. I hadn't seen that until an exercise of this scope and scale, but will be helpful going forward as we think about how we work and plan exercises as a whole. Smith: One lesson learned was that there is a bigger appetite for training, both in our department and local partners. Michigan has three nuclear power plants. That prevailing threat does build some desire for general awareness throughout the state, particularly among our 45 health departments. We also realized we need to work a little bit more collaboratively with our environmental partners, our agricultural partners, and have a more unified response effort. Riddle: If I can add, there's always an appetite for training and for support for our local partners, but Cobalt Magnet 25 brought visibility into different types of training. Jason explored radiological training. We explored communications training. Now I wonder all the time if there is a partner that could offer new trainings that we haven’t done before. What’s next for MI? Does MI have any other upcoming exercises — radiological/nuclear or otherwise — that you’re looking forward to? Smith: We’re focusing on a comprehensive overhaul of our response plans — not only our radiological nuclear hazards, but also for other functional and hazard specific annexes. In February 2026, we worked with our emergency management agency, local health departments, and health care coalition partners on a severe weather functional exercise. We also have a few workshops and tabletops scheduled for spring 2026 on volunteer management and vector-borne diseases. Additionally, we're prioritizing One Health coordination and formal agreements with agriculture and environmental agencies to strengthen collaboration across the quality-of-life sector. Lastly, we have a climate change tabletop exercise planned in partnership with environmental health teams within MDHHS. These initiatives reflect our commitment to building resilience across multiple hazards while continuing to advance radiological preparedness. Riddle: The depth of relationships continue to be a leading priority. Regardless of the emergency, our teams working together will be our strength. We're all interconnected and that plays into different activities. For example, our patient movement work, which inherently has many partners and requires close coordination like we saw with Cobalt Magnet 25. Exercise Excellence - Radiation Resources article yes

State Policy Trends in Cybersecurity and Public Health Preparedness Maggie Nilz Learn how states are including cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness work in this Health Policy Update. Cybersecurity is an increasingly important component of public health preparedness as state cybersecurity policy intersects with public health agency responsibilities. Public health agencies rely on interconnected digital systems and critical infrastructure for disease surveillance, laboratory reporting, emergency communications, and health data management, making cybersecurity critical to maintaining these functions. Beyond compromising sensitive data and potentially harming patients, cyber incidents can disrupt essential public health services, including emergency response operations. Health care data breaches have steadily increased over the last 15 years, highlighting growing risks for government and health systems. A recent report showed that more than 7,000 health care data breaches were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services since 2009, and reported HIPAA data breaches in 2023 were nearly double the number recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, preparedness capacity has lagged: as of 2022, only 13% of local health departments reported being prepared for cyber-related disruptions, and recent scans show cybersecurity is rarely included in emergency preparedness planning. In response at the federal level, HHS recently announced it is undoing a 2024 reorganization by returning department-wide technology responsibilities to the Office of the Chief Information Officer while refocusing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on improving nationwide health IT interoperability and data sharing. In recent years, state and territorial legislatures have begun to address these gaps by incorporating cybersecurity into preparedness, health care oversight, and statewide governance structures. These legislative trends signal a need to integrate cybersecurity into emergency operations plans, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and safeguard the continuity of public health services. Some of the most recent policies considered and enacted by legislatures treat cyber incidents as emergencies, expand reporting requirements, and strengthen cyber governance. Cyber Incidents Are Being Built into Emergency Preparedness Frameworks In response to these growing threats, jurisdictions have begun incorporating cyber response into emergency plans and strategies, reinforcing cybersecurity as essential to preparedness. These developments highlight growing awareness that cyber incidents can disrupt critical services, much like natural disasters. In 2025, New York enacted S 7672, which requires municipal entities and public authorities report cybersecurity incidents and demands for ransom to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. In addition, it directs the Director of the Office of Information Services to establish cybersecurity training and protection standards for state systems as well as require cybersecurity training for state and local government employees. Virginia is currently considering HB 83, which would establish a volunteer Cyber Civilian Corps within the state IT agency to provide rapid assistance during cybersecurity incidents affecting municipalities, nonprofits, education, and critical infrastructure. Preparedness efforts also extend beyond legislation to executive action. In February 2026, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz authorized $1.2 million in state disaster assistance to support response efforts and restore critical systems in response to a cyber incident that disrupted digital services in Saint Paul on July 29, 2025. Additionally, the National Governors Association has included cybersecurity as a primary consideration for planning and preparedness in their latest edition of the Public Health Emergency Playbook. Health care and Public Health Critical Sectors Are Facing New Cyber Requirements Beyond emergency response frameworks, jurisdictions are also adopting cybersecurity reporting and planning requirements for health care and public health organizations. Companion bills in Tennessee (HB 511/SB 555) would require health care providers and facilities to notify their contracted health insurers of cybersecurity incidents. In Maine, LD 2103 would require hospitals to adopt cybersecurity plans to protect patient data and maintain operations, and must include cybersecurity training for employees and board members. New Jersey is looking to adopt and implement a more comprehensive cybersecurity plan across all sectors. This session, legislators have introduced at least two cyber security bills: A 3231 would require “sensitive businesses” (defined as those engaged in financial, essential infrastructure, or health care industries) to report cybersecurity incidents to the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) when they are aware of their occurrence and would require NJCCIC to conduct a cybersecurity audit within 30 days of notification. A 3283 would require the same “sensitive businesses” to implement cybersecurity programs in accordance with standards adopted by NJCCIC and certify compliance annually. As states expand reporting and cybersecurity requirements, these obligations may intersect with public health reporting and continuity planning. States Are Strengthening Government Cyber Governance and Coordination In addition to sector-specific requirements, jurisdictions are also strengthening the governance structures responsible for coordinating cybersecurity, improving their ability to respond to large-scale incidents affecting public systems. Legislation enacted recently in Texas and California aim to improve coordination among state government by establishing a state agency centralizing cybersecurity incident prevention and response (Texas HB 150) and mandating the development of a cybersecurity playbook to strengthen information sharing (California AB 979). A 2024 bill enacted in Puerto Rico (PC 1530) requires commonwealth agencies to develop and implement a cybersecurity program, which must include a yearly risk assessment as well as vulnerability assessment. At least three jurisdictions are currently considering bills strengthening established cybersecurity programs, with two states recently passing legislation. Utah recently enacted a bill authorizing the Utah Cyber Center to conduct voluntary cybersecurity risk assessments for critical infrastructure and coordinate with government entities on infrastructure safety (HB 165). Utah also enacted legislation creating a specific funding stream for the Center to use for various activities, including implementing a statewide cybersecurity plan and conducting assessments for governmental entities (SB 123). Kansas enacted HB 2574, which would require chief information security officers for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to adopt cybersecurity programs based on a nationally recognized standard for governmental entities. Finally, Florida recently passed SB 7024, which would expand the state’s public record exemption to include risk assessments, information related to cybersecurity breaches, and information related to data protection, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive cybersecurity information held by state agencies; the bill is with the governor for final consideration. Key Takeaways for Preparedness Leaders Cybersecurity is critical for preparedness across multiple policy areas, and requires new planning, coordination, and oversight responsibilities. By including cyber incidents into disaster frameworks, standards for health care organizations, and governance, preparedness leaders may find themselves more directly engaged in integrating cybersecurity into emergency operations, exercises, and cross-sector partnerships. For state and territorial health agencies beginning to incorporate cybersecurity into their preparedness plans, agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provide jurisdictional support and resources to guide this work. article yes

Learn about the importance of immunization information systems to public health in this Health Policy Update.

Learn about Pima County's journey to advance data modernization efforts through an elevated partnership with County IT.

Learn how Michigan has applied lessons learned a year later from a radiological exercise in this blog post.

Recent HHS Leadership Changes That Impact Public Health Recent HHS Leadership Changes Impacting Public Health Catherine Murphy Get a rundown of recent HHS leadership changes that impact public health, including to CDC director, ACIP, and the U.S. Surgeon General. Over the last 16 months, the Trump Administration has championed the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda within HHS — with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., leading the department. He was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on Feb. 13, 2025, and has since worked to implement sweeping changes in the department and MAHA priorities (e.g., addressing chronic disease and childhood allergies, removing specific food dyes, and increasing transparency within the agency). Significant changes within HHS over this period include the termination of 10,000+ employees via Reductions in Force and more departures via voluntary separation incentives. This has left many agencies and offices to adjust and impacted how state and territorial health departments collaborate with partners at HHS agencies like CDC. Alongside these major ongoing changes (and more proposed) to the department are the appointments and alterations to HHS leadership by President Trump. CDC Director CDC has seen a handful of changes during the first year of the Trump Administration. Its director leads the agency and directs public health priorities like disease prevention, outbreak control, and health threat defense. In July 2025, Susan Monarez was confirmed as CDC director but removed a month later due to disagreements with the Administration over vaccine policy. Soon after, she appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee to testify about events around her termination. The lack of CDC leadership was a source of concern for the public health community, as leaders cited the importance of evidence-based decision-making from the agency and sound leadership to respond to ongoing health threats and emergencies. Following the departure of Monarez, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of HHS, was appointed acting director of CDC. In February 2026, however, he was removed from the role amid his departure from HHS to be nominated as the director of the National Science Foundation. Meanwhile, department restructuring elevated Chris Klomp to chief counselor, in charge of all HHS operations. While HHS searches for a new CDC director, Jay Bhattacharya, director of NIH, is performing delegable duties. Federal law dictates that Senate-confirmed positions, including CDC director, have acting replacements for a maximum of 210 days — a deadline that passed on March 25. The agency says that they are actively looking for a replacement. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a group of up to 19 voting members — independent medical and public health experts — who make recommendations on vaccines, which become CDC policy once adopted by its director. Recommendations bear on immunization schedules, the Vaccines for Children program, and clinical decision-making, and have downstream effects on whether insurance providers cover vaccines and the context in which they can be administered (i.e., pharmacy vs. office visit). ACIP has also seen considerable change under this Administration: In June 2025, HHS removed all 17, Biden-appointed members of ACIP. In a press release, the department noted the goal to “reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.” This move garnered bipartisan response from Congressional leaders, especially those on the Senate HELP Committee, who specifically questioned Secretary Kennedy on his potential revisions to CDC’s vaccine recommendations during his confirmation hearing. In January 2026, HHS announced an overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule outside of the ACIP recommendation process. The announcement included changes to recommendations for hepatitis A, rotavirus, influenza vaccines, and more. In March 2026, a federal judge placed a stay on all of Secretary Kennedy’s appointments to ACIP, the panel's recommendations, and the 2026 schedule change. Surgeon General Finally, the U.S. Surgeon General role, which advises the public on health and leads the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, has been marked by ongoing shifts. In May 2025, after withdrawing his nomination for Janet Nesheiwat, President Trump announced Casey Means, MD, as his new nominee for the position. Means is a doctor and wellness influencer who advocates for MAHA priorities, including finding ways to reduce rates of chronic disease. Several members of the Senate HELP Committee have stalled her confirmation, citing concerns around Means’ statements on vaccine safety. Means appeared before the committee in February 2026. Public Health Impacts The flux within HHS — a side effect of the administration’s desired changes within the department — has had ongoing impacts on the process for issuing public health guidance, approving and altering vaccine recommendations, and more. Congress remains interested in understanding the impact of reforms occurring within HHS, including in hearings centered around agencies and nominees. ASTHO will continue to track changes within HHS as well as responses from legislators, and work to be a resource to Congress on best practices for public health. article yes

2026 Blog Posts article

Public Health Approaches to Preventing Suicide and Promoting Mental Well-Being Public Health Approaches to Preventing Suicide Caitlin Langhorne Griffith, Arnelle Toffey Learn how to execute public health approaches to preventing suicide, which requires understanding the dynamics of policymaking and implementation. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, suicide remains a leading cause of death and disability among Americans of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and socioeconomic statuses. While suicide affects populations at all levels, it continues to be the second leading cause of death in individuals under 44 and disproportionately impacts veterans, individuals with lower income and educational attainment, and residents in rural areas, among other groups. Approximately 6% of the U.S. population has a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) (e.g., bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia), and a 2022 study found that almost 10% of people who die by suicide had a known SMI. In addition, individuals with or without SMI can experience suicidal ideation or attempts. Factors such as adverse childhood experiences, limited access to health care, and economic instability can contribute to suicide risk. Public health approaches that expand treatment access and address the drivers of suicide risk can help foster mental well-being in communities and reduce the risk of individuals dying by suicide, including those with SMI. However, executing these approaches requires understanding the dynamics of evidence-based strategies in policymaking and implementation. Population-Based Approaches Expanding access to mental health care is critical for reducing risk and managing symptoms of mental illness, as only 50% of young adults (18 to 25 years old) and 53% of adults (26 to 49 years old) with any mental illness received treatment in 2024. However, barriers to mental health care — such as availability of providers, access to telehealth, cost, and other systemic factors — can prevent individuals from receiving treatment, especially during serious declines in mental health. Population-based approaches can fill this gap by focusing on non-clinical interventions and activities that address chronic stressors and other factors contributing to mental health declines, improving mental health outcomes. Examples of these policies include: Addressing structural determinants of suicide risk (e.g., economic security). Promoting access to clinical services (e.g., Medicaid expansion and state mental health parity laws). Limiting access to lethal means for suicide (e.g., child access prevention laws and access to high-risk medications). 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline State health agencies can also consider approaches that provide and enhance direct crisis support. The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is a nationwide hotline that provides emotional support to individuals experiencing suicide, mental health, or substance use crises. Since its launch in July 2022, call volumes have steadily risen in all states, and the Lifeline has been shown to improve callers' mental well-being as well as reduce suicide risk. Implementation of the 988 Lifeline occurs at both the state and local levels, resulting in variations in funding and infrastructure across communities. In the most recent legislative session, jurisdictions enacted legislation to fund and sustain 988, ensuring consistency in quality and access across all communities. For example, North Dakota SB 2200 allocates funding for 988 operations from a community health trust fund, while Texas HB 5342 established a trust fund outside of the state treasury to support the 988 Lifeline. States also enacted legislation either consolidating (Colorado SB 236) or ensuring interoperability with 988 and 911 emergency lines (Nebraska LB 362), streamlining services and accessibility for those in need of mental health support. In addition, 12 states have adopted a 988 telecom fee — similar to fees that support 911 infrastructure in every state — to create a sustainable financing source for 988. Adolescent Mental Health Support at School Schools are a critical setting to support adolescent mental health, particularly for children with serious emotional disturbances who are at elevated risk of suicide. Several states have mandated suicide prevention training requirements for school personnel as part of ongoing professional certification requirements. Federal funding — such as the Suicide Training and Awareness Nationally Delivered for Universal Prevention Act, which focuses on evidence-based programs for students — can help states and tribes establish/expand training for school staff and equip them with the education to recognize warning signs and connect students to resources, alongside student-directed programs that increase mental health literacy and foster peer support. In the 2025 legislative session, at least three states enacted legislation focused on preventing youth student suicide. Kentucky (HB 48) and Montana (SB 369) mandate training for school staff on suicide awareness and prevention, while Virginia HB 2055 requires school staff to provide materials to parents on suicide prevention (including the safe storage of firearms) if they believe a student is at imminent risk. At least three additional states enacted legislation that requires student identification cards to include mental health information and suicide crisis resources, including the 988 Lifeline (Colorado SB 326, Illinois HB 3000, New Jersey A 4897). Georgia HB 268 requires public schools to provide at least one hour of suicide awareness prevention and training to students in grades 6-12. Conversely, an Idaho bill (SB 1199) that would amend a 2024 law to allow minors to access medical treatment when calling the 988 Lifeline without parental consent passed the Senate but did not advance in the House. Jurisdictions have also incorporated policies that provide additional safeguards for adolescents and their use of the internet: Utah recently enacted SB 98, which requires the state Board of Education to create a video presentation for parents outlining the safety and legal issues students may encounter while using technology. Maryland's SB 310 expands the state's Youth Suicide Prevention School Program to include instruction to students on the relationship between gambling and youth suicide. At the federal level, Congress is considering the Kids Online Safety Act, which requires platforms, applications, and streaming services that connect to the internet to exercise care in creating and implementing design features to prevent and mitigate harm to minors. Looking Forward It is important to understand suicide prevention approaches nationwide, including how jurisdictions formalize and strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure as well as promote healthier environments. Strategies for policymakers include the following: Analyzing and comparing suicide prevention infrastructure laws nationwide to identify gaps and guide jurisdictional changes. Building protective environments that address upstream social and structural risk factors (e.g., access to clinical services and food insecurity), while advancing policies that reduce access to lethal means. Strengthening school-based prevention efforts by leveraging available funding to expand evidence-based programs, train school staff, establish student-directed programs, and connect students to needed resources. Promoting safer online spaces for youth with policies that limit harmful design features, strengthen parent engagement, and increase online platform transparency. Continuing investments in crisis services to expand and sustain programs like the 988 Lifeline. Prioritizing economic support policies to strengthen families and reduce ACEs, supporting healthier development and well-being. Leveraging these legal and policy frameworks can reduce suicide risk, support mental well-being, and build a stronger public health system for all. article yes

San Diego Academic Health Partnership Strengthens Service During COVID-19 and Beyond San Diego Academic Health Partnership Strengthens Service Mayela Arana Learn how the Academic Health and Human Services Department in San Diego strengthens service, research, workforce development, and more in the region. In San Diego County, the connection between academia and public service continues to grow stronger, shaping the future of health and human services. With over 8,200 employees serving a diverse population of 3.3 million residents, the County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency (HHSA) plays a crucial role in advancing health, housing, and social services across the region. Recognizing the immense value of bridging education with real-world public service, HHSA and San Diego State University (SDSU) formed an Academic Health and Human Services Department (AHHSD): the Live Well Center for Innovation & Leadership (LWCIL), a first-of-its-kind initiative in San Diego County. This partnership is more than just a collaboration; it’s a transformative effort to strengthen education, research, workforce development, and service in the region, inspired by collaborative successes during COVID-19. A Vision Years in the Making Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders at HHSA, SDSU, and SDSU’s College of Health and Human Services (CHHS) recognized the opportunity to deepen their relationship through an Academic Health Department (AHD) partnership. Many of those contributing to HHSA’s success began their journey at SDSU, with over half of the agency’s leadership team and a significant portion of its workforce having graduated from SDSU, particularly from CHHS. With a long history of partnering to provide real-world experiences for students, collaborating on research, and developing practice-informed curriculum, formalizing the partnership to integrate academia and health and human services practice was a natural next step. An Academic-Public Health Partnership in Action HHSA and SDSU’s longstanding relationship initially focused on student field experiences, research collaboration, and workforce development across select schools and decentralized departments but went on to have a major impact on the ground — most notably, enhancing HHSA’s COVID-19 response. Mobilizing Promotoras for Outreach and Support SDSU and HHSA worked together on recruitment, training, and community outreach. They successfully recruited 40 community health workers for a Promotoras program, which initially helped with contact tracing within the highest-risk communities. The Promotoras also identified where people needed assistance (e.g., food, services). SDSU provided support by organizing food pantries in high-risk areas, while the Promotoras took food to those in need. As vaccines became available, HHSA trained the Promotoras on messaging and communications to dispel misinformation and to encourage vaccine uptake. The Promotoras also helped those in the highest-risk communities get appointments at the county vaccination sites. Expanding Public Health Capacity with Nursing Students In addition, SDSU and HHSA worked together to train and deploy nursing faculty, students, and recent graduates in county vaccination efforts. From January through March of 2021, the SDSU School of Nursing partnered with Champions for Health, the local nonprofit arm of the San Diego Medical Society, to train 200 vaccinators. Once trained on the proper storage and administration of the COVID-19 vaccine, faculty-led groups of undergraduate nursing students administered vaccines at community sites in primarily underserved areas of the county — many organized by the San Diego Black Nurses Association. In addition to providing surge capacity staffing to support community and public health efforts, the partnership allowed students to complete clinical hours required for graduation during the pandemic when students were restricted from other clinical sites. Many of the students and graduates who served as temporary contact tracers and case investigators transitioned into full-time positions within HHSA as the COVID-19 response scaled back. Formalizing Collaboration for Lasting Impact Given the tangible value of their collaboration demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, HHSA and SDSU chose to use and adapt the national AHD model — gaining access to the growing, nationwide network of AHD partnerships that inform their goal of sustaining a high-impact academic-practice partnership. They formalized the partnership with a public signing of an overarching five-year memorandum of agreement (MOA) in October 2022 that launched the bold vision of creating San Diego County’s first and only AHHSD. They assigned an additional MOA specifically addressing joint research and data sharing in December 2024, and an addendum supporting agency-wide student field experiences is underway. With formal agreements across all key areas, the foundation will be in place for increased and accelerated collaboration by summer 2025. Building on the regional collective impact vision called Live Well San Diego, the AHD partnership adopted joint branding as LWCIL. An active Steering Committee, co-chaired by HHSA’s Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and CHHS’s Dean, meets quarterly and represents the highest-level leadership for each organization. Members include key leaders in HHSA operations, human resources, and strategy, and the directors from each of its eight service departments. On the academic side at SDSU, the Steering Committee includes representatives from the six schools and multiple institutes within CHHS. Setting Partnership Priorities LWCIL co-created and recently adopted a joint, multi-year Strategic Roadmap to guide the next three years of the partnership’s development and its contribution to a healthy, equitable, safe, and thriving San Diego region. It is organized around four high-impact priority areas: People Success: Build a diverse, competent, and engaged health and human services workforce​, including students and both partners’ workforces.​​ Research & Data Excellence: Inform and improve academia, policy, and practice with rigorous and relevant research. Service to Community: Integrate academia, practice, and community to advance equity and eliminate health disparities. Leadership & Sustainability: Create a nationally recognized academic-practice model with innovative leadership committed to improving academia, policy, and practice. Subcommittees for each priority area, co-chaired by leaders from both organizations, have launched and created action plans tied to advancing the Strategic Roadmap. In addition, emerging workgroups are aligning ​work plans​. Next steps include: Assessing what is already in place and integrating it into the partnership. Developing a standardized and streamlined process for students to complete internships at HHSA. Leveraging opportunities to bridge research and practice and, where appropriate, in collaboration with the community. Investing in capacity has been essential in moving the partnership forward and providing coordination. The director of LWCIL is a “boundary spanning” position, co-funded by SDSU and HHSA. Additional staff support has assisted the partnership, including two HHSA Management Fellows engaged in a year-long program. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships HHSA and SDSU offer the following tips to agencies looking to develop or expand AHD partnerships, based on their experiences: Secure leadership commitment: Ensure the highest-level leaders are committed to the partnership’s success and sustainability. LWCIL started with the support of the dean, deputy chief administrative officer, and directors within both organizations who continue to be actively involved as members of the Steering Committee and subcommittees. By doing so, they have helped set priorities, identified staff to participate, and continuously champion the partnership within their respective organizations. Start small: Build from what already exists between the partners, leverage willing internal resources, and celebrate early successes. LWCIL started with conversations focused on workforce development because of existing relationships and shared interests. Those conversations eventually evolved to include collaborating on rigorous equity-focused research and partnering to address needs identified by the community, such as housing stability for our older adult population and food insecurity. The subcommittee structure was created to support those shared priorities; however, it began with smaller, more narrowly focused conversations. Be strategic: Create a common agenda/plan that aligns with the goals of both organizations, making it easier for already-stretched organizations to commit to and benefit from the partnership. LWCIL's co-creation of a multi-year Strategic Roadmap allowed the partners to discuss the many opportunities for collaboration and integration, and to prioritize. It now guides where the partnership is going and helps keep everyone focused on what they collectively decided is important. Then, grow: By getting systems in place and understanding the benefits and challenges between two organizations (HHSA and SDSU), LWCIL is setting the stage for expansion to include other local universities. Take time to plan and set up structures: Creating the LWCIL ​Strategic ​Roadmap was a six-month process that engaged leadership from both organizations. This was critical for identifying priorities and direction, including what structures and systems needed to be organized so the work could move forward. Learn more about San Diego’s Live Well Center for Innovation & Leadership and AHD partnerships, or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation. If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact

Learn about the importance of including animals in emergency planning in this blog post.

Learn how peer-to-peer collaboration has helped health agencies develop their performance management and quality improvement efforts.

Public Health and Academic Leaders Unite Through Texas Consortium Mayela Arana Learn how a consortium in Texas strengthens and supports activities between public health practice and academic institutions. In a state as vast as Texas — spanning 254 counties and operating under a decentralized public health system — collaboration is key to strengthening public health efforts. With local and county health departments working independently and the state stepping in where no local health department exists, fostering partnerships across institutions is both a challenge and an opportunity. Recognizing this, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) brought multiple schools of public health together under a unified program: the Academic Health Partnership Initiative. Led by the DSHS Office of Practice and Learning within the Center for Public Health Policy and Practice, this initiative is designed to strengthen, support, and enhance activities between public health practice and academic institutions, in which the Academic Public Health Consortium plays a key strategic, collaborative role. Partnership Purpose and Benefits DSHS believes that forming Academic Health Department (AHD) partnerships creates accountability, clearer collective value, and greater access to funding opportunities. AHD partnerships, which can range from student internships to fully integrated collaborations and shared resources, provide a framework for public health departments and universities to work in lockstep. By taking a statewide approach, DSHS not only enhances public health workforce development but shapes a more resilient and connected public health infrastructure in Texas. In addition, DSHS asserts that strengthening academic public health partnerships… Improves the relevance of education to public health practice. Creates innovative public health practices and research. Strengthens connections, communication, and trust. Shares and replicates evidence-based projects, initiatives, and interventions. Maximizes resources, expertise, and funding. Provides opportunities to meet strategic goals. Helps build and train the public health workforce. Evolution of DSHS Partnerships with Academic Institutions DSHS has always valued its relationships with academia and collaborations have been a long-standing piece of their work. State legislators also acknowledge this powerful connection between public health agencies and universities. In fact, through 1999 legislation, Chapter 121, Subchapter F, Health and Safety Code directed DSHS to establish a “public health consortium” composed of academic partners to conduct activities like developing curricula and trainings, conducting research on improving health status outcomes, and developing competency certification standards for public health workers. DSHS’s partnerships with universities have since grown and evolved — while the agency has historically gravitated toward schools of public health as natural partners, DSHS recognizes that public health is a broad field and it can benefit from having expertise in other disciplines. As such, the Academic Public Health Consortium consists of schools of public health within eight Texas university systems but is open to any school or local health department to contribute and participate. Building a Shared Vision Through Statewide Collaboration The Academic Public Health Consortium held roundtable discussions across the state to collect initial input for its Statewide Strategy. Members undertook the following collaborative steps to co-create their shared strategies and goals. Set up introductory meetings with each school to introduce the concept and get buy-in. Discuss the specifics all parties would like to gain from the partnership (e.g., collaboration on research projects or grants, training for staff, internship placements, consultation on curriculum, support for accreditation, guest lectures, hosting career panels, etc.). Identify work groups or committees with each school and agree on meeting frequency. Draft a sample memorandum of understanding or agreement to answer the following: what is our purpose, what are we going to do, how are we going to do it, why is it important, and how will we both benefit. Conduct inventory of current activities. Review each organization’s strategic priorities, goals, and needs. Conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) or SOAR (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results) analysis. Develop goals and priorities focusing on the mutual needs of each organization and action plans to achieve them, such as: Increasing student placement in applied practice experience opportunities. Increasing the number of real-world scenarios in the classroom. Providing workforce trainings to health department staff. Increasing student exposure to public health careers through panel discussions. Conducting a rural workforce training needs assessment. The resulting roadmap helps monitor and evaluate progress on agreed-upon action areas and show the impact of the partners on achieving the organization’s mission and goals, including: Prepare, educate, and train the public health workforce. Support public health careers. Speed the translation of research to practice, share best practices, and pilot projects in communities. The Consortium plans to develop subcommittees, get more public health practitioners involved across the state, and secure funding to support the Academic Health Partnership Initiative’s activities. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships Organizations can structure AHD partnerships in a way that best suits the nature of the relationship and those involved. There is no right or wrong way to operate this type of partnership, and it may evolve over time. One of the broader and bigger goals is to lay a solid foundation of trust, communication, and structure. Create a space where you can get to know each other better; discover each other’s strengths and needs and communicate opportunities and challenges. Like any good and solid relationship, strong partnerships are not created overnight — they require consistency, intentionality, hard work, and grace. Learn more about Academic Health Department Partnerships or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation. If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org. Special Thanks - Blog - PH Academic Leaders Unite Texas Consortium article yes

Learn about four Congressional hearings focused on challenges affecting older adults, including inflation and opioids.

States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes

Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development in Florida Florida Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development Mayela Arana Learn how an Academic Health Partnership in Florida focuses on workforce development and get inspired. In Hillsborough County, the Florida Department of Health (DOH-Hillsborough) and the University of South Florida (USF) have a long history of working together. Their partnership took on a new level of structure and purpose in 2022 when they formalized an Academic Health Department (AHD) partnership agreement, focused largely on workforce development. This collaboration, supported by the Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG), creates opportunities for DOH-Hillsborough staff to enhance their skills through USF’s public health programs. By providing structured training and education, the partnership is helping to build a stronger, more prepared public health workforce to serve the county’s 1.5 million residents. A Longstanding Partnership Embraces a New Opportunity When CDC released a notice of funding opportunity for PHIG in 2022, the DOH-Hillsborough health officer and the dean of USF’s College of Public Health (COPH) worked together to co-write a successful proposal. One of the resulting contracts formalized their partnership in the name of strengthening the public health workforce through recruitment, training, and retention. Like many public health agencies, many of DOH-Hillsborough’s employees do not have degrees in public health. The health department is focused on upskilling through coursework and certificate/micro-certificate programs directly related to job tasks. These opportunities are available to every staff member including those categorized as “other personnel services,” non-career services, and certain contracted employees — as DOH-Hillsborough recognizes the importance of extending these educational opportunities to all employees. Initial PHIG funding was critical in establishing the necessary dedicated staffing and infrastructure for workforce development program offerings at the health department. Current funding continues to support infrastructure, new custom program development, and the educational offerings. Infrastructure: USF works with DOH-Hillsborough to conduct staff training needs assessments and has provided training at agency-wide “all-staff” meetings. USF also developed and provides a Certified in Public Health (CPH) exam preparatory course that is open to any health department employee who is eligible to sit for the exam, at no cost to them. Custom program development: Additionally, the university, in collaboration with DOH-Hillsborough and two other local county health departments, developed a custom leadership program that groups emerging health department leaders with community partners of their choice (e.g., Healthy Start, Homegrown Hillsborough) and includes two full days of instruction over a six-month period. Educational offerings: The health department is also using PHIG funds to cover tuition for current staff to take graduate and undergraduate courses at USF’s COPH and across the university. Representatives from DOH-Hillsborough and USF hold virtual information sessions for staff about available educational offerings, the university enrollment and registration process, and completing internal agency requirements for pursuing and participating in the PHIG-funded opportunities. Measuring Impact and Continuous Improvement Given that the bulk of activities in this AHD partnership are currently PHIG-funded, PHIG performance measures provide a clear and valuable opportunity for evaluation. DOH-Hillsborough is focused on three of the PHIG measures that address hiring and retention: Number of PHIG-funded positions filled by job classification and program area. Overall agency staff retention rate. Median number of days to fill a position. Tracking performance of these measures both contributes to the agency’s overall PHIG evaluation and provides the AHD partnership with a clear process for quality improvement. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships Learning from the success of USF and DOH-Hillsborough’s partnership, considerations in developing or expanding AHD partnerships include: Appreciate the unique nature of each organization. For example, while the health department and university may have a common vision, they may also have different funding category restrictions to consider prior to solidifying the partnership. Be mindful that each organization has its own legal considerations. Allow ample time for the proper review of contracts, agreements, and external communication about the joint endeavor. Know that, at times, the collaborative process can be complex and challenging. Take a few steps back. Work together to find solutions, and don’t give up. Be flexible, humble, and willing to pivot, remaining confident that the partnership will have a bigger impact than your organization would alone. Learn more about AHD partnerships or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation (PHF). If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org. Special Thanks - Blog - AHP Prioritizes Workforce Development in FL article yes

Learn how Nebraska's Division of Public Health restructured their grants monitoring process in this blog post.

Tennessee Partners with Dialysis Facilities to Strengthen Infection Prevention Tennessee and Dialysis Facilities Strengthen Infection Prevention Alex Kurutz, Joshua Key, Connie Harig Learn how Tennessee partners with dialysis facilities to address training needs and, in turn, strengthen infection prevention. More than 800,000 people in the United States are living with end-stage kidney disease, and over half receive life-sustaining treatment through dialysis. Unfortunately, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a leading cause of hospitalization and death for this population. Patients undergoing dialysis, especially hemodialysis, are at increased risk for infections due to frequent vascular access, compromised immune systems, and regular exposure to clinical settings. To support patient safety and reduce the risk of dialysis-related infections, it is critical to ensure that facility staff have access to training on evidence-based protocols such as proper hand hygiene and vascular access care. In Tennessee, the Department of Health works closely with dialysis facilities to identify and address the training needs of their staff and improve infection control practices that advance the safety of patients on dialysis. To gain further insights into this successful partnership, ASTHO spoke with two Tennessee Department of Health personnel — Dialysis Nurse Consultant Joshua Key and Epidemiologist Alex Kurutz — as well as Connie Harig, Nurse Educator from Dialysis Clinic, Inc. in Knoxville, who shared their experiences implementing and participating in this program, shedding light on the process, benefits, and lessons learned from this collaboration. Identifying Training Needs To effectively support training facility staff, the Tennessee Department of Health began by looking at what data could tell them about their state’s needs. In addition to reviewing reports from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), the Department of Health conducted a learning needs assessment in fall 2022 to identify educational and training needs expressed by dialysis providers. All dialysis facilities in Network 8, which encompasses Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, received the assessment, and results revealed that dialysis technicians and nurses desired additional training related to infection prevention practices. In response, Tennessee initiated the Hemodialysis Infection Prevention Educational Program — a day-long, interactive simulation training, inspired by a similar effort in Massachusetts. Joshua Key 1 - Tennessee Partners with Dialysis Facilities to Strengthen Infection Prevention Developing and Implementing the Simulation Training The department hired four part-time educators — two dialysis nurses, one certified hemodialysis technician, and one biomedical technician — to develop the training materials based on CDC guidance. They also developed pre- and post-tests as well as a training evaluation to assess any increase in knowledge and intent to apply the content moving forward. Lastly, they worked with the Georgia Nurses Association to offer continuing education credits for participating providers. A typical simulation training has the capacity for about 40 participants and involves an eight-hour day, beginning with brief presentations on each topic and moving into applied practice in the second half of the day during which participants rotate through stations to apply the skills they learned. Participants also hear from a patient advocate to learn more about the real-life impact of dialysis-related infections, an experience many trainees have described as powerful and important. Despite facing initial challenges connecting with a patient advocate, Tennessee Department of Health emphasized its importance, ultimately leaning on partners such as the National Kidney Foundation and the National Forum of ESRD Networks to identify an available advocate. article yes

Federal, State, and Stakeholder Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Catherine Jones Explore federal, state, and stakeholder perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund, shared at a discussion hosted by ASTHO and Cornerstore Government Affairs teams. In early July, ahead of final votes on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (full text H.R.1), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), joined by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), secured a $50 billion funding line for a new Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). This five-year mandatory fund is designed with two primary goals: To stabilize vulnerable rural hospitals, health centers, clinics, and their workforces. To improve access, affordability, modernization, and health outcomes for rural residents, who on average experience higher rates of chronic disease, shorter lifespans, and lower earning power compared to urban populations. To help states better understand how to apply and utilize RHTP dollars, ASTHO partnered with Cornerstone Government Affairs to host a discussion on Sept. 4 featuring two expert panels. Participants included representatives from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and HRSA, congressional staff, state health departments, and experts from the National Rural Health Association and National Association of Medicaid Directors. Lively discussions provided valuable insights into the application process, how states might deploy funds to build and sustain rural health programs, and the realities of delivering care on the ground. Panel One: Federal Perspectives Application Tips The first order of business was to provide potential applicants with essential information they need to apply. CMS is working quickly to release the Notice of Funding Opportunity in early September. Applications will be due in November, with funding decisions finalized by Dec. 31. This is a one-time application for the five-year mandatory fund, with dollars allocated evenly across FY26 to FY30 ($10 billion per year). Importantly, the RHTP fund is separate from — and unaffected by — FY26 Labor Health and Human Services, and Education discretionary appropriations outlined by the Senate and House, and any continuing resolutions. The $50 billion program will be divided into two parts. $25 billion will be distributed evenly among states that apply and have successful applications. The remaining $25 billion will be allocated at CMS’s discretion based on factors such as a state’s rural population, the number of rural health care facilities, and state policies and policy commitments. States will not be required to provide matching funds. In anticipation of the application deadline, many state health departments have been mobilizing over the past weeks. Health officials are convening task forces, launching working groups and public hearings, and issuing Requests for Information and surveys to shape projects and spending plans. These efforts are focused on aligning with CMS’s strategic goals, including making rural America healthy again, providing sustainable access to care, workforce development, innovative care delivery, and technology modernization. Program Insights Panelists also highlighted how RHTP differs from existing rural health programs. The Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, for example, funds initiatives focused on quality improvement, hospital technical assistance programs for operational challenges, and targeted pilot programs to test the feasibility of ideas related to community needs. By contrast, RHTP will provide states with a large, flexible infusion of funds to augment existing and novel rural health care efforts. States will also be permitted to use RHTP dollars for one-time investments (e.g., electronic health record systems, diagnostic equipment, and network-building initiatives). Panelists emphasized the importance of tailoring approaches to state and community needs, noting that Tribal communities face especially severe challenges, requiring intentional engagement. The first session concluded with a focus on Alaska, where 73.7% of hospitals are in rural areas — a key driver of Senator Murkowski’s strong advocacy for the fund. Her legislative director noted the state’s persistent struggles with connectivity, limited primary care access, workforce shortages, and low patient volume. Previous funding formulas, which relied heavily on hospital bed counts or numbers of health care facilities, often disadvantaged Alaska and similar states. RHTP, structured as a cooperative agreement, gives states both predictability and flexibility: dollars they can count on, combined with broad authority to design solutions in partnership with CMS protocols and assistance. CMS has existing protocols for grant management, and Congress will likely ask for clear reporting requirements as they monitor the successful implementation of the fund. Panel Two: State and Stakeholder Perspectives Rural Health Challenges To align visions with on-the-ground realities, health department leaders from Pennsylvania and Mississippi described their extensive efforts underway to gather input and identify priorities that are both sustainable and impactful, underscoring the importance of community engagement in shaping state strategies. Panelists noted that states are working through a broad list of rural health challenges, including: Maternal and child health. Behavioral health. Substance use disorder. Emergency medical services. Transportation barriers. Aging populations. Specialist shortages. Data modernization (including cybersecurity, AI, broadband, training, and administrative support). Telehealth. Workforce shortages. Hospital, clinic and federally qualified health care center closures. Payment models (public and private). Improving health information exchanges and electronic heath records were also mentioned as universal goals. RHTP is designed with flexibility to tackle these issues and to craft solutions (some of them can be shelf-ready, such as technology or prevention kits) to respond to the diverse needs of rural communities. Aligning Programs Panelists were asked how they are working with partners to achieve alignment for their programs. All concurred that strategic planning is essential, with an emphasis on local partnerships and regional collaborations. It was stressed that rural health care should ideally be delivered as close to the community level as possible, supported by a robust ecosystem. Speakers agreed that the financial health of rural areas is inseparable from the health of their hospitals and clinics. It was underscored that local residents are deeply invested in their communities and want to see them thrive. Transforming rural health care systems will require large-scale collaborations at a local level, which are built on trust, a shared vision, and a clear understanding of the long-term goals. The challenges of chronic disease, which occurs and leads to death at significantly higher rates in rural areas, surfaced. Panelists agreed that tackling this issue requires major investments in ancillary professions — such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and community health workers — alongside a renewed emphasis on primary care services and alleviating the acute shortage of primary care physicians. According to the American Medical Association, roughly 65% of rural areas face a shortage of primary care providers, and only 4%-5% of incoming medical students now come from rural backgrounds. Some solutions noted by the panelists were extending medical student rotations in rural settings from a few weeks to 12 or more, coupled with financial and professional incentives. Encouragingly, research shows that students from rural areas are far more likely to return home as practicing physicians. Final Words Panelists overwhelmingly agreed that RHTP represents an unprecedented opportunity for states — though, notably, not for U.S. territories or Washington, D.C. — to expand access, raise the quality of rural health care, and ultimately improve both quality of life and life expectancy for their rural residents. The $50 billion fund is not only a lifeline but also a testing ground, and if implemented successfully, it could serve as a model to pave the way for future federal investments of this magnitude in rural health. For more information on RHTP, please email MAHARural@cms.hhs.gov. Participants Part One: Federal Senator Lisa Murkowski and Angela Ramponi, MPH, Legislative Director Emily Chen, MBA, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tom Morris, MPA, Associate Administrator for Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Moderated by Carlos Jackson, Principal, Cornerstone Government Affairs Part Two: State and Stakeholder Daniel Edney, MD, FACP, FASAM, State Health Officer, Mississippi State Department of Health Debra Bogen, MD, FAAP, Secretary of Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health Zil Joyce Dixon Romero, State Government Affairs Manager, National Rural Health Association Lindsey Browning, Deputy Executive Director of Programs, National Association of Medicaid Directors Moderated by Susan Kansagra, MD, MBA, Chief Medical Officer, ASTHO article yes

Learn about the work of ASTHO's learning community to prevent ACEs through partnership, data, and messaging.

Partnering with Birthing Hospitals to Protect Babies Against RSV Partnering to Protect Babies Against RSV Susan Kansagra, Michelle Fiscus, Kim Martin Learn how immunization programs partnered with birthing hospitals to expand participation in Vaccines for Children and better protect babies against RSV. In 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants, a major milestone in newborn immunization. Unlike vaccines, which stimulate the body’s immune system to produce its own protection over time, mAbs work right away by giving the body ready-made protection against infection. This is especially important for newborns who do not have the protection of maternal RSV vaccination, which causes them to face a higher risk of severe RSV illness and need protection as early as possible. In response to the 2023 ACIP recommendation, state and territorial immunization programs acted quickly to ensure these new protections reached the babies who needed them most. One of the most effective strategies was partnering with birthing hospitals to expand participation in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a federally funded initiative that provides vaccines to children at no cost to their families who might otherwise be unable to afford them. This program enabled the delivery of RSV mAbs — such as nirsevimab and now clesrovimab — to VFC-eligible newborns without any financial burden on their families. High Stakes, Strong Results The stakes were high, as RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the United States. It was previously responsible for an estimated 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations and up to 300 deaths in children under age five each year. Data on RSV mAbs showed significant results, reducing RSV-related emergency department visits by 63% and hospitalizations by as much as 80%. Administering RSV mAbs in the first few days after birth, during RSV season, ensures that infants are protected before their first exposure — a critical step in reducing illness and health care burden. Strategies for Success Health departments played a leading role in bringing birthing hospitals into the VFC program. Many hospitals were not previously enrolled, often due to limited awareness, logistical barriers, or concerns about administrative burdens. Immunization programs responded by 1) launching targeted outreach, 2) offering tailored technical assistance, 3) simplifying enrollment processes, and 4) providing guidance on proper storage, eligibility screening, and documentation. The Impact of Stronger Partnerships These efforts have generated measurable results: The number of birthing hospitals enrolled in the VFC program increased from 292 in the 2023 season to 1,012 in 2025, boosting coverage from 10% to 36% of all U.S. birthing hospitals. This clearly demonstrates that these partnerships are effective and make a real difference in protecting infants’ health. State data further highlights this success and shows that collaboration across states, hospitals, and public health partners is crucial for achieving measurable impact: Virginia nearly doubled the number of birthing hospitals enrolled in the VFC program, increasing from six to 11 within one year. The state’s immunization program implemented an innovative Replacement Model to simplify requirements and collaborate closely with hospital teams to overcome barriers. Similarly, California provided resources, developed an enrollment checklist, and communicated the benefits of enrollment to birthing hospitals. Finally, across six states, 33 hospitals, and 400 clinics over two RSV seasons, Intermountain Health coordinated a system-wide approach that developed educational tools, enrolled hospitals in VFC, and addressed supply shortages. It also piloted a Replacement Model where mAb product was purchased by the hospital and doses administered to VFC-eligible babies were replaced with VFC-funded stock. These efforts also strengthened relationships between public health programs and birthing institutions. Trust and communication improved, and hospitals became more engaged in broader immunization goals (e.g., access to other birth-dose vaccines like hepatitis B). This expanded partnership not only protected newborns during RSV season but reinforced the capacity of immunization programs to mobilize quickly, implement new recommendations, and ultimately improve health outcomes. Compared to prior seasons, RSV-associated hospitalization rates were 28%-43% lower in 2024-2025, which was the first season with widespread availability of mAbs and maternal RSV vaccine. Future Opportunities Health departments have used a number of strategies to increase VFC enrollment by hospitals and mAbs coverage as a whole, including: Using birth volume data to prioritize outreach to additional hospitals for enrollment in the VFC program. Ensuring linkage to Immunization Information Systems to determine maternal RSV vaccination status and quickly identify eligible infants. Working with health systems on standing orders and protocols to help providers administer mAbs rapidly to eligible infants. Bringing hospitals and payers together to provide financial models that support universal coverage. While bundled payments for labor and delivery stays have been a barrier for private payer coverage, the high ROI for preventing future RSV-related health care utilization may provide additional opportunities for payers to consider alternative coverage models. Sharing promising practices through a Learning Collaborative webinar series developed by the Association of Immunization Managers, in coordination with CDC. The rapid rollout of RSV mAbs through the VFC program is a model of success. It shows that when public health agencies and health care partners work together, we can deliver lifesaving interventions, even in complex, high-volume settings like birthing hospitals. As new immunization tools emerge in the years ahead, the infrastructure, lessons and relationships built through this effort will continue to support the goal of protecting all children from the very start. article yes