Displaying 21-40 of 40 results for

In May 2021, President Biden released full details of the fiscal year 2022 budget. Overall, the budget request combines President Biden's American Jobs Plan, his American Families Plan, and funding priorities for the Pentagon and domestic agencies, for a projected total of $6 trillion. Read more about what the president is proposing in this post.

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) has become more prevalent in the United States, with the hospitalization rate increasing from 2.9 to 7.3 hospitalizations per 1,000 newborn births between 2009 and 2017. NAS occurs in newborns who experience withdrawal from substances they were exposed to during pregnancy. While NAS is most often associated with exposure to opioids (e.g., Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome), it can also be caused by exposure to other drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines, or barbiturates. Infants with NAS experience withdrawal symptoms including tremors, irritability, poor feeding, vomiting, dehydration, and increased sweating. These symptoms usually appear within 72 hours of birth.

Public health data collection and surveillance systems by health departments are in dire need of modernization. Though the public health community began developing a path to modernization over the last decade, attention to this issue from policy makers has sharply increased with the current response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only are current systems siloed, they rely on labor intensive processes to detect and facilitate a response to various public health threats.

The New Frontier of Digital Proximity Tracing Association of state and territorial health officials, astho, public health, covid-19, contact tracing, case investigation, public health surveillance, infectious disease, proximity tracing, exposure notification, public health agencies, data privacy, public health official, state legislature, geolocation, health data, test positive for covid-19, personal data, data collected, health departments Jeffrey Ekoma Digital proximity tracing is the cutting-edge for tracking outbreaks of COVID-19, but many have concerns about data privacy. States have proposed legislation to balance the two. As state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) health departments continue to cautiously reopen parts of their economy, they also continue to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A major component of this work is traditional contact tracing, a staple of public health surveillance where public health workers track down and notify anyone who might have contact with someone who tested positive for an infectious disease. However, new strategies that would supplement traditional tracing have been gaining momentum. Google and Apple collaborated to create an application programming interface (API) platform for public health agencies interested in a new type of “proximity tracing” or “exposure notification.” The platforms are expected to assist in the creation of apps between software developers and public health jurisdictions. It specifically utilizes Bluetooth technology —readily available in cellular devices—to randomly generate temporary keys on a user’s device when a user downloads an exposure notification application. This then enables the application to alert an individual if they have been or potentially exposed to someone who also uses the application and who tested positive for COVID-19. It’s worth noting the platform created by Google and Apple does not collect location information or information of users who do not voluntarily mark themselves as being positive for COVID-19. There are other notable exposure notification apps being used by SLTTs including Care19, an app developed by ProudCrowd that’s currently being used in North Dakota and South Dakota. Also, CommCare, which is currently being used in New Jersey and was developed by Dimagi. As expected, the introduction and potential influx of these types of apps have brought many different concerns, primarily centered around data privacy and how the platforms and applications would protect, store, and safely discard information that it collects. This issue became of interest to Sen. Maria Cantwell, current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In response she drafted S. 3861 Exposure Notification Privacy Act, which proposes assistance to public health jurisdictions exploring exposure notification applications and technologies. The act would ensure that such platforms have the necessary capacity to protect the personal data of consumers, limit the type of data collected, as well as the type of entities that would have access to such data. In addition, the legislation also: reaffirms the role of public health officials in requiring their involvement in the development and deployment of exposure notification systems; requires that participation from individuals be on a voluntary basis and with consumer consent; limits the collection and use of data; prohibits commercial use of data; and permits participants to delete their data at any time; among other things. The legislation was recently co-introduced with Sens. Bill Cassidy and Amy Klobuchar, and received support from the Washington State Department of Health, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National Coalition of STD Directors. This legislation is currently pending in the Senate and it is unclear if it will be considered in the upcoming months. There is also movement in state legislatures to address the use of technology. In California, legislation (AB 660) was introduced that would require any state agency contract that uses a mobile device’s geolocation data for exposure notification to a communicable disease to include provisions requiring the contractor to inform the app user of the authorized purposes of the app and collected data. Another bill (AB 1782) introduced in the state would require public health entities and businesses offering exposure notification services to allow users to revoke consent for the collection, use, maintenance, or disclosure of the user’s information. Businesses that provide exposure notification services but are not affiliated with a public health entity would be required to disclose its non-affiliation. The bill would also require the encryption of data collected by the technology, limit the use of the data as well as the amount of time the data can be maintained, and require reported exposures be verified by a healthcare provider before notifying logged contacts of their potential exposure. In New York, companion bills were introduced (A 10583A and S 8448B) that would establish requirements for the collection and use of emergency health data and the use of technology for collecting data during the COVID-19 emergency. Specifically, the bill requires the disclosure of certain information to those who install and use data collecting apps on mobile devices, including information about the right to opt-in, the right to privacy, the app’s privacy policy, time limitations for maintaining the data, and the individual’s right to access the data. Unlike the bills in California, individuals in New York would be able to sue for violations of the law. Several SLTT’s are currently either exploring, developing, or implementing proximity tracing applications within their respective jurisdictions. It remains critical that SLTT health departments evaluate the implementation of any proximity tracing option, while concurrently evaluating pertinent data and privacy related issues that may arise with the collection and sharing of information from individuals. In the coming days, ASTHO plans to release a guide to assist health officials as they think through the critical functionalities, technological options, and implementation of these emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to track and monitor legislation that seeks to address data and privacy concerns with proximity tracing and exposure notification applications. website yes

This page features ASTHO’s legal mapping work to plot the legal landscape for public health priorities.

Data-Sharing Strategies to Support Access to Care Interventions Anna Bartels, Chikamso Chukwu Learn how primary care offices improve community access to health care in this Health Policy Update. Every state public health agency houses a Primary Care Office (PCO), which monitors the effectiveness of that jurisdiction’s health system. HRSA funds PCOs to identify communities with health professional shortages, and PCOs may also administer workforce programs to place providers in those communities. To identify which communities are experiencing shortages, PCOs collect state-level data on where health care providers work, what services they offer, and how many hours they spend on patient care. PCOs also track data on community needs, such as household income levels and community transportation options, to create a holistic picture of whether health care is truly accessible. PCOs across the country have explored different policy pathways to access reliable, accurate data, including laws that support PCO access to certain data sets, cross-sectoral relationships, and data-sharing agreements. According to ASTHO’s national PCO workforce assessment, over 85% of PCOs are part of a formal data-sharing arrangement, with licensing boards and Medicaid agencies serving as two of the most common data sources. This health policy update describes several types of actions jurisdictions have taken to support PCO data access. New Hampshire Law Allows the PCO to Survey Providers During License Renewals The New Hampshire PCO’s Health Professions Data Center administers a survey tied to health care providers’ medical license renewals that gathers self-reported provider and practice data, such as where providers work, how many hours per week are spent delivering direct patient care, and anticipated changes in capacity over the next five years. New Hampshire law outlines the scope of the survey and authorizes the PCO to collect, store, analyze, and report on health care workforce supply and capacity through surveying during license renewal. Although survey responses are the primary source of data on the health care workforce, data from the state’s all payer claims database housed within the Medicaid division provides supplemental information. Given the type of data involved, legal agreements are required between the PCO, licensing agencies, and relevant parties to maintain privacy for providers. These data are critical for the PCO to evaluate current and future capacity — especially in regions with limited providers — and proactively focus recruitment efforts on those communities. Colorado Braids Data Collection Strategies Across Multiple Sources While the Colorado PCO has relied on a similar law that authorizes collecting licensure data for more than 10 years, its data collection efforts have since expanded. The state now collects and integrates data across 16 different sources, each requiring a different procurement strategy. While some data sources are simple to access because they are public use files (e.g., Medicare provider data), other sources — namely state agencies — require the PCO to submit an application or enter into a memorandum of understanding or contract for access. Pursuing multiple data sources in this way takes significant effort and staff time, necessitating the health department to supplement HRSA’s PCO cooperative agreement funding with other sources, including state appropriations and private funding. A commitment to collaboration and investment and a willingness to build new relationships and processes from scratch support the Colorado PCO’s wide-ranging data collection strategy. Iowa Builds on Existing Relationships to Access Provider Data Iowa’s PCO has a long-standing relationship with the University of Iowa and a joint interest in health care workforce data. Currently, the PCO purchases provider phone survey information from the University of Iowa’s existing program and receives data on a biannual basis. The university’s data collection is part of its own research efforts and not collected on behalf of the PCO, so while the data are broader than what the PCO needs, it is still a valuable source of provider information. Because of this existing arrangement, the PCO could pursue a more expansive agreement (that would likely require additional funding) and expand the scope of the data, such as by adding data collection on provider residence or sliding fee scales. Other PCOs may consider approaching partners that have pieces of the data they need so there is an established relationship in place that may be expanded as new resources become available. PCOs Secure Access to Medicaid Claims Data State Medicaid agencies are another frequent data partner for PCOs, with at least 16 receiving provider data from their state Medicaid agency in various formats. In some states the Medicaid agency shares a point-in-time file with the PCO, who may manually recode the data before submission to HRSA. In other states, the PCO has direct access to the Medicaid claims processing system to independently extract the necessary data points. The nature of the partnership between the PCO and Medicaid agency may vary based on the state’s organizational structure (e.g., whether the PCO and Medicaid agency sit within the same department). However, a PCO seeking access to Medicaid claims data should be prepared to justify the need for the data, articulate how it can support the Medicaid agency, and develop the necessary relationships to support a workable solution for both parties. Conclusion Each PCO and state health agency has its own unique structure, and there is no “right” way to collect health care provider practice or access data. However, exploring how different jurisdictions approach these processes can help PCOs think strategically about new initiatives and relationships. ASTHO will continue tracking PCO success stories and remains available to facilitate connections among health agency staff. 2 UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

Discover resources that can help your health agency unlock the power of internal policymaking in data modernization efforts.

ASTHO’s 2024 resource roundup highlights essential public health tools, policy guides, and best practices for state and territorial health agencies.

This blog post discusses mitigating risks of AI use in government agencies, emphasizing privacy, transparency, and ethical concerns.

State issued documents, such as birth certificates, are often required to navigate daily life. Vital records policy is a complex and evolving issue with many of the processes and procedures left to jurisdictional policy-makers.

This ASTHO blog discusses the benefits and risks of AI in healthcare and federal legislation, including privacy, bias, and safety concerns.

Learn how to assess public health technology from a legal and policy lens prior to adoption.

Public Health Data Disclosure or Request Readiness Assessment Chris Alibrandi O’Connor Explore key steps and lessons for effective public health data sharing. Organizations that want to share or request data to support public health work should take several preparatory steps. An organization’s data sharing efforts will develop more quickly and smoothly if certain considerations have been analyzed, or actions taken before negotiations begin on a data sharing agreement. The same is true for organizations trying to obtain data to support their public health efforts. Consider the following prompts and questions before initiating data sharing or a request for data to prepare for a more efficient and effective negotiation for the data’s disclosure. That consideration will identify barriers to data sharing as well as result in greater clarity around organizational data sharing needs and data governance. For those seeking data, what data do you need? What type of public health work is on the table and what data is needed to achieve the related public health goals? Identify which entity has the needed data Identify the required data elements Specify the type of data needed (e.g., line level, identifiable, Limited Data Sets, de-identified, aggregated) Having identified the data elements and type of data needed will help later in the legal analysis of which laws apply to the disclosure of data Pre-Negotiation Considerations Review organization’s existing written data sharing or data governance policy. Determine whether the project is covered by it and whether any related data disclosures or uses would comply with it. If there is no such policy, consider developing one for adoption. That process will clarify and/or resolve many issues, including data governance guidelines, which could become barriers during data sharing agreement negotiation. Having an organizational “champion” in a position of authority to support a data project may help overcome internal obstacles. Identify a champion — or develop one. Identify and get to know the people who play key roles in data sharing agreements (data stewards, leadership, legal counsel) to facilitate project communication. Pre-Negotiations Review of Legal Issues Evaluate the answers to these questions about disclosing the data at issue: Can I? (i.e., does the law permit the data’s disclosure?) Must I? (i.e., does the law require disclosure?) Should I? (i.e., is disclosing the data the right call when considering legal, policy, and equitable factors) When considering the risks of disclosing data, also consider the risks of not disclosing it for public health purposes; consider what public health efforts will not succeed without the data. Author Funding Disclaimer - Resource - Data Sharing Request Disclosure Alaska article yes

Improving a State’s Process for Disclosing Data for Public Health Purposes to Tribal Public Health Organizations

Sustaining DMI: A State Health Official’s Guide to Enhanced Funding Sustainable financing strategies for state health officials to support data modernization and Medicaid. What is the relationship between a state’s Medicaid program and its public health data system? Although state implementation of the Medicaid program (Title XIX of the Social Security Act) varies, each state’s program has enrollment and claims data on Medicaid participants, including demographic data on race and ethnicity, age, and service utilization, such as vaccines received. At the same time, a state’s public health system needs to collect, analyze, and report diverse data from public health initiatives and related programs to support its goals to protect and improve the health of individuals and communities by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching and encouraging disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing, and responding to infectious diseases. A state’s Medicaid program and public health agency can collaborate to implement a sustained data modernization initiative (DMI) that combines Medicaid and public health data and integrates these data into the state’s health-related data ecosystem. A sustained DMI can yield various improvements to a state’s health-related data ecosystem, such as improved data quality, public health reporting, data storage and resiliency, and analytics to respond to pandemics. It can also set the stage for data sharing with additional data system partners, which can further improve the state’s health-related data ecosystem. Why is sustainable funding necessary to continue DMIs? Sustainable funding to support personnel, processes, and technology is imperative to the continued success of a DMI. Stable funding can increase state Medicaid and public health agencies’ likelihood of recruiting and retaining personnel with advanced degrees, such as biostatisticians and epidemiologists, by enabling the agencies to offer compensation packages that are competitive with job market rates. Stable funding also enables the agencies to maintain and refine new and existing data-sharing processes, and it ensures that technology is maintained and upgraded appropriately to meet evolving needs. Medicaid funding is a potentially large and stable funding stream that can support the personnel, processes, and technology in a DMI that focuses on integrating Medicaid and public health. However, public health funding has historically been an unstable patchwork of federal, state, local, and private funding streams and mechanisms, largely because of changing economic and political priorities and the perceived risk level and severity of major public health threats. What sustainable financing strategies can support the personnel, processes, and technology needed to continue DMIs? State health officials can use the following three strategies when pursuing Medicaid funding to sustain a DMI: Blend and braid funding sources. Optimize existing and potential funding streams by blending or braiding administrative approaches to grow and maintain programs. To blend funding sources, program officials combine funding into a single stream, which results in a loss of award-specific requirements and thus requires statutory authority. In contrast, braiding funds allows program officers to direct funds toward a single strategy or initiative while preserving funding requirements (Box 1). Callout 1 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding Support personnel by using cost allocation through the Advance Planning Document (APD) process or the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan. A DMI team often has people with specialized skills, such as clinical and technical experts, compliance or legal officers, and financial experts. The salary for these people may be cost-allocated via the APD process or the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan described in Social Security Act Section 1903(a)(7) (Box 2). To illustrate, the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan provides 50 percent match for costs that meet a series of requirements to cover personnel costs. In addition to this strategy, state health officials can cover salary costs through blending and braiding approaches. Callout 2 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding Align public health functions with Medicaid business and technical functions. To explore whether a state Medicaid agency could access enhanced federal funding to support public health, a state public health agency must approach the state’s Medicaid program collaboratively and design and implement a DMI that does the following: Meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding and couples any technical system improvements with measurable outcomes that improve public health and the Medicaid program. Investigates the extent to which the public health technical functions (for example, health care provider enrollment) align with similar Medicaid business functions. Confirms the extent to which the public health functions and Medicaid Enterprise Systems share or could share (that is, reuse) core technical components to support common business functions. Callout 3 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding After this investigation is complete, the state Medicaid agency should explore cost allocation models that apportion costs with the benefits received (Box 3). Box 4 provides examples of public health use cases that successfully acquired enhanced Medicaid funding. Callout 4 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding website yes

Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process How state Medicaid agencies can request enhanced federal funding for Medicaid Enterprise Systems and related activities. Why is the Advanced Planning Document process important? Based on information from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Federal Register, the Advanced Planning Document (APD) process is a procedure through which states develop a plan of action for their Medicaid information technology (Medicaid IT) projects. These plans are for designing, implementing, or operating Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) projects. State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) submit completed APDs to CMS—specifically a designated state officer in the Center for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Services (CMCS) Data and Systems Group (DSG)—to request federal financial participation for their activities. The state officer reviews APDs to assess whether states’ requests for federal financial participation for designing, developing, implementing, or maintaining MES activities contribute to the economic and efficient operation of Medicaid and meet specific technical and operational criteria defined in statute, regulation, or sub-regulatory guidance. A state that receives federal financial participation can see increased access to stable federal funding to support MES activities. In addition, APDs are used to monitor a state’s project performance and outcomes. What are the three types of APDs? There are three types of APDs: Planning, Implementation, and Operational (Table 1). Table - Resource - Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process What are the major steps for states in the APD process? To request enhanced federal funding for MES, SMAs must complete the APD template that aligns with where they are in the development of their project (for example, design or maintenance) and submit it to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The APD process contains five major steps and can take many months to complete: Meet with key state contacts and decision-makers. Based on information from the Public Health Informatics Institute’s information and tip sheets, before developing the APD, the SMA should identify and engage key state contacts and decision makers to solicit their input about the proposed project and secure their and their staff’s collaboration to complete and submit the APD to the CMCS DSG state officer. The state health agency (SHA) should work closely with the SMA during this process to ensure that they provide needed support to the SMA. For example, the SHA may gather information for the SMA to include in the APD or advise on how to complete particular sections of the APD. During this process, the SMA and SHA should consult with their respective agency leadership to discuss the type of technological solutions Public Health maintains, Public Health’s relationship with the state Medicaid program, and the opportunity to align systems to reduce overall state costs and improve state efficiency through the APD process. The SMA and SHA should also engage the MES lead, who can offer critical information about current MES components and component certification needed to complete the APD. In addition, GAO recommends states involve their chief information official in overseeing Medicaid IT projects because they can play a critical role in decision making related to IT budgets, management, and oversight. Next, the SMA and SHA should engage the CMCS DSG state officer to develop a strong understanding of how the APD can support the Medicaid program and serve a public health interest. Coordinating with the state project management office can help integrate the diverse parties and processes needed to develop and submit the APD for approval. It can also help ensure that states develop a comprehensive and flexible timeline for the APD process, stay aware of approaching deadlines, and meet ad hoc requirements. Develop the appropriate APD. Next, based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c), the SMA and SHA should identify which of the three types of APDs to submit to the CMCS DSG state officer. Planning APDs are recommended for large and complex projects, such as statewide projects. However, if a state can identify a clear and easy pathway to integrate a public health information technology system with a current MES procurement or development phase, it can forgo developing a Planning APD and directly develop or update an existing Implementation APD. For example, if a state is looking to integrate its counties’ public health data into its MES at once, it should develop a Planning APD as the project is large and affects all counties in the state. However, if a state already has most of its counties’ public health data in its MES but is looking to add a single county’s data to its MES using the same process it previously and successfully used to add the other counties’ data, it may not need to submit a Planning APD. If a state has already successfully integrated its counties’ public health data into its MES and is looking to make major technology upgrades and improvements, it should submit an Operational APD. Regardless of the type of APD the state submits, the SMA and SHA should work together to ensure the request meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding (see separate document Conditions for Enhanced Funding: The Basics). Submit the APD for approval and be available for revisions. Based on information from CMS, GAO, and the Office of Child Support and Enforcement, the state should then submit the APD to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The SMA and SHA should plan to receive questions and revision requests from the CMCS DSG state officer and ensure that the state has staff capacity to answer questions and revise and resubmit. Approval conditions can be found at 45 C.F.R. § 307.15, but approval criteria might vary by Medicaid IT project and other factors. If approved, implement the plan. Next, the state can carry out the plan described in its Planning and Implementation APDs. After the Medicaid IT project has been operating for at least six months, states can request system certification from CMS. According to CMS, certification is required to receive the enhanced 75 percent federal financial participation for operations. The certification process includes states submitting to CMS an intake form, a certification request letter, and supplemental materials with information on its system. CMS may then start its review to assess whether the state’s system meets certification requirements. If approved, monitor and report progress and submit other APDs as needed. Based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c) and 45 C.F.R. § Part 95 Subpart F and information from CMS, CMCS, Office of Child Support and Enforcement, as the state continues with its Medicaid IT project, it should adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements for enhanced federal funding. It also should submit annual APDs as required. If the state wants to make any major changes to the Medicaid IT project in concept, scope, cost allocation approach, timeline, and other key areas, it must develop and submit an as-needed APD. An as-needed APD is due no later than 60 days after the occurrence of the change. State examples: Medicaid Enterprise System projects Based on information from Alvarez & Marsel, state MES projects will vary based on factors such as the maturity of a state’s technology infrastructure, its specific data needs, and its available resources. As such, projects to design, implement, or operate MES can range in size, complexity, and timeline. For example, the Alabama MES Modernization Program, the Wyoming Integrated Next Generation System Project, and the Florida Health Care Connections project all seek to transform their singular Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) into modular, multi-vendor MES, but differ in approach. In addition, Arizonia and Hawaii are collaborating to modernize their shared MES. For more information on state MES projects, see the Medicaid Enterprise System Solution/Module Contract Status Report. This webpage lists states’ MMIS and Eligibility and Enrollment contract information for their MES projects. It also lists contact information for state officers to reach out to learn more about states’ MES projects. website yes

Likely Public Health Legislative Trends for 2025 Prospective Public Health Legislative Trends for 2025 Maggie Davis Get an inside look at prospective public health legislative trends for 2025, based on ASTHO's legislative tracking efforts and member feedback. Drawing from member feedback and ASTHO’s legislative tracking efforts, ASTHO identified five key issues state and island legislatures are likely to work on for the upcoming legislative sessions for the annual 2025 Legislative Prospectus Series. Each brief provides public health leaders and policymakers with a synopsis of the topics, recent legislative trends, and anticipated legislation in upcoming sessions. Public Health and Health Care Workforce States are continuing to address workforce shortages within public health and the health care systems. ASTHO’s prospectus outlines strategies that legislatures are considering, from bolstering state public health funding to legislative efforts addressing nationwide workforce shortages through recruitment incentives, workforce commissions, and pipeline programs. Containing Spread of Infectious Disease State and territorial public health agencies are responsible for protecting the health and safety of their residents and have legal authorities to fulfill those responsibilities. In recent years, many legislatures have revisited the scope of these legal authorities, with states like Washington (SB 6095) expanding the health official’s authority to issue standing orders for a range of disease interventions. Similarly, legislatures may continue considering vaccine-related legislation. While many bills in recent years aim to weaken vaccine policy, state leaders have listened to medical leaders within their state who advocate for strong vaccine policies. In 2024, West Virginia’s governor vetoed HB 5105 that would have weakened school enrollment requirements, informed by strong opposition from the state’s medical community and evidence that the existing vaccine policy had prevented disease outbreaks. Data Modernization and Privacy Modernizing public health and health care data systems have taken big steps forward, including federal initiatives like the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA), which establishes guiding interoperability principles and standards for health data exchange. Nevada enacted AB 7 in 2023 requiring new regulations governing health information exchanges (HIEs) and granting certain liability protections to providers using them. In the proposed rules published in August 2024, the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services intends to require that participating HIEs are TEFCA members. ASTHO anticipates more jurisdictions will allow public health agencies access to a wider range of privacy-protected health data through secure platforms like HIEs. Maternal and Child Health Public health supports mothers and children throughout their development. There are three emerging issues that legislatures are likely to work on in the next year: maternal morbidity and mortality, fetal and infant mortality, and youth mental health. One strategy to address youth mental health is using laws to regulate social media companies, requiring them to implement safeguards for minors who use their services. For example, California enacted SB 976 in 2024, which requires “addictive internet-based” services to gain parental consent before minors could use the service and limit the hours in which minors could use an application. Technology industry groups are challenging these efforts in court, with one suit asserting that California’s measure is unlawful governmental interference with First Amendment rights of minors. Substance Misuse and Overdose Prevention Although there was a significant decrease in overdose deaths in 2023, there are still legislative actions to help reduce substance misuse and prevent overdose likely to be considered in 2025. During the 2024 sessions at least 24 state legislatures considered bills to regulate products like kratom and hemp derived products (e.g., Delta-8). Additionally, at least 18 legislatures considered bills to decriminalize drug checking equipment like fentanyl and xylazine testing streps. ASTHO anticipates states legislators will continue implementing harm reduction efforts, policies to connect people with substance use disorders to care, and efforts to regulate products with potential for abuse or misuse in the next session. What We Know So Far The majority of states will convene their legislative sessions in January 2025, with at least 15 states scheduled to conclude their session by the end of April; there will likely be a flurry of legislative activity in the first quarter of the year. Already the Texas legislature has prefiled more than 1,200 bills for their 2025 session, covering topics including a health commissioner’s authority to establish routine childhood immunization requirements (HB 468) and making changes to the state’s maternal mortality and morbidity review committee reporting requirements (HB 713). Additionally, Virginia’s General Assembly convened its two year session in January 2024 and has a number of bills carrying forward into 2025 including bills related to suicide prevention (HB 80) and improving maternal health data quality (HB 286). ASTHO will monitor legislation related to these topics and more during the 2025 sessions and will provide relevant updates. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

Upgrading how public health and healthcare systems share data.

ASTHO’s 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part One legislative session, state policy, data collection, domestic violence, health information exchange, data privacy, substance misuse, overdose prevention, sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health, contraceptive care, climate change, public health, protect data, user data, personal data, centers for disease control, disease control and prevention, social media, data management, primary care, health organizations, higher risk, family planning, data sources, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Lillian Colasurdo, Maggie Davis, Lana McKinney, JoAnne McClure This past December, ASTHO announced the top 10 public health state policy issues to watch for during the 2024 state and territorial legislative sessions. With at least 30 states concluding their regularly scheduled 2024 sessions, here is a brief update on five of the topics to watch. Data Collection and Exchange As expected, there was an increase in proposed legislation that specifically advances electronic health data access, encourages interoperability, and safeguards identifiable patient health records; this was particularly true for vital records. Hundreds of bills have been introduced this session addressing state vital records systems. The state of Illinois alone has already passed several bills, including HB 2856, which requires veteran status to be designated on death certificates, and HB 2841, which prohibits the assessment of fees to victims of domestic violence who are seeking a certified vital record (birth or death certificate) from the state. Other states such as Arizona (SB 1252) considered legislation that would require the Department of Health to provide vital records information on deceased individuals to the qualifying health information exchange (HIE). Arizona is one of eight jurisdictions (AZ, FL, IA, IL, NH, NJ, OK, and WV) that have proposed legislation addressing HIEs this session. Most of these bills increase requirements to connect to HIEs, but New Hampshire HB 1663 and Oklahoma HB 3556 would allow patients and health care providers to opt out of HIEs. As many states look to address health data privacy concerns, New Hampshire recently passed a constitutional amendment granting the explicit right to privacy and has introduced HB 1663, which would update many of the state’s privacy laws regarding medical records to conform with the constitutional requirements. Just next door, Maine considered legislation (LD 1902) that would strengthen privacy requirements for reproductive and gender-affirming patient health information. Finally, the launch of the new federal Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) led to the Florida legislature proposing SB 668, which, had it passed, would have required hospitals to make patient records available through a nationally recognized trusted exchange framework. It would also have required the Agency for Health Care Administration to adopt relevant rules. Substance Misuse and Overdose Prevention Measures to prevent substance misuse and reduce overdoses, namely increasing access to opioid antagonists, such as naloxone and regulating substances with the potential for misuse, are priorities this legislative season. ASTHO anticipated that states would consider legislation to reduce fatal overdoses including decriminalizing drug checking equipment, expanding naloxone access and distribution, establishing overdose prevention centers, and establishing state regulatory frameworks for commercial substances with the potential for misuse, including kratom and Delta-8. Current legislative priorities to expand access to naloxone include public spaces, such as libraries, schools, workplaces. Island jurisdictions along with at least four states—Colorado (HB 24-1003), Tennessee (SB 2141), Virginia (HB 732), and Wisconsin (AB 223)—passed legislation to provide greater access to and/or proper storage of naloxone in school settings. Additionally, Virginia passed HB 342 that requires naloxone access in state agency buildings. These legislative actions, along with the approval last year by the FDA of two non-prescription naloxone spray products for over-the-counter use, are collectively powerful policy shifts to expand access to naloxone. In an attempt to regulate substances with the potential for abuse or misuse, specifically kratom, eight states have considered legislation that would restrict the sale to people under the age of 18. Similarly, twelve states have considered legislation that would restrict the sale of kratom to those under the age of 21. At least 22 states have considered legislation that would compel specific labeling requirements for kratom. Of those, California (AB 2365) and New Jersey (A 1188) would require kratom products to be registered with the state health department annually and require lab testing of the product to meet certain qualifications. Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections ASTHO has spotlighted the growing concerns of rising rates of sexually transmitted infections and state actions reducing congenital syphilis rates and expanding access to HIV prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Rates of both syphilis and congenital syphilis continue to rise at an alarming rate, with more than 10 times as many babies being born with syphilis in 2022 than in 2012. Routine screening and timely and adequate treatment of pregnant people for syphilis, ideally more than 30 days before delivery, can effectively prevent this condition in newborns. Due to increasing cases, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently updated their guidance for obstetrician–gynecologists and other obstetric care professionals advising serological screening for all pregnant individuals at the first prenatal visit and universal screening at the third trimester and at birth. During the 2024 legislative session at least two states—Missouri (SB 1260) and Maryland (HB 119)—are considering legislation that would require testing during pregnancy care at the third trimester for syphilis. Maryland’s legislature passed HB 119, which would require screening at the third trimester and at birth, as well as requiring the hospital to determine the syphilis status of the birthing parent before discharging the newborn. In 2023, New York enacted legislation (A 3007) that requires syphilis screening in the third trimester, and in the current legislative session they are considering S 2472, which would allow the state health department to provide education about congenital syphilis and screenings. At least six states have considered and passed legislation during the 2024 legislative session regarding expanded access for HIV prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Of those considered, Georgia enacted HB 1028 to allow PEP to be issued by a standing order; Florida’s legislature passed HB 159 that would allow pharmacists to screen for HIV exposure, order, and dispense prevention drugs PEP and PrEP and sent it to the governor. Similarly, in Delaware the Senate chamber passed SB 194 that would permit pharmacists to provide PrEP and PEP pursuant to an approved protocol. Family and Reproductive Health Policymakers across all levels of government continued taking steps to make it easier for people to access contraceptives. In 2023, at least 14 states enacted laws in 2023 to facilitate expanding access to contraceptive care by either expanding the ability for pharmacists to dispense birth control without an individualized prescription and/or allowing pharmacists to dispense up to 12 months of contraceptives at once. So far in 2024, at least 13 jurisdictions considered legislation allowing pharmacists to dispense contraceptives without a prescription and at least 18 states considered legislation supporting access to 12 month supply of contraceptives. Following FDA’s July 2023 approval of Opill—the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill—the drug is currently available in stores with several major pharmacies and health plans announcing that they will provide the medication at zero cost for many health plan sponsors. To further support access to Opill, at least two states (New Mexico and Wisconsin) issued standing orders for Opill to facilitate Medicaid coverage of the medication. Additionally, Maryland’s legislature passed SB 527 in March 2024, which requires community colleges to develop and implement a plan to provide students access to OTC contraception. In February 2024, New York enacted S 8096 allowing the commissioner of health to issue a standing order allowing a pharmacist to dispense self-administered hormonal contraceptives, effective retroactively to January 1, 2024. Under the new law, New York’s Commissioner of Health issued a standing order to allow pharmacists to dispense up to 12 months of self-administered hormonal contraceptives like birth control pills, vaginal rings, and contraceptive patches. Optimal Health for All ASTHO anticipates policymakers will take steps to improve collection of health disparities data, address inequities rural communities face in accessing care, and to support climate change adaptation planning efforts. So far in the 2024 legislative session, several states are considering bills to improve health care access and outcomes in rural areas. California is considering legislation (SB 945) that would build an integrated data dashboard to provide the public with information on the health impacts caused by wildfires and the effectiveness of forest health and wildfire mitigation on health outcomes. Additionally, California (AB 2342) is looking to ensure critical access hospitals on remote islands receive adequate funding through a dedicated annual supplement. New York is considering at least two bills that would promote rural health care access. First, New York S 8582 would create a pilot program to identify rural health zones and convene a rural health zone board

ASTHO has identified health equity and rural health as issues that policymakers across the country will consider in 2022.