Displaying 381-400 of 2310 results for

How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care Ashley Cram Learn how federal and state policies are improving access to health care by supporting telehealth. Telehealth strengthens the health system by reducing barriers to access to health care and extending services to underserved communities. Federal and state policies — many born out of the COVID-19 pandemic — have increased the use of telehealth by patients and providers. This includes expanded reimbursement to allow more providers to deliver telehealth services in more locations and through more modalities. This Health Policy Update summarizes recent federal and state laws and policies that impact telehealth delivery and access to care. Federal Laws and Policies Rural Health Transformation Program Enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, the Rural Health Transformation Program appropriates $10 billion per fiscal year for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to award to eligible states looking to improve rural health care. CMS encouraged state applicants to focus on select strategies, including investment in technology platforms that enhance care delivery. This includes tools and resources that support telehealth overall and remote patient monitoring (RPM), which is a way for providers to monitor and support patients through the use of devices that support data collection and transmission. Applicants that participate in interstate licensure compacts are also incentivized throughout the five-year program period by being awarded additional points for participation, which may lead to states pursuing compact legislation in the coming years. Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities Set to Expire During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS issued numerous flexibilities that authorized broader telehealth use to expand access to care. Flexibilities included expansion of certain audio-only services, geographic areas and patient locations, and additional provider types eligible to deliver telehealth services. Current policy authorizes these pandemic-related telehealth flexibilities through January 30, 2026. Without permanent extension of these flexibilities, Medicare coverage for telehealth services beyond January 30, 2026, telehealth will again be limited to patients living in rural areas and to certain services, providers, and facilities. Physician Fee Schedule Changes CMS establishes the annual Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), which sets payment policy for health care services provided by physicians and other professionals to Medicare beneficiaries. The 2026 PFS includes new codes for RPM that allow providers to tailor monitoring frequency and engagement levels to meet patient needs. These codes, and the expansion of RPM, allow providers to effectively monitor health indicators such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose, and respiratory flow rates, to manage health issues. By regularly monitoring a patient’s health status, a provider can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and emergency department visits. Additionally, the PFS streamlined the process for adding eligible telehealth services for reimbursement by removing distinction between permanent and provisional services and focusing review on whether services can be delivered via telehealth. State Legislation Impacting Telehealth Delivery States are also developing policy solutions to enable broader access to telehealth services, including expansion of audio-only and RPM services. Audio-only telehealth services are the use of communications technology, without a visual component, to deliver synchronous health care services. This modality can ensure continuity of and access to care for patients who live in areas with limited broadband and/or those who lack access to a video-enabled device. In 2025, at least four states enacted laws related to audio-only telehealth services. This includes at least three states that extended coverage that would have otherwise expired. In Hawaii, SB 1281 extended the expiration of the state’s coverage of certain audio-only behavioral health services through 2027, while Minnesota (HF 2) took a similar approach to audio-only telehealth services, including certain behavioral health and substance use disorder services, through July 1, 2027. Similarly, Maryland (SB 372/HB 869) removed the sunset date for coverage of audio-only telehealth services. And more broadly, Missouri (SB 79) clarified the state’s telehealth definition to include audio-only technologies. RPM uses digital devices to monitor a patient’s health by collecting and sharing health information with providers. RPM is particularly effective for management of chronic conditions, allowing providers to engage in shared decision making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes through more regular monitoring. In recent years, several states enacted legislation to expand access to RPM including two bills in Louisiana. Enacted in 2024, HB 896 established the Louisiana RPM program for Medicaid patients with chronic conditions and a history of high-cost services, with the goal of improved care coordination and reduced costs. Then in 2025, SB 70 expanded these criteria to include pregnant and postpartum women and infants following discharge from the NICU. In Maryland, HB 553 specifies that the Medicaid program must cover the equipment and provider oversight of blood pressure monitoring for eligible recipients, including pregnant and postpartum individuals and those with chronic health conditions. Lastly, Virginia enacted SB 843 which directs the state Medicaid agency to develop a plan and cost estimate for expanding Medicaid eligibility for RPM for patients with chronic conditions. State and territorial health agencies can encourage public health programs to incorporate telehealth and propose policy solutions that enable broader utilization of telehealth modalities across the entire jurisdiction. States that are interested in expanding access to telehealth can visit ASTHO’s Telehealth Project Initiation and Scoping Assessment to conduct a review and identify opportunities to expand access to telehealth, particularly related to policy, infrastructure, and funding. UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

Read about deference to ACIP vaccine recommendations in state and territorial vaccine policy, following recent changes to the committee.

For Emman Parian, Strong Partnerships Are at the Heart of Public Health Strong Partnerships Are at the Heart of Public Health Anya Groner Learn about Immunization Program Manager Emman Parian's approach to public health success: strong partnerships and collaboration. As immunization program manager for the Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation (CHCC) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Emman Parian and his team work closely with a range of organizations: school systems, government agencies, private businesses, other Pacific Island jurisdictions, and national partners including ASTHO and the Association of Immunization Managers. Maintaining relationships through effective and regular communication sustains those networks and the communities they serve. Thus, the immunization program meets with partners regularly, basing the meeting frequency on partner’s roles and preferences. They also encourage off-island partners to visit in person so they can better understand the CNMI context. According to Parian, they rely on each other for their successes — a lesson he has learned throughout his public health career. Developing a Knack for Community Engagement In less than a decade, Parian has built an impressive career in public health. His journey began in 2018 as a student intern in public health at CHCC. Though he initially planned to become a nurse, his role offering support to community members with hypertension identification and control changed his trajectory. He was able to support people trying to navigate which services they could utilize to improve their health. When his internship ended, participants reported that his calls helped them manage their blood pressure and inspired them to make changes in their nutrition, medication compliance, and regular clinical visits — demonstrating Parian’s impact and providing him with fulfillment.   The Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation Immunization team attend a professional development workshop.   Discovering the Power of Collaboration The power of personal interactions inspired Parian to pursue a bachelor’s degree in health care management and a master’s degree in public health. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, he was shadowing CHCC’s CEO, Esther Muña, and corporate quality and performance manager, Halina Palacios, getting a front row seat as the organization’s leadership team developed their initial response to the pandemic. From this position, he learned effective strategies for addressing public health crises, like leveraging partnerships and building community trust, as well as approaches for successful workforce development. Eventually, he landed a permanent position as a vaccine specialist, managing storage, handling, and distribution of vaccines for the jurisdiction, then becoming the vaccine program coordinator overseeing the COVID-19 vaccination program for several years. Parian attributes his success to the supportive culture at CHCC where program managers and leadership regularly collaborate to align their missions for the benefit of the community. Making Advancements Through Outreach These days, Parian is a leader at CHCC, working as the immunization program manager for CNMI. Post-pandemic, vaccine hesitancy is on the rise. Parian’s team is responding by building trust through relationship-building activities and education. Emman Parian 1 - Strong Partnerships Are at the Heart of Public Health The team regularly visits villages, schools, health programs, and community centers, and even runs Saturday clinics/outreach events to ensure that all community members have the opportunity to get vaccinated. Efforts like these are particularly important given CNMI’s geography, which includes 14 islands, with three populated islands (Saipan, Tinian, and Rota). Even so, CNMI is in a better position to respond to future public health emergencies post-pandemic due to their expanded and improved partnerships and collaboration.   Parian attends a regional meeting with other Pacific Island managers and staff in Saipan.   Leading with Open Communication As a manager, Parian emulates the leadership models that he encountered early in his career. Open communication enabled Parian’s rise in the field, and he encourages discussion among his team. Whether feedback is positive or negative, Parian takes it into consideration. For him, leadership doesn’t mean dictating what your team does but instead working alongside them and being open-minded. That approach resonates. Emman Parian 2 - Strong Partnerships Are at the Heart of Public Health Building a leadership approach that works is important, as turnover can hinder programs due to lost institutional knowledge and a constant need to retrain employees. But lately, there’s less turnover. Parian notes that young people are increasingly invested in health care careers, a shift he attributes to recent health crises. Like him, they have a drive for outreach work and find fulfillment in it. Positioned for Future Public Health Success Strong collaboration builds the sustainability and infrastructure necessary for CHCC to succeed in their public health efforts. Should a new health crisis emerge, CHCC will be able to coordinate with partners to quickly identify resources, technical assistance, and subject matter experts. With strong teams and partnerships in place, Parian believes CHCC is ready for the future. article yes

Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations for COVID-19 and MMRV Vaccines Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Meredith Allen, Kimberly Martin, Ericka McGowan Learn about the downstream effects of CDC adopting ACIP recommendations for COVID-19 and MMRV vaccines, as states examine how their policies and laws intersect. On Oct. 6, CDC adopted the recommendations that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made in September — specifically, individual-based decision-making for COVID-19 vaccine and separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and the varicella vaccine in toddlers. The adoption of these recommendations now sets in motion a cascade of other processes that influence access to vaccines. In addition, several states have begun to examine how their state level policy and laws intersect with ACIP recommendations given the delay in adoption and the uncertainty of the process going forward. COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendation CDC adopted the recommendation for shared clinical decision-making for the COVID-19 vaccine for those six months and older. The adoption of this ACIP recommendation has a ripple effect on coverage and access: It enables states to begin ordering COVID-19 vaccine under the Vaccines for Children program. It allows state Medicaid programs that link coverage to ACIP recommendations to cover the cost of the vaccine. It enables pharmacists to provide the COVID-19 vaccine under the federal PREP act declaration — as opposed to or in addition to state law, which varies by state. Many state health departments issued standing orders and executive orders to enable pharmacists to administer in the meantime. It requires health insurers to cover the cost of the vaccine, as the Affordable Care Act ties insurance coverage requirements to ACIP recommendations. Though, prior to the meeting, health insurers indicated they would do so anyway this year. MMRV Recommendation The CDC also adopted the recommendation for separate varicella (V) and measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccines rather than the MMRV vaccine (combined measles, mumps, rubella, varicella) for children under four years. As background, current guidance allows either MMRV or MMR + V to be administered to children 12-47 months. However, because of a small but higher risk of febrile seizures for dose one, they are recommended to be administered separately (MMR + V), unless families express a preference for MMRV. Only about 15% of children currently receive MMRV for the first dose, and the general consensus is that this decision will result in some changes but not significantly impact access to vaccines: The adoption of this recommendation means that VFC will no longer cover MMRV for children under four, but it continues to cover separate MMR and V vaccines. Since many state Medicaid plans tie vaccine coverage to ACIP recommendations, coverage of MMRV by state Medicaid will vary depending on this language, though separate MMR and V vaccines would continue to be covered. Private insurers can choose to cover MMRV and will likely continue to in the short term but are not required to. They are required to cover separate MMR and V vaccines. How States Are Preparing for the Future As it stands now, ACIP recommendations, particularly for respiratory viral season, are not that different than prior years – with influenza, RSV, and the COVID-19 vaccine recommended (the latter with shared clinical decision making). However, the delayed and unpredictable process has led many states to examine how closely they are tied to ACIP in law, regulation, or practice. Over 600 statutes across U.S. states and territories reference ACIP — whether for pharmacist vaccine authority, school entry, health care worker or other requirements. States have considered a variety of actions to ensure they maintain access to vaccinations for their jurisdictions including: Passing or introducing legislation that allows the state health department to use ACIP guidance from previous years or recommendations from other bodies (e.g., medical provider organizations) in state law, as it relates to school entry, pharmacist authority, and others. Issuing standing orders and executive orders to enable pharmacists to administer vaccines in the absence of ACIP recommendations. Examining Medicaid state plan language to determine how to interpret requirements when ACIP is referenced and considering updates to that language (e.g., North Carolina). Issuing state requirements for insurers on vaccine coverage (e.g., Oregon, California, Hawaii). Examining use of state funds to purchase vaccines. Supplemental Resources Tracking State Actions on Vaccine Policy and Access by KFF Vaccine Resources by the Common Health Coalition States Take Action to “Immunize” Vaccine Access by Mandy Cohen, Julian Polaris, and Liz Dervan Vaccine Integrity Project — Fall Immunization Information by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Special Thanks - Blog - Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations Padding Block - Large Related Content - Blog - Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations article yes

Learn about the Vermont Department of Health's efforts to prioritize data modernization initiatives through its Data Modernization Advisory Committee.

North Dakota Lead Exposure Outreach Program North Dakota Develops Tribal Communication Plan to Support Lead Poisoning Prevention Learn how North Dakota's lead prevention team built strong partnerships with tribal communities in this blog post. Madison Novosel, Paula Comeau Tribal Communication Plan Partnerships with local jurisdictions are crucial to the effectiveness of the North Dakota Lead Prevention Program. This collaboration enhances the depth and sustainability of the community outreach. One priority after transitioning the program from the Department of Environmental Quality to North Dakota Health and Human Services was to connect with local public health units and ensure they were informed about the change. When reaching out to local partners, the lead prevention team realized that there was not a document that clearly outlined who the correct contacts were between tribal communities and state agencies for lead-related events. Recognizing this gap led the team to develop a communication plan to strengthen coordination between the tribal and state lead prevention programs with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s environmental health official. This communication plan established points of contact between the state program and tribal government officials if a lead-related event were to occur involving tribal members or on tribal land. It clearly charted out the corresponding contacts for specific scenarios, which included: A tribal community member who lives on or off the reservation receives an elevated blood lead result. A tribal community member in the Head Start Program receives an elevated blood lead result. An environmental assessment or remediation is requested/needed on tribal lands. Tribal government officials are interested in hosting a screening event or identifying a screening clinic. Community Engagement The outreach to Standing Rock resulted in more opportunities for collaboration. NDHHS staff were invited to attend a community health event at the local high school. This opportunity revealed a gap in the state lead program; no formal outreach guidelines had been developed yet, as the program was (and still is) in its infancy. The team began to create a lead prevention curriculum guide to be used for low-cost outreach activities at the state and local level. The activities range from interactive lead-safe nutrition games to identifying potential lead hazards in a model home. The team was able to pilot one of the activities in the curriculum guide at the Standing Rock Community High School’s “Walk for Wellness.” Students and community members were asked to play a game that teaches dietary tips for preventing lead poisoning for a prize. Over 30 students and 10 community members came to the table to learn about lead prevention and have open discussions around environmental health. This engagement not only strengthened connections between NDHHS and the Standing Rock community, but also expanded education on lead poisoning prevention to a new population. Future Impact Attending the Walk for Wellness event enhanced collaboration with local public health staff also participating in the event. These in-person conversations offered firsthand insight into the challenges rural communities are facing in accessing care and lead testing. The team walked away with a better understanding of what needs to be addressed to support an increase in statewide lead screening, as well as deeper connections with new and existing partners. The lead outreach team at NDHHS will continue to seek more opportunities to conduct outreach efforts throughout the state, including other tribal communities. While spreading lead prevention education through outreach is important, having the opportunity to connect with those in communities face-to-face around the state is invaluable. These connections are essential to decreasing the burden of lead exposure across North Dakota. article yes

Learn about health legislative priorities through the end of 2025, related to Medicaid and Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, site-neutral payments, and more.

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2024 state legislative actions on data modernization and privacy.

Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health: Lessons from the 2025 and 2018-2019 Closures Catherine Jones Learn about the government shutdown effects on public health, with insights from the 2025 and 2018-2019 closures. When the federal government shuts down, it exposes vulnerabilities in our public health ecosystem. It also brings to light the critical role state and territorial health departments play to protect the health of their jurisdictions. While the political dynamics behind each shutdown may vary, the consequences are unfailingly disruptive. Some federal agencies and programs continue under mandatory or advance appropriations, but the day-to-day machinery that keeps the federal public health system functioning — workforce, oversight, and technical assistance — is impacted. Federal employees from shuttered agencies are either furloughed or required to work without pay if their roles are deemed essential to public safety, as with certain functions of HHS and FDA, among others. The effects of a shutdown can be temporary or long-lasting. In the past, Congress enacted guardrails to reduce the harm of future funding lapses, but the unpredictable nature of each shutdown ensures that disruption, loss, and hardship follow. A comparison of the 2025 and 2018-2019 shutdowns displays this impact — with the 2025 impasse becoming the longest shutdown in U.S. history, surpassing the 35-day record set during the December 2018 to January 2019 closure. Key Differences Between the Shutdowns The 2018-2019 shutdown, which was sparked over a funding fight for the U.S-Mexico border wall, spared HHS because the FY2019 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act had already been enacted before the funding lapse. As a result, core public-health agencies — including CMS, CDC, HRSA, and SAMHSA — continued operating. However, the programs funded through the Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill (e.g., SNAP, WIC, and FDA) were impacted, but the disruptions were somewhat contained: FDA paused some food and drug inspections, while SNAP and WIC administrators worked to stretch timing buffers to sustain benefits. The 2025 shutdown, by contrast, impacted HHS. Disputes over the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, (H.R. 5371), also known as a continuing resolution (CR) — compounded by an acrimonious stalemate over extending the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits (analyses show premiums could more than double in 2026 without extensions) and reversing Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill — placed health care directly in the shutdown’s epicenter. After 14 failed attempts to move the CR in the Senate, the measure was revised to extend federal funding through Jan. 30, 2026, and to reverse the Reductions in Force (RIFs) enacted during the lapse in appropriations. This CR was combined with three additional minibus appropriations packages, which included the Agriculture-FDA bill that funds SNAP and WIC through FY2026. On Nov. 10, the Senate narrowly mustered the 60 votes needed for passage, with eight Democratic senators joining in support. The bill then cleared the House on Nov. 12 with a 222-209 vote, and President Trump signed it the same day. The result of the 43-day shutdown was a deeper and more systemic breakdown. Furloughs and RIFs swept across agencies. Staffing gaps impacted CDC, SAMHSA, and CMS operations, while lawsuits proliferated over withheld pay, suspended contracts, and SNAP payment distribution. As of now, ACA subsidies remain unresolved, and the full repercussions of the 2025 shutdown continue to emerge. A Closer Look at the Shutdown Impacts Furloughs In 2025, the HHS contingency plan anticipated furloughing roughly 41% of its workforce, with CDC and NIH hit hardest — about 64% and 75% of staff, respectively. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, about 48% of HHS staff were furloughed, with CDC at 61% and NIH at 76%. After the 2018-2019 shutdown, Congress enacted the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, ensuring that all furloughed federal employees receive retroactive back pay once operations resume. The current CR provides a provision requiring the payment of federal employees who are furloughed or excepted during the lapse. Government contractors, unlike direct federal employees, are not guaranteed back pay after shutdowns. RIFs During the 2025 shutdown, CDC issued more than a thousand layoff notices, some later rescinded, while SAMHSA reported significant workforce losses. There were no RIFs during the 2018-2019 shutdown. In AFGE v. Donald J. Trump, federal-worker unions challenged the administration’s issuance of mass layoff notices during the 2025 shutdown, arguing that RIFs during a funding lapse violate the Antideficiency Act and are “arbitrary and capricious.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking further RIFs for hundreds of employees. This case is currently ongoing. To note, as part of the revised aforementioned CR, RIFs issued during this shutdown were reversed, returning to status quo workforce levels prior to the lapse of appropriations. WIC WIC entered October 2025 with funds from Section 32, providing $300 million as a bridge. Nationally, on average, WIC (a discretionary program) needs about $150 million per week to serve approximately 7 million women, infants, and children. To support access, several states tapped emergency funds and reallocated resources to food banks. In early November, the Trump Administration transferred $450 million from unused customs revenue to fund WIC. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, WIC continued to operate without gaps using prior-year funds. SNAP Roughly 42 million Americans currently rely on SNAP benefits. SNAP is considered mandatory spending, which allows payments to continue temporarily during a shutdown, but when a lapse exceeds 30 days, disruption risk escalates. During the 2025 shutdown, EBT payment delays triggered widespread litigation. In Coalition of States v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, over 25 states sued USDA for suspending benefits despite available contingency funds, citing violations of the Food and Nutrition Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal courts issued temporary restraining orders protecting millions of beneficiaries. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court to halt payments, and the Court granted the request. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, SNAP participants received benefits in December 2018 and January 2019. February benefits were also distributed in late January to avoid disruptions; these were not additional benefits. Tribal Health In 2025, the Indian Health Service remained open due to FY2026 enacted advance appropriations. This funding was in part a reaction to the dire consequences of the 2018-2019 shutdown in which the Tribal and Urban health programs reported having to limit health care services and resources, due to Indian Health Service employees having to work without pay or being furloughed. Unique Implications of the 2025 Shutdown As previously noted, because Congress fully funded HHS in 2018-2019 there was minimal impact on public health programs. However, the length and scope of the 2025 shutdown did impact HHS directly. For example: Mental health: Mental and behavioral health access contracted sharply as SAMHSA’s state-support network lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, due to shutdown RIFs as well as earlier rounds of layoffs and retirements. At-home care and telehealth: During the 2025 government shutdown, hospitals nationwide faced delayed Medicare reimbursements and the temporary suspension of hospital-at-home programs, which had become vital for managing capacity during workforce shortages. Telehealth expansion and remote monitoring efforts were also paused, causing many patients to pay out of pocket. U.S. territories: The pause on SNAP and the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) funding in November had disproportionate impacts on the U.S. territories, as higher percentages of their populations depend on SNAP and NAP (20%-40%). In three territories, legislatures passed bills to fund partial or full SNAP and NAP benefits for November. Implications for the Future of Public Health The 2025 shutdown underscored that lapses in government funding disrupt the public health ecosystem. A fully functioning system relies on steady collaboration from federal, state, local, and tribal health departments. The depth of the 2025 crisis has ignited bipartisan discussion about structural fixes to prevent governing by brinkmanship. Proposed congressional legislation includes bills to stabilize federal pay with automatic funding, contain congressional travel and adjournment until appropriations are complete, guarantee pay for federal workers and contractors, prevent disruption to SNAP and WIC programs, and ensure reimbursement to states. Padding Block - Large Related Contnet - Blog - Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health article yes

Learn about the importance of exploring intermediaries that work alongside existing data platforms in addressing ongoing public health challenges.

Whether you're a public health professional, policymaker, or member of the media, ASTHO’s communications are your trusted source for timely, expert-driven information.

ASTHO's State Health Policy and Federal Government Affairs teams examine trends and developments in public health law. These pieces, collectively called Health Policy Update, are a regular feature on ASTHO's blog.

Agenda <!-- All events will be virtual and are listed in ET. Please check back often, as the agenda is subject to change. --> The 2023 Health Equity Summit: A Movement for Justice is a national convening of state and island area health officials, federal and local partners, and stakeholders committed to advancing health and racial equity. This event is designed by and for public health professionals, health equity leaders, and their partners. Attendees will have conversations that inspire action to confront health inequities’ root causes and move towards justice. Objectives: Mobilize the public health workforce and stakeholders to prioritize implementing evidence-based practices and policies directed toward advancing the health and well-being of people who have experienced historical discrimination and oppression. Recommend equity practices that are sustainable within our public health system by working alongside community members to envision a nation that supports optimal health for all. Prioritize collaboration and information sharing among state and federal health officials, partners, and stakeholders across states and jurisdictions to advance equity. <!-- Access the Agenda --> website

Past Events Resources Center Welcome to the health equity summit past events resources center. Information about past health equity summits and related series, recordings, and additional resources are available below. website

ASTHO’s 2025 public health blog features articles on policy, innovation, and leadership to support state and territorial health agencies.

ASTHO's hub for public health learning, training, and development resources.

Upcoming Events, Trainings, and Opportunities website

Learn how public health agencies are improving their financial management strategies and systems.

Get vital background on the ACA enhanced premium tax credits and read about 2025/2026 congressional developments for the subsidies.

Learn how the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act impacts public health emergency readiness and proposed changes to this legislation.