Displaying 1-20 of 21 results for

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e

Partnering with Community Action Agencies Can Improve Trust in Vaccines astho, association of state and territorial health officials, association of state and territorial health officials astho, state health official, public health official, territorial health official, island jurisdictions, state health, health department, public health, state and territorial health, social determinants of health, johns hopkins, advance health equity, socially determined, health inequities, race ethnicity, covid-19 vaccines, health disparities, vaccine supply, high income countries, vaccine equity, vaccine distribution, vaccine hesitancy, immunization, centers for disease control, community action agencies, covid19 pandemic, at-risk populations, healthy equity Geetika Nadkarni Learn how community action teams are working to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in their own communities. In the current climate surrounding vaccinations and other large-scale public health measures, it’s more important than ever for public health to engage communities. One way to do this is through working with community action agencies (CAAs), local entities that work to reduce poverty and reduce disparities among the populations they serve. Funded through the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), CAAs are an ideal complement to public health’s mission to address the social determinants of health and achieve greater equity. With support from CDC, ASTHO is working with the National Community Action Partnership and five CAAs in the Partnering for Vaccine Equity project, which aims to increase acceptance and uptake of vaccines among racial and ethnic minority groups and in rural communities. ASTHO chose to partner with CAAs as trusted community agents for this project because of their existing relationships within communities through programs such as Head Start, food banks, federal nutrition programs, and employment and housing assistance. Through their internal and external partnerships, they can reach people who may be concerned about vaccine safety and/or lack access to vaccination sites. Through this project, CAAs are partnering with residents, faith-based organizations, local schools and universities, state and local public health departments, and non-profits active in the community. They are also engaging a range of local providers, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), physicians, community health workers, medical and nursing students, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). These community action teams are working together to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake and to customize evidence-based strategies to their own communities and neighborhoods. article yes

This toolkit details structure and outcomes of ASTHO’s Vaccine Equity Project to help jurisdictions in their pursuit of vaccine equity.

State and federal actions to expand the doula workforce and improve maternal health.

Under the Tenth Amendment, states have the power to protect the health and welfare of their populations, including the authority to implement isolation and quarantine orders to limit the spread of disease. This post is an examination of state public health authority for isolation and quarantine.

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century, as well as some of the most powerful and cost-effective tools to prevent disease, disparities, disability, and death among children and adults. The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented development and distribution of the vaccines against the novel coronavirus have generated much focus on state laws related to vaccinations. As state and territorial legislatures prepare to convene in the coming weeks, we can already identify several topics within vaccine law that policymakers across the country will consider.

Policymakers seek to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by focusing on non-congregate sheltering and alternative housing for unhoused populations.

As the number of COVID-19 vaccinations grows, some states are looking at their vaccination rates to determine when to loosen measures that mitigate the spread of COVID-19, such as venue capacity limits, business closure times, and masking requirements. As vaccinations allow businesses to reopen and customers to return, questions have arisen about whether venues or services—especially those that bring people in close contact for long periods of times—such as retail stores, concert venues, entertainment venues, air travel, cruise ships, etc., can require patrons or customers to verify that they received a COVID-19 vaccine. So far, state policy makers have had mixed views on the issue.

Recap the state legislative sessions in 2025 thus far, spanning maternal health, infectious disease, and other important public health issues.

State Legislatures Moving to Increase Rural Health Care Access How States Are Incentivizing Health Care Providers to Practice in Rural Areas Lana McKinney Hospital closures and fewer care options in rural areas cause worse health outcomes for Americans in those areas. Read about state policies aimed at bringing providers to back to rural America. People living in rural areas face greater health risks than those living in urban areas. Rural populations not only experience increased poverty and higher rates of chronic disease; they are also older and have less access to both health care providers and health insurance. States are exploring several strategies to improve health care access for rural residents, including recognizing a new hospital type, exploring alternative methods or sources of health services, and offering financial support for health care facilities and the rural health workforce. Access to Care Among many factors contributing rural areas accessing health care, hospital closures are a major one. Almost 200 rural hospitals have closed since 2005. When rural hospitals close, people living in those communities must travel farther for care. Rural areas may also experience shortages of and less access to health care professionals, including specialty care, as compared to urban areas. To reduce the number of hospital closures and provide support for existing hospitals in rural areas, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 created a new Medicare provider type known as the Rural Emergency Hospital (REH). These facilities offer a more limited scope of services than acute care or critical access hospitals and have their own conditions of participation and Medicare reimbursement structure. There have been 36 REH conversions in 16 states since 2023. Jurisdictions continue to explore legislation to formally recognize REHs under state law, State recognition of REHs is crucial for establishing licensure, defining service scope, and enabling participation in state health care programs like Medicaid, ensuring these facilities can legally operate and provide necessary care. with Florida (SB 644) enacting legislation in 2024, and Hawaii (HB 1179) considering legislation so far in 2025. A number of other jurisdictions have recently received approval to amend their Medicaid State Plans and define the payment methodology for REHs serving Medicaid recipients, including Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico. States are also exploring other policies to financially support rural hospitals during the 2025 legislative session. Alabama (HB 86) is considering a rural hospital investment program that would create tax credits to incentivize donations to those hospitals that could support service delivery. And bills to establish grant programs to support rural hospitals are before the legislatures in both Oklahoma (HB 2754) and Indiana (HB 1274). States are also exploring the role of technology, and community needs and resources, to support rural access to care. In 2024, Colorado enacted at least two bills with a rural population focus, including SB 24-168 to invest in remote patient monitoring to support rural health facilities and requires reimbursement. SB 24-055 creates an agricultural and rural community behavioral health program to understand the relevant issues and improve access to care. So far in 2025, at least two states are exploring ways to better serve people in rural communities. Hawaii (SB 1004) is considering legislation that would establish a pilot program to utilize community health workers in rural areas, while North Dakota (HB 1567) is proposing a legislative management study focused on improving access to oral health care, and would require review of telehealth options for reaching rural areas and workforce incentives for dental providers. Rural Health Care Workforce Jurisdictions are also using financial supports—including scholarships, tax incentives, and loan cancelation programs—to increase the number of health care providers in rural areas. At least three states modified financial support programs for practitioners working in rural and underserved areas in 2024. Mississippi’s S 2729 expanded the scope and responsibilities of its rural physician and dentist scholarship programs and their respective governing commissions. And Georgia (HB 872) amended its cancelable loan program to include dental students. California (SB 909) amended the requirements for its physician corps program, which provides financial assistance to those who practice in underserved areas, removes the limit on the amount of loan repayment available, and reduces the duration of service obligation from three to two years. Jurisdictions have also pursued tax policy changes aimed at supporting rural health care providers, including state tax credits for individual practitioners working in rural areas. In 2024, Georgia (HB 82) amended its rural physician tax credit to include dentists living and working in rural areas. In 2025, at least two states are considering expansion of tax credits for providers serving rural communities. In New Mexico, HB 52 would expand the state’s rural health care practitioner tax credit to include additional provider types, including speech language pathologists and occupational therapists. And Oregon is considering several bills to expand existing rural provider income tax credits, including HB 2549 to add pharmacists and HB 2204 to add podiatrists. Finally, legislatures are continuing to consider other policy initiatives to bolster the rural health care workforce in 2025. Acknowledging a shortage of nurses in rural communities and barriers for rural nursing students, Washington SB 5335 would establish a rural nursing education program in the state health department with a goal of improving nursing care in rural areas of the state. And in Nebraska, LB 119 would formally enact the state’s rural health opportunity program, which provides tuition waivers for students from rural areas pursuing health care careers, into law. ASTHO will continue to monitor this issue and provide any necessary updates. article yes

Learn how health agencies can pursue public health partnerships with Community Action partners to strengthen immunization infrastructure.

ASTHO Helping Agencies and Providers Advance Vaccine Equity vaccine equity toolkit, community-based vaccine outreach, public health vaccine partnerships, increasing vaccine confidence, vaccine equity strategies, vaccination rates, improving vaccination, community based organizations, health equity, vaccination coverage, trusted messengers, health care, health and human services, disease control and prevention, vaccine preventable diseases, centers for disease control, increasing vaccine, covid-19 pandemic, vaccination program, immunization program, public health departments, build vaccine confidence, control and prevention cdc, united states, health systems, ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Shalini Nair ASTHO | Highlights of ASTHO toolkit that helps health agencies and providers advance equity in their communities. Over the past several years, views on vaccination have fluctuated, with periods of widespread demand followed by waves of declining sentiment due to the spread of mis- and disinformation—ultimately contributing to worsening health disparities. Addressing immunization equity is essential to mitigating the effects of vaccine-preventable diseases among vulnerable individuals and communities who may be at higher risk for adverse outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic response provided many lessons to take forward for health equity initiatives, specifically in highlighting the importance of community-centered outreach in addressing the health care divide. Introducing: Vaccine Equity Toolkit ASTHO’s Championing Change: A Toolkit for Addressing Vaccine Equity Through Community Mobilization helps state and territorial health agencies, community leaders, and health care providers advance vaccine equity in their communities. For the past three years, ASTHO’s award-winning Partnering for Vaccine Equity initiative has supported boots-on-the-ground efforts to increase vaccine confidence, drive demand for vaccines, and facilitate vaccine uptake. Alongside the Community Action network and a diverse group of advisors, ASTHO and national and local partners have collated this comprehensive resource, which highlights the promising strategies, lessons learned, outcomes, and more from the novel collaborative. Lille Seels_ASTHO Helping Agencies and Providers Advance Vaccine Equity From the Field Snapshot The Championing Change toolkit highlights the work of five local community action agencies across Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, and South Carolina, to increase uptake of vaccines in their jurisdictions. Each agency took a slightly different approach to implementation, emphasizing the importance of tailoring interventions to local community needs. The toolkit includes in-depth case studies on the standout strategies, including: Partnering with health care and public health: Palmetto Community Action Partnership engaged with their health department and a regional federally qualified health care center to help maximize the reach and impact of their services in rural South Carolina. Meeting people where they are with fact-based messaging: Enrichment Services Program leveraged the power of targeted messaging campaigns to address the underlying opinions and attitudes of community members, and cultivate discussion around vaccination across three counties in Georgia and Alabama. Leveraging existing programming and partnerships to expand reach: Community Action Program for Central Arkansas looked to their internal programmatic initiatives around early childhood education and outreach for individuals experiencing homelessness to help amplify their vaccine equity work. Since the project’s inception, ASTHO’s community action partners have held more than 450 events, engaged more than 1.5 million community members in their efforts, and administered at least 5,500 vaccinations including those for COVID-19, influenza, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), shingles, and more. Susan Bailey_ASTHO Helping Agencies and Providers Advance Vaccine Equity Using the Toolkit State and territorial health agencies work to promote, improve, and maintain health for all. However, their ability to fulfill these responsibilities sustainably depends largely on public trust in public health institutions. One of the most effective ways to build trust is by engaging the communities most affected and leveraging existing, trusted organizations to help address the issues. Every site participating in ASTHO’s Vaccine Equity Project cultivated partnerships with their state or local health department to aid in their outreach efforts, which can transcend into other areas and stages of public health interventions. Aurora GrantWingate_ASTHO Helping Agencies and Providers Advance Vaccine Equity In Conclusion Jurisdictions can learn more about the innovative structure and outcomes from this project and implement similar partnerships that further the pursuit of equity in their communities. Access the Championing Change toolkit now. Special Thanks-Blog - ASTHO Helping Agencies and Providers Advance Vaccine Equity Padding - small 1 NU21IP000598 website yes

As part of ASTHO’s annual Legislative Prospectus series, we are taking time this week to focus on efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Public health officials across all levels of government have been working to end the HIV epidemic, exploring new partnerships and efforts to implement evidenced based policies that could eliminate HIV.

This report is on the overlap of climate change and environmental justice.

This report highlights examples of health department partnership coordination strategies to enhance surveillance, increase resource and staffing capacity, and improve communication and collaboration in order to strengthen infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 response.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a particularly negative impact on the mental health of adolescent girls. Fortunately, state legislators have been addressing school-based mental health through legislation enacted since the beginning of the pandemic.

During the the 2021-2022 legislative sessions, several states have enacted laws addressing flu prevention efforts.

Do Cottage Foods Really Come from a Cottage? Beth Giambrone Even if you're not familiar with the term "cottage foods," chances are you have purchased them—think getting a loaf of bread from your weekend farmers market or cookies from a friend's home-based baking business. In some cases, they can also be sold online. So, what exactly are they? Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate at a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods in the jurisdiction where they are created. Cottage foods are exempt from many state food and safety regulations, with supporters of expanding cottage food laws asserting that existing laws burden small business and restrict competition and consumer freedom. Those opposing the expansion of cottage foods argue the need to ensure food safety and to protect consumers from food borne illness. Here's a primer on cottage foods and how they're regulated. What's the difference between a cottage food kitchen and a commercial kitchen? Commercial kitchens (sometimes known as shared use kitchens) are large, industrial spaces where food can be produced in high volumes; they can also be rented out for shared use. While every state subjects commercial kitchens to food safety inspection and regulations, a few states require inspection of microenterprise or home kitchens producing cottage foods. Does the government have a role in regulating cottage foods? While several federal agencies regulate commercial food products—such as USDA for meat processing and FDA for produce—cottage foods are not subject to federal regulation because they are typically only sold within a state and not across state lines. At the state level, cottage food producers are subject to the health and safety laws and regulations of the state in which they are operating. Some states require cottage food producers to register their business or to have training and/or certification in safe food handling. Currently, all 50 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of cottage food law in place. Under most state laws, cottage food producers are exempt from food safety laws that apply to food establishments. These exempt rules are usually based on the type of food product produced, the point of sale, and the labeling requirements associated with the food. Although cottage food producers are exempt from certain requirements, all states allow the Department of Health to investigate complaints related to foodborne illness and fine producers if there are violations. Since the 2020 legislative sessions, at least 17 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) considered bills related to cottage foods, often centering around product sales, food products, and labeling. An overview of the conditions and a snapshot of the laws passed in states are below. What are common cottage food products? Most state laws limit which food products can be produced and sold as cottage foods. And while specific allowable foods vary state to state, some common restrictions on the type of food sold include foods requiring temperature control (e.g., meat and dairy products) and fermented or pickled foods. Foods such as dairy-free baked goods (e.g., breads and biscuits), candies, and jams are popular cottage food products. Over the last few years, states have expanded the types of foods that qualify to be a cottage food. In 2021, Illinois enacted SB 2007, amending the types of foods permissible under the cottage food law from a delineated list of canned foods (e.g. jams and syrups) to a general standard that mirrors the FDA definition of "low-acid canned food." The New Jersey legislature passed A 3991 in 2022 to exempt raw, unprocessed honey from the state's cottage food regulations. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Oklahoma enacted its "Homemade Food Freedom Act" (HB 1032) in 2021. This new law allows any packaged food or beverage (excluding alcoholic beverages, unpasteurized milk, or cannabis products) to be considered a cottage food rather than only baked goods made without meat or fresh fruits. Additionally, the law allows beekeepers who produce less than 500 gallons of honey per year to qualify for the state's food freedom exemptions if the honey is produced from hives located in the state and sold directly to the consumer. Similarly, the 2022 "Tennessee Food Freedom Act" (HB 813/SB 693) broadly expands the types of homemade foods eligible for sale under the cottage food law to include any non-time/temperature-controlled food item or non-alcoholic beverage. What limitations do states place on cottage food sales? Most states limit cottage food producers to direct-to-consumer sales, such as at a farmers market or roadside stand. More than half of states allow online and direct-to-consumer sales as long as they are to in-state consumers only. While the producer is usually required to deliver the products, at least five states allow delivery by a third party. Several states have considered allowing the sale of cottage food in retail settings. In 2020, Wyoming enacted HB 84, which increased the gross sales cap for producers and allowed producers of non-temperature controlled foods (e.g., jams, vegetables, dried soup mixes) to use third-party vendors like a retail shop rather than solely relying on gross sales. Furthermore, the Wyoming legislature expanded the use of third-party vendors to include the sale of eggs in 2021 by enacting HB 118. A 2021 Arkansas law (HB 248) also allows for the sale of cottage food products at retail stores. Additionally, many states define cottage foods based on the number of items sold or the annual gross sales. The gross sales cap limits vary greatly across states, ranging from $3,000 to $250,000. At least twenty states have no gross sales limit. At least one state (Ohio) places a limit on meals sold per week from home kitchens. What are common labeling requirements for cottage foods? Most states require cottage food producers label their goods. While specific labeling requirements vary state to state, producers generally must provide the name of the product, a list of ingredients, known allergens (e.g., nuts), contact information of the producer, and a statement declaring the product was made in a kitchen exempt from licensing and inspection regulations. In some states, cottage food producers are allowed to use an identification number in place of contact information on product labels. Maryland enacted HB 1017 in 2020, which allows cottage food producers to use a unique identification number issued by the Department of Health in lieu of the business name and address. Arkansas HB 248 (referenced above) also allows producers to use an identification number. What's next? State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving, with more foodstuffs exempt from state food and safety regulations increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks necessitating a public health response. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes