Displaying 1-20 of 22 results for

PrEP is a powerful tool to reduce new HIV infections; expanding access to PrEP is a priority within the federal Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. One way to increase access to PrEP is by allowing pharmacists to prescribe and dispense it.

Establishing an Office of Health Equity or Minority Health Learn how to establish, structure, and fund a health equity or minority health office. A dedicated office of health equity or minority health can provide a focus on cross-cutting efforts and strategies that help to improve services, outreach, and engagement with marginalized communities. This report delves into the typical scope for setting up a health equity or minority health office, including how to establish, structure, and fund it—providing a blueprint to island areas working to build one or considering establishing one in the future. In addition, it explores lessons learned from state offices of health equity or minority health, including California, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

Three ways policymakers are addressing access to care are through telehealth, safety net and emergency services, and adjusted reimbursement rates to Medicaid-enrolled providers.

Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots JoAnne Deehr Suicides continue to be a critical public health issue — learn how states are leveraging policy to improve suicide prevention. Suicide remains a persistent public health challenge, affecting people of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and income levels in the United States. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, more than 49,300 Americans died by suicide in 2023. National suicide rates steadily rose from 2003 until 2018 and have remained high since then, reflecting an enduring and widespread impact. While all communities are affected by suicide, certain demographics face higher risks. Disproportionately higher rates of suicide are seen among elderly Americans, Veterans, individuals with lower income, less education, and those living in rural areas. People in certain industries, such as mining, construction, and public safety, are also at elevated risk. At the same time, emerging technologies like chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have raised new considerations related to safety, oversight, and appropriate use in mental health settings, underscoring the need for thoughtful state approaches to suicide prevention. Policymakers are responding to these challenges in multiple ways, including establishing state suicide prevention infrastructure and regulating AI chatbot use in mental health. Suicide Prevention Infrastructure Legislation Suicide prevention efforts are most effective when states and territories have dedicated infrastructure — such as suicide prevention offices, coordinators, commissions, and fatality review processes — to support coordination, surveillance, and implementation of evidence-based strategies. These structures enable state and territorial health agencies to identify populations and communities at increased risk, align partners across public health, health care, and public safety, and pursue sustainable funding for suicide prevention and crisis system improvements. ASTHO’s Suicide Prevention Offices and Committees Legal Map highlights the varied policy approaches states have taken to establish this infrastructure and identifies which states had statutory suicide prevention structures in place as of January 1, 2025. During the 2025 legislative session, states considered at least 30 bills related to establishing suicide prevention offices, coordinators, advisory bodies, and suicide fatality reviews. Five of these bills were enacted, including Delaware’s HB 54 which establishes the state’s Office of Suicide Prevention. Delaware also enacted HB 87, expanding membership in the state’s Suicide Prevention Coalition to include someone who has experienced suicidal ideation or survived a suicide attempt and someone who has lost a loved one to suicide. Conversely, Oklahoma enacted SB 676, repealing the section of the state’s Suicide Prevention Act that established the Oklahoma Suicide Prevention Council, which was slated to sunset in 2020. The council was originally tasked with identifying issues and promoting strategies to prevent suicide, and providing technical assistance on best practices for identifying people at risk of suicide. The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services still serves as the leading agency for implementing the remainder of tasks outlined in the Act. Illinois and Texas enacted legislation establishing advisory bodies focused on suicide prevention among first responders. In Texas, HB 1593 creates a committee to study suicide prevention and peer support programs within fire departments and requires a report with recommendations by September 2026. In Illinois, HB 2551 reconstitutes the First Responders Suicide Prevention Task Force, and increases membership in the task force to include a member from an organization that provides mental health training and support to first responders and two members who represent organizations that advocate on behalf of public safety telecommunicators, such as 911 operators and dispatchers. The bill also charges the task force with developing a final report by December 2026. Both bodies are scheduled to sunset in January 2027. Currently, Wisconsin has several types of fatality review teams operating through voluntary efforts with no law formally establishing or governing these teams. Wisconsin is considering SB 192, which would formally establish processes for reviewing fatalities, including deaths by suicide. It would also direct the Department of Health Services to establish a fatality review program comprised of established local teams and authorize the department to establish state fatality review teams. AI Chatbots While states continue to strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure, policymakers are beginning to turn their attention to emerging mental health considerations related to AI. Since emerging in the 1950s, AI has evolved from rule-based systems to today's machine learning and natural language processing applications, powering everything from data analysis to interactive chatbots. Recent AI advances enable chatbots to simulate human conversation so convincingly that users may forget they are interacting with a machine. However, these systems lack genuine empathy and cannot substitute for professional mental health treatment. Their tendency to be excessively agreeable creates particular dangers for people experiencing suicidal ideation, leading some states to explore regulations governing AI chatbot use in mental health and suicide prevention contexts. At least 19 states considered legislation regulating the use of AI for mental health related reasons to promote user safety. At least five bills were enacted, including California SB 243, which requires chatbot platform operators to disclose that users are interacting with AI if confusion could occur, develop protocols to prevent and respond to suicidal ideation or self-harm, and report annually on safety measures to the state Office of Suicide Prevention. The California legislature also passed AB 1064, which the Governor subsequently vetoed due to concerns that its broad restrictions on AI companion chatbots for minors could limit access to potentially beneficial tools. Illinois and Nevada passed legislation that largely prohibits AI from providing behavioral health services. Illinois HB 1806 restricts the use of AI for therapy or psychotherapy unless delivered by a licensed professional who is required to inform the patient, or their legal representative, in writing and receive consent. The law also prohibits licensed professionals from allowing AI to make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly with clients and allows the use of AI only for administrative or supplemental tasks under professional oversight. Nevada AB 406 similarly prohibits AI systems from providing or representing themselves as offering professional mental or behavioral health care, prohibits AI from performing the functions of a school counselor, psychologist, or social worker in public schools, and allows licensed professionals to use AI only for administrative or supportive purposes, with oversight to ensure accuracy and safety. New York and Utah passed laws requiring mental health chatbots to clearly disclose that they are not human. As part of their annual budget, New York S 3008 mandates that AI companion systems capable of simulating human-like interactions detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, provide crisis referrals, and regularly disclose that users are interacting with AI rather than a person. Utah HB 452 requires AI-driven mental health chatbots to provide clear disclosures and limits advertising and data practices. At the federal level, on December 11, 2025, the White House issued an executive order seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence and create a “minimally burdensome” federal approach. The order also directs the Department of Justice to form an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws deemed in conflict with this federal policy, and the Department of Commerce to limit eligibility for certain federal funds for states that take a non-preferred approach. The scope and criteria of these federal actions, including their impact on state laws aimed at suicide prevention, have not been clearly defined. Advancing suicide prevention will require states and territories to take comprehensive approaches that address both systemic gaps within state infrastructure and emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policy developments and provide relevant updates. Reviewed by - Baker-White, Maffey article yes

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

This June marked the 40-year anniversary of the first five cases of what later became known as AIDS reported in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Since then, more than 32 million people have died from the disease worldwide and nearly 38 million currently live with the HIV virus (including 1.2 million people in the United States). Over that period, tremendous strides have been made in HIV testing, prevention strategies, and treatment of individuals living with the virus to ensure that they can lead healthier and longer lives. While these advancements have led to significant progress in reducing HIV/AIDS-related deaths and new infection rates, HIV/AIDS continues to be a persistent problem in the United States. The federal government and state legislatures are taking significant steps toward ending the HIV epidemic, including steps to reduce new infections, combating stigma, and advancing access to care and HIV prevention

On Dec. 3, the International Day of People with Disabilities commemorates disability rights and brings awareness to essential issues for those with disabilities by promoting the “well-being of persons with disabilities in all spheres of society.” While the ADA laid a critical foundation for disability rights, the work to ensure equitable access to services and needs continues, including access to state and local emergency preparedness and response activities like crisis communication, access to resources, allocation of vaccine and other medical countermeasures, and transportation.

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.

The movement to address racism through policy change in the U.S. is receiving significant political support at every level of government. Government institutions are acknowledging the systemic oppression of people of color that persists in the United States and elevating racism as an urgent public health emergency comparable to other public health crises.

How to Support Youth Post COVID-19 With More Flexible Policies Caitlin Langhorne Griffith, Victoria Pless, Martha Yeide Over the past few months, COVID-19 has highlighted how current policies and funding do not support an equitable approach to health. However, states and territories have begun to leverage statutory and regulatory flexibilities to improve health outcomes for the disproportionately affected during this pandemic. One of the ways that states and territories can support these groups and maximize these flexibilities during and post-COVID-19 is by deploying a Shared Risk and Protective Factor (SRPF) Framework to address negative health outcomes. Research has demonstrated that addressing both the risk and protective factors across sectors can lead to multiple improved health outcomes, including heart disease, asthma, depression, and substance use. Because youth are at increased risk of exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and have fewer supportive resources, they are a particularly vulnerable group potentially affected by COVID-19 policies and funding. ACEs are a risk factor shared across numerous health outcomes, such as substance use disorder, chronic disease, and mental health. However, implementing the SRPF Framework can promote protective factors in upstream ways, like reducing and mitigating the impact of ACEs. During the COVID-19 response, some areas where state officials can take advantage of policy flexibilities to better support youth and reduce some ACEs include youth experiencing food insecurity, youth with incarcerated parents, and youth witnessing violence in the home. Ultimately, these examples illustrate the benefits of extending innovative policies to decrease negative outcomes and promote health across the lifespan beyond COVID-19. Youth and Food Insecurity Food insecurity is a public health issue that plagues the United States and has been associated with negative health outcomes including obesity and unhealthy brain development. More than 11 million children in the U.S. live in food insecure homes, with an estimated 11 percent of households reporting food insecurity at least some time during 2018. New data show that food insecurity has increased for youth during the COVID-19 pandemic, with almost one in five of mothers — 17.4 percent —with children ages 12 and younger reporting their children were undereating because they could not afford enough food. When state officials closed schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19, food access was upended for youth who participate in free-or-low-cost school meal programs. States can mitigate this disruption by safeguarding access and expanding these programs to ensure the continued physical and mental development of youth. Jurisdictions have implemented innovative practices allowed under expanded flexibilities to ensure that youth receive regular nutrition during COVID-19. Vermont is conducting telephone appointments for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program due to social distancing, and has also expanded the list of foods available through WIC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-seven states and territories have implemented the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) benefit passed as part of the CARES Act. This allows households to offset the cost of meals that would have been consumed at school by youth. Wyoming has adapted its WIC program services, which includes providing curbside deliveries and conducting phone screenings. Youth with Incarcerated Parents It is estimated that between 1.7-2.7 million youth have incarcerated parents. This leaves them at a higher risk of adverse outcomes, including mental health problems, poor school-based outcomes, and increased antisocial behavior later in life. Parental closeness between incarcerated parents and youth can be an effective strategy to promote resiliency, and jurisdictions are implementing programs focused on connecting the incarcerated individuals with loved ones. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has created a virtual visitation program for all state-run facilities, and all inmates are eligible to participate. In Connecticut, organizations such as Children with Incarcerated Parents have created programs that provide free calls with incarcerated parents each month during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other innovative avenues to connect children with incarcerated parents include the Governor of Illinois issuing an executive order suspending the transfer of some inmates from county jails into the Illinois Department of Corrections during the public health emergency. This approach may increase the likelihood that inmates remain geographically closer to home. Washington executive order 20-47 suspended statutes that limit an individual’s ability to receive post-conviction relief, as well as prosecutors’ and courts’ ability to file and process criminal cases. Washington executive order 20-50 broadened the Governor’s authority to grant clemency to reduce the prison population. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy issued an executive order establishing an Emergency Medical Review Committee, which will review which inmates can be released to home confinement—identified by the Board of Parole—and outlined the process for ensuring those who are released are aware of reentry benefits. Youth Witnessing Violence in the Home Witnessing violence at home also is associated with a higher risk of negative health outcomes, as well as experiencing or perpetrating violence later in life. "Stay at home" or "shelter in place" orders during the COVID-19 response has corresponded with increased risk of family violence and increased calls to domestic violence hotlines, posing another public health crisis as many children have been exposed to violence in their homes. While trends also show a decrease in reports of child neglect and abuse, this decline may be due to restrictions on the child welfare surveillance systems that monitor and intervene in situations of abuse and neglect. State lawmakers have offered help to those experiencing domestic violence, despite restrictions on travel. Massachusetts and Maine ordered all state hotels to only provide rooms for vulnerable populations or essential workers, including those that may be experiencing domestic violence. New Hampshire established the COVID-19 Emergency Domestic and Sexual Violence Services Relief Fund for shelters across the state to aid those who may be experiencing domestic or sexual violence. Nevada developed a process for individuals to file online temporary domestic violence protective orders. The District of Columbia developed a process so individuals can file an extreme risk protection order through an online form and phone call, which can remove firearms from individuals who may be dangerous. Finally, California released a safety planning guide for those who may be experiencing domestic violence. The COVID-19 response has prompted states to provide flexibilities in funding and suspend or modify policies that would have made it more difficult to protect the public’s health — and in turn would have exacerbated negative health outcomes among youth. Through innovative practices these efforts have worked to mitigate the negative impacts of food insecurity, youth with incarcerated parents, and youth experiencing violence in the home. Health officials can be at the forefront of this innovation to ensure that protective factors are leveraged to reduce disparities and impact multiple outcomes with upstream approaches for youth. website

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted youth mental health, particularly as a result of school closures, social isolation, family economic hardship, fear of family loss or illness, and reduced access to healthcare. However, states have many strategies to choose from to improve youth mental health and reduce suicide.

Continuing ASTHO’s Legislative Prospectus series—which highlights the top 10 public health policy issues for 2022—we are focusing this week on mental and behavioral health as well as supporting the public health workforce.

Dental care and the oral health workforce have also been tremendously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the midst of stay at home orders, nationwide closures, and related employment loss, people have largely put their oral health on the back burner.

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

State efforts to reduce firearm injury and death with safe storage policies.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted workforce challenges and longstanding health inequities within the healthcare and public health systems, because of this there has been an increased interest in developing the community health worker workforce in states all around the country.

In 2020 and early 2021, state policymakers took action to raise awareness of the impacts of racism on health outcomes, to reverse the damage of racist polices, and to implement policy changes to ensure that future policies are enacted with a racial equity lens. In the past two years, many states introduced and adopted resolutions declaring racism a public health crisis. In the early weeks of 2022, there is notably less legislation that has been introduced as compared to the same time last year.

Health in All Policies can be a successful strategy to expand collaboration between state and territorial agencies and other partners, but the terminology used in programs focused on these efforts can differ. While equity is often a prominent part of these efforts, it is not always included in the program title. ASTHO partnered with the Kansas Health Institute to host listening sessions to better understand how these efforts are framed and deployed.