Displaying 13 results for

While communities transition from emergency response to long-term monitoring and recovery, the federal government and states are taking legislative action to improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

This ASTHOReport serves as a primer for state and territorial health agencies seeking to assess the public health impacts of lead exposure in drinking water.

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 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.

An ASTHO blog article on leave policies to support better work/life balance.

Outcomes and Implications of ACIP’s Vote on the Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Implications of ACIP Vote on Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Kim Martin, Jessica Baggett Learn about the outcomes and implications of the December 2025 ACIP vote on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. On Dec. 4 and 5, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held a long-anticipated meeting featuring two major topics of discussion: the hepatitis B birth dose and the pediatric vaccine schedule. The committee voted on two questions related to the pediatric hepatitis B vaccine schedule, both of which passed. To briefly summarize the outcome of the meeting, ACIP shifted from recommending a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns to individualized decision-making for newborns born to HBsAg-negative mothers. There was no change to the recommendation for infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers or whose HBsAg status is unknown. CDC has not yet adopted these changes. In the meantime, many states are taking actions to provide clarity to providers and promote public confidence in the vaccine. How States Are Taking Action In response to (and in some cases before) the new ACIP recommendations, several states issued recommendations, guidelines, standing orders, executive directives, and health alerts for providers to provide clarity. States Recommending or Encouraging the Full Vaccine Series Some states are issuing their own guidance and recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine series or encouraging providers to adhere to the series as is it was before the new ACIP recommendations: The Northeast Public Health Collaborative released a consensus statement before the ACIP meeting recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and a schedule that aligns with clinical recommendations. Collaborative members also issued statements reaffirming their adherence to established hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Maryland also released guidance for parents and caregivers about its childhood immunization recommendations. States in the West Coast Health Alliance issued statements supporting the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. These states include California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Many individual states also issued statements affirming the recommendation for the continued use of the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, including Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Vermont. States Issuing Standing Orders and Executive Directives At least two states issued a standing order or executive directive related to the hepatitis B vaccine: The Maryland Department of Health issued a standing order to ensure hepatitis B vaccine access for infants and children in the state. The standing order authorizes qualified health care providers to administer the hepatitis B vaccine and outlines the policies and procedures for administering the vaccine. In New Jersey, the acting health commissioner issued an executive directive recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. States Issuing Public Health Alerts and Advisories Well before the recent ACIP meeting, the Maine CDC issued a health advisory to providers recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. Since the ACIP meeting, at least two other states have released provider advisories. Maryland issued a letter to providers laying out the state’s hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, and New Hampshire issued a health alert with a continued recommendation for the full hepatitis B vaccine series and birth dose. In addition, Vermont sent a guidance letter to the providers in the state’s vaccine program. States Reexamine State Statutes and Agency Rules Linking to ACIP Recommendations Over the last several months, many states have proposed and enacted legislation to move away from sole reliance on ACIP recommendations. More recently, Massachusetts adopted H 4761, authorizing the health commissioner — in consultation with a newly established committee on immunization recommendations — to review and issue alternative standards to ACIP recommendations. States are also proposing changes to agency rules related to school and childcare immunization requirements. For example, Colorado’s health department has issued a proposed rule to modify the state’s standards for school and childcare immunization requirements and to align its rules with recent changes to state statute. Additional Considerations for States If CDC adopts the proposed ACIP recommendations, states can consider the following actions. Hepatitis B Screening States should continue to work with health care providers to close gaps in hepatitis B screening and follow-up for infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. Data show the most common cause of perinatal infection occurs when a mother with hepatitis B gives birth and the infant does not receive follow-up postexposure prophylaxis. Insurance Coverage While public and private insurance, including the Vaccines for Children program, are still required to cover the hepatitis B vaccine, such as any birth doses given to infants of HBsAg-negative mothers under shared clinical decision-making, states can consider creating additional coverage requirements. Some states have passed policies on insurance coverage, and other states have proposed legislation related to other vaccine coverage. Implementation of Shared Clinical Decision-Making While health care providers and parents have the flexibility to determine their approach for infants of HBsAg-negative mothers (i.e., continuing to recommend/give a birth dose), ACIP recommendations that rely on shared clinical decision-making have increased provider questions on how to have and document these conversations. States can work with medical associations, provider boards, and health care partners to ensure clinicians understand how to apply shared clinical decision-making recommendations. This includes educating staff in birthing hospitals, community clinics, and pediatric practices on how to counsel parents and document informed discussions. Jurisdictions can also develop or adapt educational materials and decision aids that clearly outline benefits, risks, timing, and follow-up options to support both providers and parents. More information on shared clinical decision-making is available from CDC and Common Health Coalition. States can also encourage providers and birthing institutions to examine workflows, Immunization Information System documentation, and follow-up to ensure scheduling of future doses. Implications for Vaccine Supply States can examine vaccine supply through the Vaccines for Children program to understand how the new recommendations impact supply of single antigen hepatitis B vaccines. If a significant percentage of the population receives vaccines on a different timetable, it could impact supply and timing for other vaccinations, given the reliance on combination vaccines for hepatitis B dose two and three, which can include DTaP, polio, and Hib vaccines. Supplemental Resources Common Health Coalition: Vaccine Resources December 2025 ACIP Meeting: Hepatitis B Updates for Health Leaders (PDF) Vaccine Integrity Project – Hepatitis B by Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Understanding the Benefits of Vaccines: Common Questions by HealthyChildren.org Childhood Vaccinations (PDF) by Your Local Epidemiologist Hep B Birth Dose Media Toolkit by Hepatitis B Foundation Reframing the Conversation About Child and Adolescent Vaccinations by Frameworks Institute CDC: ACIP Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations ACIP Meeting Materials for Public Posting: Hepatitis B Birth Dose Briefing Document (PDF) Hepatitis B Birth Dose Vaccination (PDF) article yes

State Policy Advances in Extreme Weather Preparedness Margaret Nilz Learn about recent policies that aim to improve extreme weather preparedness, boost community resilience, and ultimately protect public health. Extreme weather events are increasing in both frequency and severity — challenging public health systems, straining infrastructure, and risking lives. As states face rising temperatures, more intense wildfires, historic flooding, and stronger hurricanes, state legislatures are adopting forward-looking policies to improve preparedness. These policies aim to boost community resilience, protect public health, and modernize emergency responses across the country. They reflect a move toward proactive planning and investment, grounded in innovation and cross-sector collaboration. Strengthening Critical Infrastructure A growing area of legislative focus is pre-disaster planning and infrastructure resilience, with jurisdictions considering policies that proactively strengthen critical systems (e.g., infrastructure, energy, and communications). For example, in Maine, LD 1 creates the Office of Resilience, tasked with coordinating and implementing state policies to improve resistance to extreme weather events. It also increases homeowners’ access to home resiliency grants, establishes a revolving loan fund for county, municipal, and tribal hazard mitigation infrastructure projects, and invests in floodplain mapping improvements. Texas SB 75 establishes a Grid Security Commission, directs an evaluation of hazards to the state’s electric grid, and makes recommendations that ensure municipalities have energy, power, and fuel supplies in the event of a catastrophic power outage. Jurisdictions are also considering legislation that would: Amend procedures for cities and counties to finance post-disaster infrastructure repair and long-term climate adaptation projects (California SB 782). Require biennial emergency preparedness exercises as well as conduct disaster preparedness training in vulnerable areas (California AB 1200). Create a real-time, interoperable emergency communication platform to improve coordination across agencies during disasters (Texas HB 147). Addressing Wildfire Risk and Air Quality Jurisdictions are also paying close attention to growing wildfire threats and subsequent poor air quality. They’re moving beyond emergency response, ensuring systems/personnel are in place before a crisis unfolds and advancing wildfire mitigation strategies. Systems and Personnel Hawaii recently enacted HB 1064, establishing an Office of the State Fire Marshal. The office is tasked with increasing the state’s readiness for wildfires, including exploring opportunities to reduce wildfire risk and developing a statewide map that displays wildfire hazard zones. California is considering AB 1003, which would require the Department of Public Health to complete a plan that includes recommendations for counties during a significant air quality event by June 30, 2026. California is considering AB 1003, which would require the Department of Public Health to complete a plan that includes recommendations for counties during a significant air quality event by June 30, 2026. It would also require these plans to incorporate county-specific outreach, stakeholder communication, and implementation. These measures build critical infrastructure for training, staffing, and coordinated response. Mitigation Strategies California (SB 326) introduced policies that accelerate the implementation of ember-resistant zones, enhance risk modeling, and support local governments through grant funding for fire reduction efforts. New legislation (CA SB 629) also updates the state’s fire hazard severity maps and sets new criteria for safety zones, including annual defensible space inspections to help residents manage fuel loads around their homes. In Colorado, recently enacted laws support increased use of prescribed burns to improve forest health (SB 7) and empower local fire protection jurisdictions to mandate vegetation removal from private properties (HB 1009). Oregon enacted SB 85, which requires the State Fire Marshal to develop recommendations for community-based wildfire mitigation and submit them to the legislature by February 2, 2026. Two bills being considered in California would: Require the creation of a framework for wildfire mitigation and a wildfire risk forecast (SB 326). Update the state’s fire hazard severity maps and set new criteria for safety zones, including annual defensible space inspections to help residents manage fuel loads around their homes (SB 629). Together, these policies signal a shift from reactive firefighting to community-level risk reduction and long-term adaptation. Improving Flooding and Hurricane Preparedness Flooding, hurricanes, and coastal erosion remain central concerns for many states, particularly those already experiencing repeat disaster declarations. As flooding and coastal threats intensify, states are taking multi-pronged approaches to preparedness — investing in early warning systems, expanding access to mitigation funding, and examining the readiness of critical facilities. These policies can assist states in both major non-hurricane flood events and hurricane preparedness and response. Several states are working to improve community-level preparedness and emergency alert systems. Vermont recently enacted H 397, which expands the Governor’s authority in the anticipation of a flood event, increases municipal access to weather alert systems, and expands access to disaster recovery grants. Texas recently introduced HB 108, which requires the Division of Emergency Management to develop a flood preparedness guide for local organizations that includes structured guidance around training, communication, and post-disaster recovery. Alongside these efforts, states are strengthening long-term mitigation strategies through grant and buyout programs. Massachusetts (H 980) and New Jersey (A 5226) are considering legislation that would establish funding programs for municipalities to address flooding (i.e., through risk assessments and mitigation measures). In Virginia, recently enacted HB 2077 expands eligibility for the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund to include federally and state-recognized tribes. Employing Innovation and Research Innovation continues to shape the next frontier of preparedness policy as jurisdictions pilot emerging technologies, promote cross-sector collaboration, and rethink how they can adapt infrastructure for a changing climate. In California, legislators are considering three bills that merge cutting-edge science with emergency responses: AB 270 directs the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to assess whether autonomous firefighting helicopters could be transitioned to operational use in the state. SB 599 proposes improvements to atmospheric river forecasting, a key strategy in flood management. SB 223 would establish a centralized wildfire smoke and health data platform within the Department of Public Health to better inform public health decisions during smoke events. Additionally, jurisdictions are addressing the resilience of the built environment, balancing traditional engineering with nature-based approaches. Mississippi enacted HB 959, extending a program focused on wind hazard mitigation and grants to retrofit homes to July 2028. Additionally, Puerto Rico introduced PS 579 (en español), which establishes the use of natural mitigation structures (e.g., sand deposits and coral planting) as the first alternative to protect infrastructure affected by coastal erosion, flooding, or other events. In Conclusion The scale of today’s public health challenges requires long-term planning, robust infrastructure, and coordination across different sectors and levels of government. Investments in real-time data systems, interoperable communication, and resilient financing tools will be essential. This Preparedness Month, the increasing momentum behind jurisdiction-level policy action shows a clear understanding: Preparedness is public health. And by focusing on resilience, jurisdictions are not only preparing for the next emergency — they are actively creating a healthier, safer, and more climate-resilient future. ASTHO will continue to monitor and provide updates on extreme weather preparedness legislation. article yes

Earth Day is a natural time to examine current and future climate change policies that impact human health, including clean air, safe drinking water, access to food, and secure shelter.

Research confirms that strengthening economic supports can improve parental mental health, children’s health, education, and social outcomes.

Over the past several years, states and jurisdictions have continued to implement important policies to reduce tobacco and nicotine use, including increasing tobacco prices, expanding areas deemed “smoke-free,” limiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, and supporting tobacco cessation programs.

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

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

ASTHO staff identified a range of evidence-supported policies considered by state legislatures that could prevent ACEs. This report synthesizes these research and policy proposals and is intended for public health practitioners and policymakers who are considering adopting similar policies.