Displaying 1-20 of 66 results for

In-depth analysis on state health policy surrounding the public health workforce. This is part of ASTHO's annual legislative prospectus series.

Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food and Chronic Disease in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food & Chronic Disease in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping healthy food and chronic disease in 2026, such as regulating ingredients and modifying SNAP. A growing focus on links between nutrition and public health outcomes is driving legislative efforts across the country, with states actively responding to rising rates and the cost of chronic disease. As state legislatures consider ways to combat chronic diseases, they are also implementing policies aimed at addressing the food environment by introducing and enacting bills that regulate ultra-processed foods (UPFs), adjust SNAP benefits, and improve access to healthy food. Regulating Food Ingredients and Ultra-Processed Foods While efforts to define and regulate UPFs are still in development at the federal level, several states have decided to move forward with legislation targeting the use of specific artificial dyes and chemical preservatives in food products. West Virginia enacted HB 2354, prohibiting the sale or manufacturing of any food containing a list of specified dyes and certain preservatives. Similarly, Vermont is considering H 260, and New York is considering companion bills S 1239/A 1556. These bills aim to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food containing a core group of chemicals (e.g., potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3). Meanwhile, North Carolina introduced HB 440, which would prohibit additional color additives and ban the sale of food products containing nine specific dyes and chemicals. Pennsylvania introduced HB 1134, which focused on warning labels and would require foods with dyes Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, or Yellow 6 to include a label that states, “This product contains synthetic colors, which may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Leg Prospectus-2026 - CD - CA Restricting Ingredients in School Meals While previous years have focused on access to school meals, a growing wave of recent state legislation aims to eliminate UPFs, synthetic dyes, and chemical preservatives from children's diets. Several states have enacted or advanced bans on specific chemical additives in school meals: Utah’s HB 402 and Virginia’s HB 1910 prohibit schools from offering food containing common food dyes (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) or certain preservatives like potassium bromate and propylparaben. Similarly, Texas enacted SB 314 prohibiting specific additives in free or reduced-price school meals and SB 25, which mandates warning labels and expands state nutrition curriculum. In addition, other jurisdictions have introduced but not passed numerous bills proposing similar restrictions including South Carolina's HB 4339, which would prohibit certain additives in school meals. Modifying SNAP SNAP is the nation's largest federal food assistance program, providing benefits to low-income households. While the program is federally funded and administered by USDA through its Food and Nutrition Service, individual state agencies operate and manage eligibility and distribution. Since SNAP is governed by federal law, states must obtain a USDA waiver to implement changes that deviate from the federal rules. Several states are exploring waivers to limit the use of SNAP funds for purchasing candy and sweetened beverages or soft drinks, with Arkansas (SB 217), Idaho (HB 109), and Texas (SB 379) having passed legislation. Arkansas's new law requires the Department of Human Services to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks, and reapply annually if denied. This dual ban was also the subject of bills introduced in Wyoming (HB 323) and South Carolina (HB 4061). Indiana (HB 1486) considered broader restrictions on “accessory foods,” aiming to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for items like chips, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soft drinks, and prepared desserts while New Jersey (A 5697/S 4348) introduced a narrower set of proposed restrictions, focused on soft drinks (including soda and sugary/sweetened beverages). Expanding Detection and Coverage for Chronic Diseases In response to high chronic disease rates — including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses — states are enacting and proposing legislation focused on treatment coverage, awareness, and prevention. Several states are directly addressing obesity and pre-diabetes by mandating insurance coverage. Colorado (SB 25-048) enacted legislation requiring large group health plans to cover treatment for obesity and pre-diabetes, including medical nutrition therapy and metabolic/bariatric surgery. In Nevada, AB 555 caps patient cost-sharing for a 30-day supply of insulin for people with state-regulated commercial health plans. To aid early detection of diabetes, New Hampshire (SB 102), Louisiana (SB 26), and Florida (SB 958) enacted new laws requiring the creation of informational materials on Type 1 diabetes risk factors, warning signs, and screening available to students and parents. To reduce financial barriers to necessary cancer screenings, several states have enacted bills to mandate insurance coverage and/or lower the cost of diagnostic breast exams and supplemental testing. Virginia (HB 1828), Florida (SB 158), and Oklahoma (HB 1389) have enacted bills to limit or lower the cost of such breast imaging. Meanwhile, Colorado enacted HB 25-296, clarifying that health insurers cover medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging that goes beyond routine screening. Looking Ahead ASTHO expects state and territories to continue advancing legislative proposals that focus on the prevention of chronic diseases and access to healthy foods in 2026. Future legislative action may include: Establishing policies to address food insecurity and promote access to nutritional foods by targeting food deserts. Exploring policy and leadership options to discourage the consumption of high-sugar drinks. Developing and adopting standards for healthy food procurement policies for state agencies and public institutions to increase the demand for nutritious products. Continuing to enact insurance coverage mandates for comprehensive chronic disease screenings and treatment. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

This report highlights how a six-state "payers cohort," through the ASTHO/CDC Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Learning Collaborative, convened cross-sector teams which included payer partners, local health agency staff, academic institutions, community health workers, and other state‐ or local‐level stakeholders to support efforts to improve cardiovascular health outcomes, focusing on blood pressure control and reducing healthcare costs.

This report includes two case studies capturing how states are building capacity to address the threat of insecticide resistance. The case studies and analyses in this report may serve as a guide as states respond to similar problems in their jurisdictions.

Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development in Florida Florida Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development Mayela Arana Learn how an Academic Health Partnership in Florida focuses on workforce development and get inspired. In Hillsborough County, the Florida Department of Health (DOH-Hillsborough) and the University of South Florida (USF) have a long history of working together. Their partnership took on a new level of structure and purpose in 2022 when they formalized an Academic Health Department (AHD) partnership agreement, focused largely on workforce development. This collaboration, supported by the Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG), creates opportunities for DOH-Hillsborough staff to enhance their skills through USF’s public health programs. By providing structured training and education, the partnership is helping to build a stronger, more prepared public health workforce to serve the county’s 1.5 million residents. A Longstanding Partnership Embraces a New Opportunity When CDC released a notice of funding opportunity for PHIG in 2022, the DOH-Hillsborough health officer and the dean of USF’s College of Public Health (COPH) worked together to co-write a successful proposal. One of the resulting contracts formalized their partnership in the name of strengthening the public health workforce through recruitment, training, and retention. Like many public health agencies, many of DOH-Hillsborough’s employees do not have degrees in public health. The health department is focused on upskilling through coursework and certificate/micro-certificate programs directly related to job tasks. These opportunities are available to every staff member including those categorized as “other personnel services,” non-career services, and certain contracted employees — as DOH-Hillsborough recognizes the importance of extending these educational opportunities to all employees. Initial PHIG funding was critical in establishing the necessary dedicated staffing and infrastructure for workforce development program offerings at the health department. Current funding continues to support infrastructure, new custom program development, and the educational offerings. Infrastructure: USF works with DOH-Hillsborough to conduct staff training needs assessments and has provided training at agency-wide “all-staff” meetings. USF also developed and provides a Certified in Public Health (CPH) exam preparatory course that is open to any health department employee who is eligible to sit for the exam, at no cost to them. Custom program development: Additionally, the university, in collaboration with DOH-Hillsborough and two other local county health departments, developed a custom leadership program that groups emerging health department leaders with community partners of their choice (e.g., Healthy Start, Homegrown Hillsborough) and includes two full days of instruction over a six-month period. Educational offerings: The health department is also using PHIG funds to cover tuition for current staff to take graduate and undergraduate courses at USF’s COPH and across the university. Representatives from DOH-Hillsborough and USF hold virtual information sessions for staff about available educational offerings, the university enrollment and registration process, and completing internal agency requirements for pursuing and participating in the PHIG-funded opportunities. Measuring Impact and Continuous Improvement Given that the bulk of activities in this AHD partnership are currently PHIG-funded, PHIG performance measures provide a clear and valuable opportunity for evaluation. DOH-Hillsborough is focused on three of the PHIG measures that address hiring and retention: Number of PHIG-funded positions filled by job classification and program area. Overall agency staff retention rate. Median number of days to fill a position. Tracking performance of these measures both contributes to the agency’s overall PHIG evaluation and provides the AHD partnership with a clear process for quality improvement. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships Learning from the success of USF and DOH-Hillsborough’s partnership, considerations in developing or expanding AHD partnerships include: Appreciate the unique nature of each organization. For example, while the health department and university may have a common vision, they may also have different funding category restrictions to consider prior to solidifying the partnership. Be mindful that each organization has its own legal considerations. Allow ample time for the proper review of contracts, agreements, and external communication about the joint endeavor. Know that, at times, the collaborative process can be complex and challenging. Take a few steps back. Work together to find solutions, and don’t give up. Be flexible, humble, and willing to pivot, remaining confident that the partnership will have a bigger impact than your organization would alone. Learn more about AHD partnerships or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation (PHF). If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org. Special Thanks - Blog - AHP Prioritizes Workforce Development in FL article yes

State Policy Trends in Cybersecurity and Public Health Preparedness Maggie Nilz Learn how states are including cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness work in this Health Policy Update. Cybersecurity is an increasingly important component of public health preparedness as state cybersecurity policy intersects with public health agency responsibilities. Public health agencies rely on interconnected digital systems and critical infrastructure for disease surveillance, laboratory reporting, emergency communications, and health data management, making cybersecurity critical to maintaining these functions. Beyond compromising sensitive data and potentially harming patients, cyber incidents can disrupt essential public health services, including emergency response operations. Health care data breaches have steadily increased over the last 15 years, highlighting growing risks for government and health systems. A recent report showed that more than 7,000 health care data breaches were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services since 2009, and reported HIPAA data breaches in 2023 were nearly double the number recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, preparedness capacity has lagged: as of 2022, only 13% of local health departments reported being prepared for cyber-related disruptions, and recent scans show cybersecurity is rarely included in emergency preparedness planning. In response at the federal level, HHS recently announced it is undoing a 2024 reorganization by returning department-wide technology responsibilities to the Office of the Chief Information Officer while refocusing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on improving nationwide health IT interoperability and data sharing. In recent years, state and territorial legislatures have begun to address these gaps by incorporating cybersecurity into preparedness, health care oversight, and statewide governance structures. These legislative trends signal a need to integrate cybersecurity into emergency operations plans, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and safeguard the continuity of public health services. Some of the most recent policies considered and enacted by legislatures treat cyber incidents as emergencies, expand reporting requirements, and strengthen cyber governance. Cyber Incidents Are Being Built into Emergency Preparedness Frameworks In response to these growing threats, jurisdictions have begun incorporating cyber response into emergency plans and strategies, reinforcing cybersecurity as essential to preparedness. These developments highlight growing awareness that cyber incidents can disrupt critical services, much like natural disasters. In 2025, New York enacted S 7672, which requires municipal entities and public authorities report cybersecurity incidents and demands for ransom to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. In addition, it directs the Director of the Office of Information Services to establish cybersecurity training and protection standards for state systems as well as require cybersecurity training for state and local government employees. Virginia is currently considering HB 83, which would establish a volunteer Cyber Civilian Corps within the state IT agency to provide rapid assistance during cybersecurity incidents affecting municipalities, nonprofits, education, and critical infrastructure. Preparedness efforts also extend beyond legislation to executive action. In February 2026, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz authorized $1.2 million in state disaster assistance to support response efforts and restore critical systems in response to a cyber incident that disrupted digital services in Saint Paul on July 29, 2025. Additionally, the National Governors Association has included cybersecurity as a primary consideration for planning and preparedness in their latest edition of the Public Health Emergency Playbook. Health care and Public Health Critical Sectors Are Facing New Cyber Requirements Beyond emergency response frameworks, jurisdictions are also adopting cybersecurity reporting and planning requirements for health care and public health organizations. Companion bills in Tennessee (HB 511/SB 555) would require health care providers and facilities to notify their contracted health insurers of cybersecurity incidents. In Maine, LD 2103 would require hospitals to adopt cybersecurity plans to protect patient data and maintain operations, and must include cybersecurity training for employees and board members. New Jersey is looking to adopt and implement a more comprehensive cybersecurity plan across all sectors. This session, legislators have introduced at least two cyber security bills: A 3231 would require “sensitive businesses” (defined as those engaged in financial, essential infrastructure, or health care industries) to report cybersecurity incidents to the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) when they are aware of their occurrence and would require NJCCIC to conduct a cybersecurity audit within 30 days of notification. A 3283 would require the same “sensitive businesses” to implement cybersecurity programs in accordance with standards adopted by NJCCIC and certify compliance annually. As states expand reporting and cybersecurity requirements, these obligations may intersect with public health reporting and continuity planning. States Are Strengthening Government Cyber Governance and Coordination In addition to sector-specific requirements, jurisdictions are also strengthening the governance structures responsible for coordinating cybersecurity, improving their ability to respond to large-scale incidents affecting public systems. Legislation enacted recently in Texas and California aim to improve coordination among state government by establishing a state agency centralizing cybersecurity incident prevention and response (Texas HB 150) and mandating the development of a cybersecurity playbook to strengthen information sharing (California AB 979). A 2024 bill enacted in Puerto Rico (PC 1530) requires commonwealth agencies to develop and implement a cybersecurity program, which must include a yearly risk assessment as well as vulnerability assessment. At least three jurisdictions are currently considering bills strengthening established cybersecurity programs, with two states recently passing legislation. Utah recently enacted a bill authorizing the Utah Cyber Center to conduct voluntary cybersecurity risk assessments for critical infrastructure and coordinate with government entities on infrastructure safety (HB 165). Utah also enacted legislation creating a specific funding stream for the Center to use for various activities, including implementing a statewide cybersecurity plan and conducting assessments for governmental entities (SB 123). Kansas enacted HB 2574, which would require chief information security officers for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to adopt cybersecurity programs based on a nationally recognized standard for governmental entities. Finally, Florida recently passed SB 7024, which would expand the state’s public record exemption to include risk assessments, information related to cybersecurity breaches, and information related to data protection, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive cybersecurity information held by state agencies; the bill is with the governor for final consideration. Key Takeaways for Preparedness Leaders Cybersecurity is critical for preparedness across multiple policy areas, and requires new planning, coordination, and oversight responsibilities. By including cyber incidents into disaster frameworks, standards for health care organizations, and governance, preparedness leaders may find themselves more directly engaged in integrating cybersecurity into emergency operations, exercises, and cross-sector partnerships. For state and territorial health agencies beginning to incorporate cybersecurity into their preparedness plans, agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provide jurisdictional support and resources to guide this work. article 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.

Supporting policies that reduce HIV stigma and promote health equity is an important public health issue.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: tobacco, HIV, mental health, PFAS, and opioids.

Health agencies play a key role in preparing for and responding to hurricanes and other severe weather events.

The Florida Department of Health created an effective algorithm to automate syphilis laboratory result processing that improves case assignment accuracy and prioritization. This tool outlines key steps and considerations for jurisdictions looking to adopt the algorithm.

Learn about how five jurisdictions approached self-measured blood pressure monitoring programs to reduce hypertension and uncover systemic barriers to care.

This brief examines the ways states can support certification for community health workers.

This ASTHOBrief contains three key recommendations for improving the 2013 CDC/CSTE Cancer Cluster Investigation Guidelines.

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.

2020 has been a year of unprecedented events, and the past few months have already shown that they do not exist in a vacuum. While the country continues to respond and cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, many extreme weather events have already occurred, and are additional infectious disease challenges to consider. Responding to these events in the current conditions presents unique challenges to responders and communities.

Reconciling the tension between public health and civil liberties is one of the most significant challenges of public health law and ethics. The Supreme Court of the United States historically upheld state authority to enact and enforce public health laws that temporarily limit a person’s civil liberties, such as quarantine and isolation powers that restrict a person’s freedom of assembly in order to prevent the spread of contagious disease. There have been many legal challenges to the public health orders issued to slow the spread of COVID-19—many of the claims asserting violations of First Amendment rights of assembly, association, and expression—but they’ve largely been rejected by the courts. However, courts have treated claims asserting violations of the free exercise of religion more favorably, which may indicate an impending shift in how courts analyze the impact state and territorial actions may have on religious organizations.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, temporarily expanding the use of telehealth technologies by removing various requirements and waiving certain restrictions. Many states also expanded telehealth access through changes to state Medicaid laws. These temporary policy changes created an uptick of telehealth use that improved access to care for millions of Americans—but questions remain about which policy changes will stick around beyond the pandemic. Currently, states are making decisions about what temporary policies to permanently implement and which policies to end without disrupting the delivery of care and further exacerbating health disparities.

As COVID-19 emerged and spread in the U.S., people working and residing in long-term care facilities have experienced a significant burden of COVID-19 cases and deaths. As of Oct. 8, deaths associated with these facilities account for 40% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. Health officials have taken measures to improve their funding and capacity.

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.