Health providers have widely used telehealth to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 infection and to improve access to healthcare services thanks in large part to policy changes and regulations. This brief explores how state and territorial health agencies (S/THAs) are responding to COVID-19 through telehealth policy and operational changes, as well as how telehealth has quickly emerged as a tool to improve health equity.
Learn how Hawaii and Iowa have leveraged policy change to improve overdose prevention.
Environmental health and public health preparedness staff work closely together to respond to natural disasters and climate change—learn how in this report.
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.
This podcast explores innovative practices for leveraging non-traditional partnerships to support and sustain health equity expansion efforts.
Economic security and well-being, job stability, access to safe and affordable housing, access to healthy and nutritious foods, and access to resources to manage mental and physical health—all of these things impact individual, family, and community health. The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally impacted each of these social determinants of health for many Americans. Furthermore, some communities and industries have faced harder economic impacts than others, including households with low incomes, non-white households, and households with children. Human services and public health leaders can collaborate to make sure we are rebuilding systems and programs in a way that creates healthier, more resilient families and communities.
Conditioning school attendance on student vaccinations is an evidence-based way of maintaining and increasing vaccine coverage. State law establishes school vaccination requirements which apply not only to public schools but often to private schools and childcare facilities as well. All states allow an exemption for those where a vaccine poses a medical risk. Several states also allow non-medical exemptions, often based on an asserted religious, philosophical, or personal belief of the parents or child opposing vaccinations. However, a few states have recently abolished all non-medical exemptions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted both the physical and mental health well-being of youth. Disruptions in both their home and school life have put youth at risk for poor mental health outcomes that include increased anxiety, depression, and risk of suicide. This Mental Health Month we examine state and territorial legislation that addresses youth mental health.
Each September marks National Preparedness Month. This year, public health emergency preparedness professionals look back on 20 years since the 9/11 attacks—the event that effectively launched the preparedness field—while actively responding to COVID-19.
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.
When rural hospitals close, it increases the distance people must travel for essential healthcare services. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and magnified the factors leading to rural hospital closures across the country. Many healthcare facilities suspended elective procedures to conserve critically needed personal protective equipment and reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 by patients and hospital staff. For many rural hospitals, however, the suspension of elective procedures with the reduced the use of non-urgent services by apprehensive patients meant a loss of revenue and the furloughed healthcare staff. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately half of all rural hospitals are experiencing negative operating margins due to reduced outpatient revenue. The rate increases in states that have not expanded Medicaid. Unfortunately, these kinds of challenges are not new to rural hospitals.
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.
Policymakers all over the country have used legislation about farmers markets and sugar-sweetened beverages to help curb many of the negative impacts of food environments.
Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes
Learn how state and territorial legislatures can bolster or restrict public health legal authority, with examples from early COVID-19 as well as 2024.
Strengthening Leadership, Risk Communications, and Preparedness in the Islands Strengthening Public Health Preparedness in the Islands Sidnie Christian, Alyssa Boyea Key strategies in on leadership, risk communications, and preparedness, can help island jurisdictions prepare for and respond to emerging public health threats. ASTHO convened a two-day, in-person workshop in Honolulu from June 25 – 26, bringing together public health preparedness staff from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Hawaiʻi, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and Palau, as well as federal partners from CDC, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. The workshop focused on leadership and workforce development, risk communications, administrative preparedness, and more to support island areas as they prepare for and respond to natural disasters and other emerging public health threats, of which emerged key learnings that can benefit all island jurisdictions. Leadership and Workforce Development Leading through change requires transparency, trust, and collaboration. Planned change involves assessing readiness for change, identifying resources needed, securing buy-in, and determining a path forward. However, sometimes change can leave little to no time for preparation. Island jurisdictions have encountered challenges in the face of change, with many workshop participants sharing firsthand challenges around retaining institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and receiving assistance from the mainland United States in a timely fashion. As such, change readiness, succession planning, and effective change management practices are of utmost importance in the islands. Key recommendations and takeaways include: Utilizing a reputable framework, such as Kotter 8-Step Change Model, is pivotal for improving change readiness and change management. Change management frameworks and methods can assist with different types of change including structural change, strategic operational change, people-centric change, etc. Trust is hard to build, but easy to lose. Participants spoke about characteristics of high trust relationships including open communication, consistency, good judgement or expertise, and cultural sensitivity, while low trust relationships characteristics include lack of communication, inconsistency, and lack of teamwork. Succession planning is important to ensure institutional knowledge and capabilities remain in the wake of staff turnover or retirement. Identifying the necessary expertise, skills, and capabilities for each role is vital in the case of unplanned changes in staffing. Promising practices include annual review of critical positions, conducting talent calibration sessions, defining action plans, and obtaining buy-in from leadership and relevant partners. Risk Communications The island jurisdictions face emergencies that require creative response efforts. Both Hawaiʻi and RMI demonstrated innovative approaches in risk communications during COVID-19, finding success in forming critical partnerships, utilizing trusted voices within the community, and bridging communication gaps: Hawaiʻi utilized social media to showcase individuals such as doctors, pastors, social media influencers, and even local sports teams getting vaccinated, and utilized trusted voices to deliver messages. Additionally, they translated their materials into three languages (Marshallese, Samoan, and Hawaiʻian), modeling that no one gets forgotten, the true meaning of “ohana.” RMI created a working group with a mix of partners that curated press releases, educational materials, and sitreps, and served as a liaison between RMI Ministry of Health and Human Services and the community. It also partnered with several media outlets (e.g., radio stations, local papers, and other private sectors) and utilized mass text messaging to spread information quickly. The latter proved to resonate with most island jurisdictions who struggle with staying connected to hard-to-reach populations, namely those in more rural and disconnected communities. RMI was able to connect with these populations through WhatsApp to keep them updated throughout the COVID-19 response. Administrative Preparedness Improving administrative preparedness plans and processes ensure timely and efficient access to needed resources for a public health response. Most workshop participants are currently in the process of updating existing administrative preparedness plans, while some are working with other departments to create and implement new plans. Attendees discussed key partnerships for collaboration including other departments, Medical Reserve Corps, and other volunteer organizations. One common key challenge that emerged was around staffing (e.g., finding qualified people to fill vacancies, hiring process issues, making sure positions are competitive, etc.). To address this issue, island jurisdictions can work closely with other departments or jurisdictional agencies to streamline current processes, establish memorandums of understanding with different partners/facilities to assist with emergency procurement, and ensuring staffing vacancies are competitive and match public health classifications. Disease Forecasting A survey on state and territorial expertise and needs for infectious disease forecasts, models, and other outbreak analytic techniques—implemented by ASTHO with support from CDC’s Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics—revealed that respondents from island jurisdictions experienced several barriers that led to limited use of infectious disease forecasts to inform communication and decision making. Challenges noted include limited software access, limited disease modeling capacity or skills, and lack of uniform reporting systems. Through a discussion-based exercise, workshop participants shared their challenges and considerations for ASTHO and CDC to assist with disease forecasting in the island jurisdictions moving forward. Challenges include but are not limited to: Delays with sending samples to labs and receiving results in a timely manner. Without timely results, it is challenging to take swift action. Lack of staff / staff wearing many hats with limited capacity. In most cases, there is no specific communication plan for disease forecasting within the departments. Communication can be challenging without clear processes and channels. Participants noted the desire for additional disease forecasting training and opportunities for collaboration. They suggested an integrated training session with island epidemiologists and other relevant staff to enhance disease forecasting knowledge and communication, as well as strengthen collaboration. Preparing for and Responding to Climate Events From hurricanes to typhoons to volcanic eruptions, the island jurisdictions are no strangers to the effects of changing climate. Willliam “Brandon” Aydlett, science and operations officer at the National Weather Service, and Shelbi Davis, Senior Analyst on the Environmental Health team at ASTHO, offer the following recommendations to island jurisdictions for preparing and responding to unprecedented climate events, as discussed with workshop participants: Create or update standard operating procedures for various climate related responses unique to the island. Always prepare for a category higher storm than is expected. Consider conducting regular vulnerability assessments to better understand areas where the island or its people may be most susceptible to adverse health impacts from climate events. Jurisdictions can learn from one another and find a sense of camaraderie in their preparedness efforts, much like the workshop participants. For example, one island jurisdiction noted that they currently do not have a warehouse to store equipment but are working on a plan to secure one; another jurisdiction, having recently revamped their warehouse, noted that they could assist their island neighbor in this endeavor and provide lessons learned as well as strategies to help secure a warehouse that will fit their needs. Looking Toward the Future Sharing lessons learned with one another and reflecting on how to apply those learnings in respective communities is crucial. Workshop participants shared their intent to share and utilize resources and information shared throughout the workshop with their leadership and team to begin implementing in their jurisdictions, as well as using strategies and skills learned to enhance partnerships. To all the participants and our Hawaiʻian hosts, we say mahalo. Related Resources Modernizing Infrastructure and Facilities for Readiness and Response | ASTHO PH-HERO Workforce Resource Center | ASTHO ASTHO STAR Center | ASTHO Evidence-Based Strategies to Enhance Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response | JPHMP article yes
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 Public Health Funding and Administration in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping public health funding and administration in 2026, including increased funding for behavioral health and other areas. Decades of underinvestment in the nation’s public health system have impacted agencies’ ability to respond to health challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of a chronically under-resourced sector tasked with responding to a global emergency. While public health has received influxes of funding through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan Act over the last five years, both were temporary injections of funding in response to COVID-19. There have been efforts to provide longer term funding for public health improvements through the Public Health Infrastructure Grant and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, but this funding faces an uncertain future: There have been multiple reductions in federal funding to the Prevention and Public Health Fund since its creation in 2010. Moreover, state public health agencies are preparing for the possibility of federal funding being reduced or cancelled. This, coupled with balanced budget requirements, is driving states to explore ways to improve their public health investments while bolstering infrastructure — focusing on health departments’ core services, and ensuring access to quality public health programs at the state and local levels. Increased Funding for Public Health In 2025, 47 states enacted or will enact budget bills. While overall nationwide funding for public health in FY26 was roughly equivalent to FY25, at least half of the state health departments had some form of increased funding (e.g., Medicaid, provider reimbursement rates, and specific public health initiatives and programs). For example: Behavioral Health: Colorado SB 25-206 included a $1.6 million increase in funding to provide behavioral health services in primary care settings. Certification: Illinois SB 2510 includes a $6 million increase to support licensing, inspecting, and certifying health care facilities for compliance with state and federal regulations. Maternal and Child Health: Georgia HB 68 provided a nearly $3 million increase in funding to expand a pilot program that provides home visits in at-risk and underserved communities during pregnancy and early childhood. Rural Health: Arizona’s budget bills include $4 million to expand access to health care through the development of rural medical residency programs. School-Based Health Centers: Delaware HB 225 appropriates funding to develop school-based health centers in elementary schools with more than 90% of students classified as low-income, multilingual learners, or underrepresented minorities. Leg Prospectus-2026 - Funding - Rural Health Improved Public Health Administration Several states passed legislation restructuring their public health systems. Nevada enacted SB 494, dividing the previous Department of Health and Human Services into two separate agencies. The bill gives the new health agency, called the Nevada Health Authority, the authority to oversee health programs (e.g., Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), manage health care compliance and consumer health services, and develop policy that improves health care access and cost efficiency. Hawaii’s HB 1120 formally gives the Department of Health the authority to prevent, address, and abate any issues that pose a threat to public health and/or environmental health, such as toxic materials, vector-borne diseases, and climate change. More than half of U.S. state health agencies are decentralized or largely decentralized, meaning many public health services are provided by city, county, or regional health departments that are separate from the state health agency. In 2025, at least two states enacted legislation enhancing local health departments’ abilities to provide core public health services: Utah SB 172 requires the Department of Environmental Quality to enter into cooperative agreements with local health departments to prevent and respond to potential health and safety threats from the environment. It also establishes a governance committee of state and local health department personnel to evaluate proposed policy changes affecting local health departments and ensure allocated resources meet the minimum performance standard. Washington HB 1946 modifies the membership requirements for local health boards, allowing federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands in the board’s jurisdiction to have members on the board. It also allows urban Indian organizations recognized by the Indian Health Service that provide services within that jurisdiction to have members. Looking Ahead ASTHO anticipates states and territories will continue considering and adopting legislation to provide state funding for public health and improve public health infrastructure, including those that: Create contingency plans or rainy-day funds in the event of reduced federal funding. Establish partnerships with neighboring states to share health data. Promote sharing services and resources within local health departments. Leverage regionalization as a tool to consolidate and share scarce public health resources. Adapt the funding and management of public health grants to ensure efficiency. Improve public health data systems to promote greater efficiency. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes
Good news and bad news on tobacco use: smoking rates are down but e-cigarette use continuing rapid rise among youth. Read how states are combating the problem.
Ripple Effect: What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law Andy Baker-White This Health Policy Update highlights how U.S. states and territories are using policy to codify important public health recommendations. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a volunteer panel of national experts that issues evidence-based letter-grade recommendations on clinical preventive services. Under the Affordable Care Act, services with an A or B grade must be covered by most private health insurance plans without cost-sharing, with similar requirements for Medicaid enrollees and Medicare beneficiaries. An estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that in 2020, these services reached approximately 264 million Americans. States and territories implement these recommendations through statutes and rules. ASTHO identified over 200 state and territorial laws referencing the USPSTF, including in insurance statutes, Medicaid rules, disease-specific laws, and state employee health plan requirements. Over the past year, the stability of USPSTF recommendations has come into question. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood confirmed the HHS Secretary’s authority to block USPSTF recommendations and remove task force members. News reports in July 2025 indicated that HHS Secretary Kennedy intended to remove all USPSTF members, and in May 2026 fired the chair and vice-chair of the task force. Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories. In addition, if the USPSTF fails to convene in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services. To meet these challenges, states and territories are taking steps to ensure the continued scientific basis for preventive health services within their own law. Dynamic References to USPSTF Recommendations States and territories often use dynamic references to USPSTF recommendations in regulating health plan coverage of preventive services. This allows the jurisdiction to automatically require coverage for the most current USPSTF recommendations. Laws in West Virginia (state employee health plans), Oregon (regulated health plans), Hawaii (health director standing orders), and Alaska (adult Medicaid enrollees) use this approach. While dynamic references allow jurisdictions to stay up to date with the recommendations, if the task force withdraws any guidance, then those preventive services would no longer require no-cost coverage without additional action from those jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions address this by specifying that certain USPSTF guidance changes will not apply. For example, Guam’s law requires continued no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings and authorizes the health director to adjust diabetes screening recommendations if USPSTF recommendations cease. Illinois specifies that the 2009 USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening and mammography are not to be considered current because national medical bodies created differing recommendations for screening. Another way jurisdictions avoid the unpredictability of using dynamic references is locking in the date of the USPSTF recommendations that are used for coverage requirements. For example, Massachusetts requires its state employee health plan to cover USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect by July 1, 2023. Using a version of USPSTF recommendations from a specific date maintains a base level of coverage regardless of future changes, though adopting new recommendations or removing outdated recommendations would require separate action. During this year’s legislative sessions, several states enacted or proposed legislation to remove dynamic USPSTF references. For example, Maryland passed legislation (HB 637 and SB 385) to lock in the USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect on December 31, 2024. Washington enacted HB 2242 requiring coverage of USPSTF A and B recommendations in effect on June 30, 2025, as well as recommendations adopted by the state insurance commissioner. A bill passed in Delaware, HB 338, would require the use of the USPSTF recommendations from January 1, 2025. Overall, however, neither dynamic nor fixed references to USPSTF recommendations address how jurisdictions can keep up with new scientific data and advances in preventive services in the absence of ongoing USPSTF review and recommendations. To fill this need, some states have enacted legislation that creates processes for reviewing data and establishing recommendations. For example, the new Maryland law mentioned above also authorizes the state’s health secretary to adopt preventive service recommendations that have not been recommended by or that differ from USPSTF. The new process requires notice and a 30-day comment period, an analysis by the Maryland Health Care Commission, and citations to the authoritative medical body upon which the recommendation is based. Disease-Specific Statutes: USPSTF Grades as Care Standards and Thresholds Many states also use USPSTF grades as thresholds for specific preventive services, establishing the standard of care, or issuing standing orders. For example, Arkansas law defines "follow-up colonoscopy" by reference to a colorectal screening assigned an A or B grade by the USPSTF, while Nevada’s law directs primary care providers to use criteria set out in USPSTF recommendations to screen adult women for BRCA mutations. In Hawaii, the state health director is authorized to issue public health standing orders for current USPSTF A and B recommended services, and in Idaho the law uses USPSTF guidance for applying ocular antibiotic prophylaxis to newborns as the standard for medical practice in the state. Some states are considering legislation to distance preventive service coverage requirements from USPSTF recommendations. For example, while New Jersey's current law requires no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings in accordance with the method and frequency recommended by the USPSTF, introduced legislation (A4916 and S4254) would remove the reference to USPSTF recommendations and instead authorize one screening per year for persons aged 33 or older. More broadly, Hawaii considered legislation (HB 1898 and SB 3133) that would have authorized the state’s health department to “make recommendations relating to clinical preventive service recommendations of the [USPSTF] Force that have been assigned a grade of A or B as of July 1, 2025” and require no-cost coverage for the department’s recommendations. However, this legislation did not pass. State Employee Benefit Plans USPSTF recommendations may also be used to establish preventive health services covered by state employee health plans. A West Virginia statute requires the state’s employee health plans to cover mammograms consistent with "current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force," while the health plan document further states that preventive services are "subject to change as USPSTF…recommendations are updated.” In Ohio, a regulation requires state employee health benefits include all USPSTF-recommended tobacco cessation services and authorizes the state health director to update covered services if USPSTF guidance changes. Missouri law requires full coverage of USPSTF graded A and B recommended prescription and prescribed over-the-counter drugs for state plan members. The Path Forward USPSTF recommendations have helped millions of Americans receive critical health services at no cost, and states and territories have built practices, programs, and standards on that foundation. From adopting fixed-date references to establishing state-level recommendation authority to creating new state review bodies, legislative activity this year reflects a broad effort to address ripple effects from potential future changes to or lack of USPSTF guidance. Health officials may be asked to assess their jurisdiction’s laws and their use of USPSTF recommendations, and coordinate with insurance commissioners, Medicaid directors, and employee benefits administrators to confirm consistent agency interpretation and identify where action is needed. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policies as they develop. article yes