Displaying 11 results for

States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes

States Support Postpartum Health with Medicaid Expansions astho, association of state and territorial health officials, 2023 state legislative session, medicaid expansions, postpartum health, the consolidated appropriations act, national women s health week, postpartum coverage, affordable care act, premium tax credits, affordable care, 12 weeks, united states, extended postpartum coverage, health a priority, medicaid program, national women s health, mother s day, 2023 legislative, vaginal birth, physical activity, women s health week, postpartum care, coverage for 12 months, 60 days, state plan amendment, care act, postpartum depression, health care Sowmya Kuruganti National Women’s Health Week reminds us that postpartum care is critical for the long-term health of the birthing parent and baby. National Women’s Health Week’s 2023 theme—Women’s Health, Whole Health: Prevention, Care and Wellbeing—is a reminder that postpartum care is critical for the long-term health of the birthing parent and baby. The first year after pregnancy can be full of physical, emotional, and mental health challenges that have long-term or even life-threatening health impacts without timely diagnosis and treatment. In September 2022 CDC reported that 23% of pregnancy-related deaths occur from seven to 42 days postpartum, and 30% of deaths occur 43-365 days postpartum. Among all pregnancy-related deaths occurring from 2017 to 2019, approximately 84% were deemed preventable. Black and American Indian and Alaskan Native <!--(AI/AN)--> women have two to three times higher rates of pregnancy-related death compared to white women. These disparities, like others, are driven by social and economic factors that are rooted in structural and systemic racism and discrimination. Health insurance coverage is one such factor that supports positive maternal health outcomes by facilitating access to care before, during, and after pregnancy. In the United States, 40% of births are covered by Medicaid, which is the primary source of health coverage and access to care for those of low income. Organizations like ASTHO and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs support extending Medicaid coverage through one-year postpartum to combat disparities in maternal health outcomes. Federal Legislation for Postpartum Coverage under Medicaid For the majority of states that have adopted Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), all people with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) are eligible for Medicaid. In states without Medicaid expansion, pregnant people can be eligible for coverage during pregnancy and up to 60 days postpartum under federal law. After 60 days postpartum, these people may lose coverage for the rest of the year-long postpartum period based on general state Medicaid eligibility requirements. Prior to 2021, states could extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum people through a section 1115 demonstration waiver or through state funds. The enactment of the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, gave states another option to extend Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum via state plan amendment for five years. So far in 2023, CMS has approved the State Plan Amendments for five states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island) implementing a 12-month postpartum expansion. To date, a total of 33 states have expanded Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum via Section 1115 demonstration waiver or state plan amendment. 2023 State Legislative Session Depending on states rules for modifying Medicaid coverage the legislature may need to direct the health department to submit a state plan amendment. So far in 2023, three states enacted legislation related to expanding coverage to 12 months postpartum. In Mississippi, SB 2212 authorizes the state’s Division of Medicaid to provide 12 months continuous postpartum coverage to people who qualify. Utah’s SB 133 extends coverage for 12 months postpartum for women eligible for Medicaid during pregnancy. In Wyoming, HB 4 temporarily extends Medicaid coverage for qualifying pregnant women for 12 months postpartum, ending March 31, 2027. Other states introduced bills to extend postpartum coverage during this session. The Alaska Legislature passed legislation (SB 58) directing the Department of Health to submit a state plan amendment extending postpartum coverage to 12 months, and to raise the household income level for eligibility to 225% of the FPL. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Iowa introduced legislation (SF 57) to enact postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum by Medicaid State Plan Amendment. This would extend the current 60-day postpartum coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. The Missouri legislature passed (SB 45) that would extend MO HealthNet postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months postpartum for women who are either currently receiving or eligible to receive aid to families with dependent children, or eligible to receive benefits via the income eligibility standard. Pregnant women eligible for MO HealthNet and receiving mental health treatment for postpartum depression, related mental health conditions, or substance abuse treatment within sixty days of giving birth would remain eligible for benefits for those services for an additional 12 months. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Nebraska introduced legislation (LB 419) to extend postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum that would extend the current 60 day postpartum coverage. Texas introduced legislation (HB 12) to extend postpartum coverage to 12 months; it has passed in the House and is now pending in the Senate. Its passage would significantly change the current coverage structure, which uses state funds to provide postpartum people a limited package of postpartum services through the Healthy Texas Women program under HB 133, and subsequently submitted 1115 waivers to draw down federal funds for the program and extend coverage to six months postpartum. Wisconsin introduced companion bills (AB 114/SB 110) extending postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum for women eligible for Medicaid during pregnancy. This action would extend coverage from the current 60 days and amend the previous 90-day Section 1115 Waiver submitted in 2021. Studies have demonstrated numerous benefits of extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum people and, given these positive impacts, ASTHO expects that more states will take action to extend Medicaid to 12 months postpartum. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on this essential maternal public health issue. website yes

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.

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

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

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

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

This week might have marked the beginning of summer, but many policymakers and health officials have their eye on the upcoming school year and what that might mean in terms of getting students vaccinated against COVID-19. According to a recent MMWR, COVID-19 related hospitalizations among adolescents increased in March and April 2021, potentially related to increased circulation of new COVID-19 variants, changes in physical distancing, and a larger number of children returning to school or other in-person indoor activities. This increase indicates an urgent need for vaccination against COVID-19, which is currently authorized for use in youth as young as 12.

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

Infographic depicting findings on a survey around opioid use among pregnant people.

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