Displaying 5 results for

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

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

A pressing public health issue before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the need for public health interventions to reduce tobacco use is heightened with a strong association between tobacco use, in all forms, with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., claiming approximately 480,000 deaths each year. Evidence-based policies to reduce tobacco use like raising the age of sale to 21, increasing tobacco pricing, and prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products are common public health strategies enacted through state legislation. As anticipated in ASTHO’s 2021 Legislative Prospectus on E-Cigarettes, states are considering many of these evidenced-based tobacco reduction strategies during the 2021 legislative sessions.

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