Displaying 15 results for

Learn how public health agencies are improving their financial management strategies and systems.

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

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Prevention 2025 state legislative action on infectious disease control and prevention.

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

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.

States and territories have broad powers to protect public health and safety, including powers to prevent and control the spread of communicable disease typically exercised by state and territorial health departments. This authority is an essential tool in the fight to keep the public safe and healthy.

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.

PHIG Recipients Accelerating Procurement Processes Melissa Touma Learn how PHIG recipients are advancing procurement processes to advocate for continued public health infrastructure investment, using thoughtful targets and tracking progress. Timely procurement is a cornerstone of effective public health infrastructure. Under CDC’s Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG), recipients are encouraged to strengthen their procurement systems so that resources reach communities swiftly and efficiently. As jurisdictions continue to modernize their systems, several PHIG recipients are leading innovative practices that not only reduce procurement cycle times but also enhance transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By setting thoughtful targets and tracking progress, agencies can demonstrate improvements in procurement efficiency and make a strong case for continued investment in public health infrastructure. Best Practices for Setting Targets for the PHIG Procurement Timeliness Measure The PHIG performance measure A2.2: Procurement Timeliness tracks the median number of calendar days from when procurement documentation is received to when a contract is fully executed. It helps agencies assess and improve the efficiency of their procurement processes, particularly those funded by federal awards. Setting realistic and meaningful targets for procurement timeliness is essential for tracking progress and driving improvement. Clear, data-informed targets help agencies identify bottlenecks, allocate resources effectively, and measure the impact of process changes over time. When targets are both ambitious and achievable, they can motivate teams, guide continuous improvement efforts, and support accountability across departments. To get on track: Start with a baseline. Use historical data to establish a procurement cycle time. If data is not yet available, begin with a small sample and refine over time. Segment by procurement type. Consider setting distinct targets for various types of procurement (e.g., contracts vs. purchase orders) if they follow different timelines. Engage stakeholders. Collaborate with procurement, finance, and program staff to understand bottlenecks and set achievable goals. Align with system improvements. Adjust targets to reflect expected gains in efficiency, especially when implementing a new contract lifecycle management system or process improvements. Document assumptions and limitations. When setting targets, note any contextual factors (e.g., staffing shortages, policy changes) that may affect procurement timelines. Review and adjust regularly. As systems mature and data quality improves, revisit and refine targets to reflect new capabilities and expectations. Best Practices from PHIG Recipients Several PHIG recipients have adopted replicable strategies to improve procurement timeliness, aligning with best practices from the National Association of State Procurement Officials and principles of collaborative procurement partnerships that emphasize cross-functional coordination and interagency engagement. Here are some best practices and examples of how PHIG recipients are moving to improve their procurement systems: Establish a robust and effective data collection system that offers automated data capture, comprehensive coverage, regular audits, and validation. For example: Illinois Department of Public Health currently uses Smartsheet to streamline procurement tracking and plans to implement DocuSign’s Contract Life Management (CLM) system to track procurement in 2026. Seattle & King County Public Health utilizes Agiloft, a Contract Lifecycle Management platform, to manage procurement from planning to closeout. Connecticut Department of Public Health built a custom Grants Management System using Dynamics 365 and Power BI, enhancing visibility and reporting. Tennessee Department of Health developed a low-code Contract Tracking and Reporting Application using Caspio, improving efficiency and data accuracy. Utilize a CLM System to improve efficiency, enhance transparency and accountability and ensure compliance and risk management. For example: Iowa Department of Health and Human Services is rolling out Cobblestone, a full-spectrum CLM system that guides users through procurement pathways and supports contract execution and management.  Connecticut Department of Public Health utilizes its new Grant Management System built into Dynamics 365 and Power Bi.  Seattle & King County Public Health utilizes Agiloft, a CLM platform. Establish a dedicated, centralized team that oversees and executes procurement activities for the entire agency. For example: Illinois centralized its procurement function by assigning a team of five people to improve collaboration and consistency across the agency. Connecticut is building a centralized team to support program staff through the procurement process. Institutionalize procurement capacity building, training, and customer support. For example: Louisville Metro Department of Health and Wellness placed a trainer on the procurement and contracting team to build the capacity of all grants/contract managers across the agency. Training materials and documents are available for staff to reference and build programmatic capacity. Connecticut established a customer support team within its Operational Support Unit to assist staff with procurement needs. Foster a working relationship with external agencies or divisions that play a role in the procurement approval process. For example: Illinois includes state purchasing officers in weekly procurement meetings to enhance communication and problem-solving. Foster cross-functional collaboration and learning through internal procurement meetings and engagement. For example: Santa Clara Public Health Department created a Grants/Fiscal Community of Practice to foster cross-functional learning. Procurement as a Strategic Lever for Public Health Improving procurement timeliness is more than a technical fix — it's a strategic investment in public health readiness and resilience. By embracing data-driven tools, centralizing expertise, fostering collaboration, and exploring emerging technologies, public health agencies are reducing delays while building the infrastructure to respond swiftly to community needs, emergencies, and long-term health goals. As these best practices continue to spread and evolve, they offer a roadmap for other jurisdictions to modernize procurement and maximize the value of every public health dollar. Next, explore how two state recipients are transforming procurement and grant management — ultimately delivering faster, more reliable services to the communities that need them most. As more PHIG recipients work to modernize their procurement systems, sharing strategies and lessons learned becomes increasingly valuable. What strategies has your agency found most effective in improving procurement timeliness? We invite you to join the conversation and contribute your insights to help strengthen public health infrastructure nationwide. Send us an email at phig@astho.org! article yes

Injuries from falls pose a serious risk to older adults — learn how states are using policy to promote better care for older adults in this Health Policy Update.

State issued documents, such as birth certificates, are often required to navigate daily life. Vital records policy is a complex and evolving issue with many of the processes and procedures left to jurisdictional policy-makers.

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

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

Recent state laws and governor emergency orders prohibiting universal school mask protocols are complicating the implementation of CDC’s evidence-based guidance for COVID-19 mitigation measures for in-person school. Ten states have enacted laws (Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah) or issued executive orders (Florida, Tennessee, and Texas) to limit or prohibit issuing universal face mask protocols for schools and in eight of these states the law or order now faces a legal challenge