Displaying 1-20 of 505 results for

Engaging Communities Is a Critical Tobacco Control Strategy Community Engagement Tobacco Control, Menthol Cigarette Disparities, Tobacco Control Learning Collaborative, Culturally Tailored Tobacco Interventions, Flavored Tobacco Product Legislation, United States, Flavored Tobacco Product, Health Equity, Youth and Young Adults, Tobacco Free, Cigarettes Smoked, Community Partners, Young People, Community Health, Youth Tobacco Survey, Flavored E-Cigarettes, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Industry, Smoking Behavior, Study Showed, African American, Smoking Rates, Tobacco Marketing, Minority Populations, Hispanic Black, ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Charla Sutton, Matta Sannoh, Josh Berry, Kenny Ray, Ashley Hebert, Iman Byfield For decades, the tobacco industry has disproportionately targeted communities of color increasing rates of menthol cigarette use and tobacco-related health disparities. By prioritizing community efforts, health agencies can confront these disparities by fostering trust, inclusivity, and cultural responsiveness. Funded by CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health (OSH) and in partnership with The Center for Black Health & Equity (The Center), ASTHO initiated the Increasing State Menthol Capacity Learning Collaborative consisting of eight state tobacco use prevention teams each paired with a local community-based organization. The program fosters strong linkages between state commercial tobacco control programs and community-based partners to reduce menthol and flavored product use. The Role of Community Engagement Community-based initiatives are pivotal in tobacco control efforts, as they enable stakeholders to: Understand history, context, culture, and geography. Underserved communities possess a keen awareness of the origins of their problems and how decision-making processes affect them. Embrace community voices. “No one asked us” is the most common feeling communities most impacted by a problem share when decision-makers act without including them. Build organizational capacity that sustains change, creates credibility with decision-makers, and empowers communities to meet challenges head-on and garner support for their initiatives. Barriers to effective community engagement include insufficient training, funding, communication, and planning, plus disorganization, under-acknowledged communities, over-committed leaders, and inability to change course. Learning Collaborative at a Glance Eight state health teams (IN, MN, NY, PA, RI, MI, WA, WI)—each paired with a community-facing organization—kicked off the Increasing State Menthol Capacity Learning Collaborative in January 2023 with a shared vision and plan to reduce menthol and flavored product use. The Collaborative worked to: (1) improve capacity to identify and implement strategies to prevent menthol and other flavored tobacco product use, (2) strengthen collaboration between state commercial tobacco control programs and community-based partners, (3) tailor interventions to those most affected, and (4) understand the role of policy interventions and/or systems change and culturally-appropriate cessation strategies. ASTHO, OSH, and The Center provided peer-to-peer learning, technical assistance, and networking opportunities to help project teams draw from the group’s various resources, expertise, and experiences. For example, each state team participated in five virtual, expert-led learning sessions, which provided training on SMARTIE goals, equity-centered community engagement strategies, and effective communication messages for policies that restrict or eliminate the sale of flavored tobacco products. In addition, technical assistance provided the project teams guidance on their established workplan objectives and helped them navigate community-specific challenges. Menthol Capacity Building Strategies Each team worked to address health inequities of their chosen target population with culturally-tailored actions in one of three strategies: (1) Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change, (2) Menthol Cessation, or (3) Counter Marketing/Public Education. Teams focused on African Americans (nearly two-thirds of whom start by using tobacco with menthol), youth, Latinx, immigrant populations, and the LGBTQ+ community. Each team curated state-specific infographics, factsheets, webpages, and media campaigns to examine the role of policy in reducing menthol and flavored tobacco product use. Others engaged legislators or held educational events. Key Takeaways and Next Steps Community Engagement and the Menthol Landscape: Despite challenges, preemption should not stop community engagement work. While state or federal laws and regulations may change, the communities most impacted—and their voices, experiences, and advocacy efforts—remain and are essential in driving meaningful change. Ongoing awareness of the disproportionate impact of menthol and other flavored tobacco products on marginalized communities underscore a continuous need for community engagement and policies that prioritize health equity. Partnering for Influence and Advocacy: Community engagement fosters awareness of the unique challenges that marginalized populations face, ensuring that initiatives are tailored accordingly. In the face of preemption and other regulatory challenges, community voices are critical for national change. Mobilizing Support through Collaboration: Partnerships between state agencies and local organizations allow capacity building and resource sharing. Such partnerships help mobilize broader support with both constituents and legislators, share best practices/lessons learned, and collectively address challenges. Funding Local Initiatives: Effective community engagement often requires financial resources. Examples include facilitating quality meetings as needed, developing educational tools for community dissemination, using paid and social media, and obtaining individuals to implement key activities (e.g., employees or subject matter experts). The collaborative’s participants further encourage: Sustaining and strengthening partnerships with community-based organizations, state health agencies, and national partners to leverage stakeholder expertise and insights. Investing in ongoing capacity building efforts to equip communities with the knowledge, skills, and resources to address tobacco-related challenges effectively (e.g., training, resource sharing, offering technical assistance, and funding community-led initiatives). Engaging with policymakers, community leaders, and others to raise awareness about the negative impact of menthol and other tobacco products. Advocate for evidence-based policies (e.g., e-cigarette flavor restriction) at the local and state level to inform national discussion. Sharing lessons learned—both successes and challenges—with others. website yes

In addition to PFAS exposure assessments, state and territorial health agencies may also consider the role of social stressors during the risk assessment process.

Leveraging Medicaid to Support Community Health Workers astho, association of state and territorial health officials, community health workers, health equity, medicaid coverage, chw workforce, social service, public health, health care system, improve health, individual and community, mental health, achieving health equity, social determinants of health, underserved communities, united states, health disparities, medicaid program, state Medicaid, advance health equity, highest level of health, people of color, community they serve, improve access, people living, increased health Vanessa Finisse, Madison Hluchan How to leverage Medicaid to support community health workers. Community health workers (CHWs) are pivotal in advancing health equity and improving population health, especially for marginalized communities. Today, there is increasing federal investment to better integrate CHWs into the health care system, spurred by post-COVID-19 federal legislation. While the benefits of CHW integration are well-documented, sustainable funding remains a challenge. This brief, developed in partnership with the Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS), explores Medicaid coverage for CHW-led services and highlights opportunities for state and territorial health agencies (S/THAs) to collaborate with Medicaid to support CHWs. Key Considerations Medicaid-Funded CHW-Led Services Medicaid authorities can finance CHW-led services, such as state plan amendments (SPAs), section 1115 demonstrations (1115 waivers), and managed care flexibilities. States can pick a pathway depending on their goals, timeline, and administrative capacity. As compared to SPAs, 1115 waivers provide states with more flexibility to waive federal Medicaid rules to test innovative approaches (see Table 1). website yes

This resource highlights state-based program initiatives tailored to improving hypertensive disorders of pregnancy outcomes.

Learn key lessons from the DREAM Learning Community about addressing structural racism and driving systemic change, which can help achieve optimal health for all.

States Partner Across Sectors to Address Lead Poisoning Kayley Humm, Kerry Wyss, Ali Aslam Learn in this brief how three states are using partnerships to improve lead testing and reduce cases of lead poisoning. ASTHO partnered with the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) to provide technical assistance and capacity-building support for lead poisoning prevention efforts in three state health agencies: Maryland Department of Health, North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, and Arkansas Department of Health. This brief highlights each agency’s strategies for collaborating across sectors along with accomplishments for strengthening lead poisoning prevention capacity in each jurisdiction. Many of these strategies align with those used in a health in all polices (HiAP) approach to lead poisoning prevention. State Examples Maryland Department of Health Maryland adopted a collaborative approach to prevent lead poisoning. The Maryland Department of Health (MDH) has an established lead poisoning prevention program that partners with the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment oversees the childhood lead registry and case management, while MDH focuses on lead testing regulations and Medicaid services. This partnership has been implemented across the 24 local health departments in the state. Maryland enhanced lead case management by providing staff support and tackling complex cases that require additional assistance. In addition to supporting an increase in lead case management activities and lead awareness, ASTHO funding also helped strengthen collaboration and coordination among local health departments, state agencies, and local health care providers. The MDH Environmental Health Bureau also improved efficiency by moving data from the lead registry to MDH for lead surveillance and case management. They also developed and launched sub-county lead testing data as part of their Environmental Public Health Tracking public portal. These activities align with HiAP strategies of developing and structuring cross-sector relationships, coordinating funding and investments, and synchronizing communications. North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) made significant strides in building up the state lead program, which recently transitioned from the department of environmental quality to NDHHS. With support from ASTHO and NCHH, NDHHS developed a lead prevention website with a data dashboard, developed a lead screening questionnaire, and built collaborative partnerships. The activities in North Dakota align with the HiAP strategies of developing and structuring cross-sector relationships, synchronizing communications, and integrating research, evaluation, and data systems. Building collaborative partnerships is a key initiative for the NDHHS lead program. Already developed partnerships include stakeholders such as Health Tracks and WIC. Health Tracks developed a newsletter article for their provider network so physicians can stay up to date and aware of the lead program transition and lead testing changes, and WIC will host informational lunch and learns to raise awareness about lead testing within their network. North Dakota is also prioritizing building partnerships with tribal communities. A tribal communications plan was developed with the goal of establishing an effective communication plan between the state of North Dakota and each tribal government for lead-related events. Anticipated outcomes from the communication plan include testing for blood lead levels, conducting environmental assessments on tribal lands, and seeing if a tribal member or government is interested in hosting a lead screening event. Progress has been made with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa, and NDHHS is hopeful to establish intertribal meetings with all four governmental tribal representatives. Arkansas Department of Health The Arkansas Department of Health established its lead program in 2011 to support abatement of lead-based paint in residential and commercial properties. With support from ASTHO and NCHH, Arkansas has been using a data-driven approach to gain a more comprehensive understanding of lead exposure burden in the state. These activities align with the HiAP strategy of incorporating health data into decision-making and integrating research, evaluation, and data systems. The Arkansas Department of Health conducts periodic audits on its data system to support access to timely and accurate data. To improve data quality and frequency of blood lead testing reports, the health department is establishing incentive programs to encourage facilities to report cases of elevated blood lead. In addition to conducting outreach to its partners, the Arkansas Department of Health has been working to improve lead case data access and data quality through data mining efforts, case report matching, and migration to a new lead surveillance system. Arkansas has been working to modernize the current reporting system to facilitate automation and promote overall efficiency of data analysis and case identification. Conclusion The collaborative efforts of Maryland, North Dakota, and Arkansas highlight the importance of multi-sector partnerships and data sharing in addressing lead poisoning prevention and align with many of the strategies used in a HiAP approach. Each state implemented tailored strategies that sought to grow collaboration in its unique context. These initiatives highlight the importance of cross-sector collaboration in public health initiatives and may serve as valuable models for other jurisdictions. article yes

Learn how boundary spanning leadership can help develop more robust and productive public health workplaces.

Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) Case Study: New York State’s Power of Voice Program

This brief dives into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of people with disabilities to access vital health care services during the public health emergency.

Arizona Department of Health Services Pursues Policies to Advance Data Sharing with Tribal Nations Erik Skinner, Christina Severin, Reema Mistry The Arizona Department of Health Services is pursuing policies to advance data sharing with tribal nations, centered around partnerships, education, and more. With leadership support and funding to modernize its public health infrastructure, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) is pursuing policies to advance data sharing with tribal nations. This includes investing in partnerships with tribal leaders, educating the public health workforce about tribal governments and tribal health care, and working to improve data identification processes to support effective data sharing between the state and tribal nations. Data sovereignty is an important consideration for ADHS, as there are 22 federally recognized tribal nations in Arizona. ADHS recognizes the inherent right of tribal nations to access their citizens’ public health data and is developing a tribal data sovereignty policy that both acknowledges their unique data needs and aligns with state requirements around tribal engagement. Leadership Support and Effective Tribal Engagement ADHS leadership understands the importance of making strong connections with tribal nations and recognizing each nation’s public health priorities while meeting its statutory requirement to develop tribal consultation policies. To that end, ADHS developed the tribal liaison position to serve as a resource, advocate, and communication link between ADHS and Arizona’s Native American health care community partners, including tribal community leaders, health and epidemiology directors, Indian Health Service (IHS), and Tribal Epidemiology Centers (TECs). Understanding cultural norms is essential to building trust with tribal partners; the tribal liaison role has been vital to ADHS engagement with tribal nations on data sovereignty topics. People and processes are important to establishing data sharing policies, and a well-informed workforce is essential for effective collaboration with sovereign tribal nations. ADHS is working with the Native Nation Institute to provide training on tribal sovereignty and cultural humility for staff. It has also developed a tribal handbook for public health staff on sovereignty, cultural trauma, and the roles of IHS and TECs. Identifying Tribal Affiliation within Datasets and Tribal Public Health Priorities ADHS conducted a data assessment to identify instances in which data sharing was active and ongoing between ADHS and tribal nations, and instances in which it had expired. A notable technical challenge was identifying tribal members within existing datasets, as many public health datasets are incomplete (e.g., do not include tribal affiliation) or rely on IT systems that are unable to aggregate data appropriately—making it difficult to ensure tribal authorities receive relevant, comprehensive public health data for their communities. In addition, because each tribal nation’s public health priority areas and data needs could differ from the data that state health information systems collect, sharing relevant data with tribal nations can be challenging. ADHS is working with each nation to identify tribal public health priority areas, find solutions to identify tribal data within state collected datasets, and share it with the respective nations. Ken Komatsu - Brief - AZ DHS Pursues Policies to Advance Data Sharing with Tribal Nations Honoring Sovereignty in Data Sharing Relationships Data sharing agreements with public health agencies often establish that the state agency controls the disposition and use of the data, and that each party benefits. Acknowledging that tribal partners are entitled to their citizens’ data without conditions differs from how ADHS has historically approached data-sharing relationships with others. ADHS plans to formally establish a non-transactional data sharing policy with tribal public health partners, and establish data sharing agreements that align with this approach going forward. Implementation Considerations Considerations for state health agencies in fostering strong relationships and effective engagement with tribal partners around data-sharing efforts include: Center tribal sovereignty when framing data sharing agreements with tribal nations. Engage tribal liaisons in data-sharing efforts with tribal nations. They maintain close relationships with tribes and can help develop mutual cultural understanding, which is essential to engaging tribal partners. Assess datasets to determine data completeness with regards to tribal affiliation and identify opportunities to improve comprehensive data sharing with tribal authorities. Invest in state health agency staff training on tribal sovereignty and cultural humility, so staff can be well-prepared when engaging in data sharing conversations with tribal partners. Gerilene Haskon - Brief - AZ DHS Pursues Policies to Advance Data Sharing with Tribal Nations OT18-1802 website yes

On Oct. 4, 2023, ASTHO responded to a Request for Information from the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee on the subject of improving access to healthcare and rural and underserved areas, including the island jurisdictions.

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2023 state legislative actions to increase health equity.

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

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2024 state legislative actions to increase health equity and optimal health for all.

How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care Ashley Cram Learn how federal and state policies are improving access to health care by supporting telehealth. Telehealth strengthens the health system by reducing barriers to access to health care and extending services to underserved communities. Federal and state policies — many born out of the COVID-19 pandemic — have increased the use of telehealth by patients and providers. This includes expanded reimbursement to allow more providers to deliver telehealth services in more locations and through more modalities. This Health Policy Update summarizes recent federal and state laws and policies that impact telehealth delivery and access to care. Federal Laws and Policies Rural Health Transformation Program Enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, the Rural Health Transformation Program appropriates $10 billion per fiscal year for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to award to eligible states looking to improve rural health care. CMS encouraged state applicants to focus on select strategies, including investment in technology platforms that enhance care delivery. This includes tools and resources that support telehealth overall and remote patient monitoring (RPM), which is a way for providers to monitor and support patients through the use of devices that support data collection and transmission. Applicants that participate in interstate licensure compacts are also incentivized throughout the five-year program period by being awarded additional points for participation, which may lead to states pursuing compact legislation in the coming years. Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities Set to Expire During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS issued numerous flexibilities that authorized broader telehealth use to expand access to care. Flexibilities included expansion of certain audio-only services, geographic areas and patient locations, and additional provider types eligible to deliver telehealth services. Current policy authorizes these pandemic-related telehealth flexibilities through January 30, 2026. Without permanent extension of these flexibilities, Medicare coverage for telehealth services beyond January 30, 2026, telehealth will again be limited to patients living in rural areas and to certain services, providers, and facilities. Physician Fee Schedule Changes CMS establishes the annual Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), which sets payment policy for health care services provided by physicians and other professionals to Medicare beneficiaries. The 2026 PFS includes new codes for RPM that allow providers to tailor monitoring frequency and engagement levels to meet patient needs. These codes, and the expansion of RPM, allow providers to effectively monitor health indicators such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose, and respiratory flow rates, to manage health issues. By regularly monitoring a patient’s health status, a provider can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and emergency department visits. Additionally, the PFS streamlined the process for adding eligible telehealth services for reimbursement by removing distinction between permanent and provisional services and focusing review on whether services can be delivered via telehealth. State Legislation Impacting Telehealth Delivery States are also developing policy solutions to enable broader access to telehealth services, including expansion of audio-only and RPM services. Audio-only telehealth services are the use of communications technology, without a visual component, to deliver synchronous health care services. This modality can ensure continuity of and access to care for patients who live in areas with limited broadband and/or those who lack access to a video-enabled device. In 2025, at least four states enacted laws related to audio-only telehealth services. This includes at least three states that extended coverage that would have otherwise expired. In Hawaii, SB 1281 extended the expiration of the state’s coverage of certain audio-only behavioral health services through 2027, while Minnesota (HF 2) took a similar approach to audio-only telehealth services, including certain behavioral health and substance use disorder services, through July 1, 2027. Similarly, Maryland (SB 372/HB 869) removed the sunset date for coverage of audio-only telehealth services. And more broadly, Missouri (SB 79) clarified the state’s telehealth definition to include audio-only technologies. RPM uses digital devices to monitor a patient’s health by collecting and sharing health information with providers. RPM is particularly effective for management of chronic conditions, allowing providers to engage in shared decision making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes through more regular monitoring. In recent years, several states enacted legislation to expand access to RPM including two bills in Louisiana. Enacted in 2024, HB 896 established the Louisiana RPM program for Medicaid patients with chronic conditions and a history of high-cost services, with the goal of improved care coordination and reduced costs. Then in 2025, SB 70 expanded these criteria to include pregnant and postpartum women and infants following discharge from the NICU. In Maryland, HB 553 specifies that the Medicaid program must cover the equipment and provider oversight of blood pressure monitoring for eligible recipients, including pregnant and postpartum individuals and those with chronic health conditions. Lastly, Virginia enacted SB 843 which directs the state Medicaid agency to develop a plan and cost estimate for expanding Medicaid eligibility for RPM for patients with chronic conditions. State and territorial health agencies can encourage public health programs to incorporate telehealth and propose policy solutions that enable broader utilization of telehealth modalities across the entire jurisdiction. States that are interested in expanding access to telehealth can visit ASTHO’s Telehealth Project Initiation and Scoping Assessment to conduct a review and identify opportunities to expand access to telehealth, particularly related to policy, infrastructure, and funding. UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health: Lessons from the 2025 and 2018-2019 Closures Catherine Jones Learn about the government shutdown effects on public health, with insights from the 2025 and 2018-2019 closures. When the federal government shuts down, it exposes vulnerabilities in our public health ecosystem. It also brings to light the critical role state and territorial health departments play to protect the health of their jurisdictions. While the political dynamics behind each shutdown may vary, the consequences are unfailingly disruptive. Some federal agencies and programs continue under mandatory or advance appropriations, but the day-to-day machinery that keeps the federal public health system functioning — workforce, oversight, and technical assistance — is impacted. Federal employees from shuttered agencies are either furloughed or required to work without pay if their roles are deemed essential to public safety, as with certain functions of HHS and FDA, among others. The effects of a shutdown can be temporary or long-lasting. In the past, Congress enacted guardrails to reduce the harm of future funding lapses, but the unpredictable nature of each shutdown ensures that disruption, loss, and hardship follow. A comparison of the 2025 and 2018-2019 shutdowns displays this impact — with the 2025 impasse becoming the longest shutdown in U.S. history, surpassing the 35-day record set during the December 2018 to January 2019 closure. Key Differences Between the Shutdowns The 2018-2019 shutdown, which was sparked over a funding fight for the U.S-Mexico border wall, spared HHS because the FY2019 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act had already been enacted before the funding lapse. As a result, core public-health agencies — including CMS, CDC, HRSA, and SAMHSA — continued operating. However, the programs funded through the Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill (e.g., SNAP, WIC, and FDA) were impacted, but the disruptions were somewhat contained: FDA paused some food and drug inspections, while SNAP and WIC administrators worked to stretch timing buffers to sustain benefits. The 2025 shutdown, by contrast, impacted HHS. Disputes over the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, (H.R. 5371), also known as a continuing resolution (CR) — compounded by an acrimonious stalemate over extending the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits (analyses show premiums could more than double in 2026 without extensions) and reversing Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill — placed health care directly in the shutdown’s epicenter. After 14 failed attempts to move the CR in the Senate, the measure was revised to extend federal funding through Jan. 30, 2026, and to reverse the Reductions in Force (RIFs) enacted during the lapse in appropriations. This CR was combined with three additional minibus appropriations packages, which included the Agriculture-FDA bill that funds SNAP and WIC through FY2026. On Nov. 10, the Senate narrowly mustered the 60 votes needed for passage, with eight Democratic senators joining in support. The bill then cleared the House on Nov. 12 with a 222-209 vote, and President Trump signed it the same day. The result of the 43-day shutdown was a deeper and more systemic breakdown. Furloughs and RIFs swept across agencies. Staffing gaps impacted CDC, SAMHSA, and CMS operations, while lawsuits proliferated over withheld pay, suspended contracts, and SNAP payment distribution. As of now, ACA subsidies remain unresolved, and the full repercussions of the 2025 shutdown continue to emerge. A Closer Look at the Shutdown Impacts Furloughs In 2025, the HHS contingency plan anticipated furloughing roughly 41% of its workforce, with CDC and NIH hit hardest — about 64% and 75% of staff, respectively. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, about 48% of HHS staff were furloughed, with CDC at 61% and NIH at 76%. After the 2018-2019 shutdown, Congress enacted the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, ensuring that all furloughed federal employees receive retroactive back pay once operations resume. The current CR provides a provision requiring the payment of federal employees who are furloughed or excepted during the lapse. Government contractors, unlike direct federal employees, are not guaranteed back pay after shutdowns. RIFs During the 2025 shutdown, CDC issued more than a thousand layoff notices, some later rescinded, while SAMHSA reported significant workforce losses. There were no RIFs during the 2018-2019 shutdown. In AFGE v. Donald J. Trump, federal-worker unions challenged the administration’s issuance of mass layoff notices during the 2025 shutdown, arguing that RIFs during a funding lapse violate the Antideficiency Act and are “arbitrary and capricious.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking further RIFs for hundreds of employees. This case is currently ongoing. To note, as part of the revised aforementioned CR, RIFs issued during this shutdown were reversed, returning to status quo workforce levels prior to the lapse of appropriations. WIC WIC entered October 2025 with funds from Section 32, providing $300 million as a bridge. Nationally, on average, WIC (a discretionary program) needs about $150 million per week to serve approximately 7 million women, infants, and children. To support access, several states tapped emergency funds and reallocated resources to food banks. In early November, the Trump Administration transferred $450 million from unused customs revenue to fund WIC. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, WIC continued to operate without gaps using prior-year funds. SNAP Roughly 42 million Americans currently rely on SNAP benefits. SNAP is considered mandatory spending, which allows payments to continue temporarily during a shutdown, but when a lapse exceeds 30 days, disruption risk escalates. During the 2025 shutdown, EBT payment delays triggered widespread litigation. In Coalition of States v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, over 25 states sued USDA for suspending benefits despite available contingency funds, citing violations of the Food and Nutrition Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal courts issued temporary restraining orders protecting millions of beneficiaries. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court to halt payments, and the Court granted the request. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, SNAP participants received benefits in December 2018 and January 2019. February benefits were also distributed in late January to avoid disruptions; these were not additional benefits. Tribal Health In 2025, the Indian Health Service remained open due to FY2026 enacted advance appropriations. This funding was in part a reaction to the dire consequences of the 2018-2019 shutdown in which the Tribal and Urban health programs reported having to limit health care services and resources, due to Indian Health Service employees having to work without pay or being furloughed. Unique Implications of the 2025 Shutdown As previously noted, because Congress fully funded HHS in 2018-2019 there was minimal impact on public health programs. However, the length and scope of the 2025 shutdown did impact HHS directly. For example: Mental health: Mental and behavioral health access contracted sharply as SAMHSA’s state-support network lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, due to shutdown RIFs as well as earlier rounds of layoffs and retirements. At-home care and telehealth: During the 2025 government shutdown, hospitals nationwide faced delayed Medicare reimbursements and the temporary suspension of hospital-at-home programs, which had become vital for managing capacity during workforce shortages. Telehealth expansion and remote monitoring efforts were also paused, causing many patients to pay out of pocket. U.S. territories: The pause on SNAP and the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) funding in November had disproportionate impacts on the U.S. territories, as higher percentages of their populations depend on SNAP and NAP (20%-40%). In three territories, legislatures passed bills to fund partial or full SNAP and NAP benefits for November. Implications for the Future of Public Health The 2025 shutdown underscored that lapses in government funding disrupt the public health ecosystem. A fully functioning system relies on steady collaboration from federal, state, local, and tribal health departments. The depth of the 2025 crisis has ignited bipartisan discussion about structural fixes to prevent governing by brinkmanship. Proposed congressional legislation includes bills to stabilize federal pay with automatic funding, contain congressional travel and adjournment until appropriations are complete, guarantee pay for federal workers and contractors, prevent disruption to SNAP and WIC programs, and ensure reimbursement to states. Padding Block - Large Related Contnet - Blog - Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health article yes

Federal, State, and Stakeholder Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Catherine Jones Explore federal, state, and stakeholder perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund, shared at a discussion hosted by ASTHO and Cornerstore Government Affairs teams. In early July, ahead of final votes on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (full text H.R.1), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), joined by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), secured a $50 billion funding line for a new Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). This five-year mandatory fund is designed with two primary goals: To stabilize vulnerable rural hospitals, health centers, clinics, and their workforces. To improve access, affordability, modernization, and health outcomes for rural residents, who on average experience higher rates of chronic disease, shorter lifespans, and lower earning power compared to urban populations. To help states better understand how to apply and utilize RHTP dollars, ASTHO partnered with Cornerstone Government Affairs to host a discussion on Sept. 4 featuring two expert panels. Participants included representatives from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and HRSA, congressional staff, state health departments, and experts from the National Rural Health Association and National Association of Medicaid Directors. Lively discussions provided valuable insights into the application process, how states might deploy funds to build and sustain rural health programs, and the realities of delivering care on the ground. Panel One: Federal Perspectives Application Tips The first order of business was to provide potential applicants with essential information they need to apply. CMS is working quickly to release the Notice of Funding Opportunity in early September. Applications will be due in November, with funding decisions finalized by Dec. 31. This is a one-time application for the five-year mandatory fund, with dollars allocated evenly across FY26 to FY30 ($10 billion per year). Importantly, the RHTP fund is separate from — and unaffected by — FY26 Labor Health and Human Services, and Education discretionary appropriations outlined by the Senate and House, and any continuing resolutions. The $50 billion program will be divided into two parts. $25 billion will be distributed evenly among states that apply and have successful applications. The remaining $25 billion will be allocated at CMS’s discretion based on factors such as a state’s rural population, the number of rural health care facilities, and state policies and policy commitments. States will not be required to provide matching funds. In anticipation of the application deadline, many state health departments have been mobilizing over the past weeks. Health officials are convening task forces, launching working groups and public hearings, and issuing Requests for Information and surveys to shape projects and spending plans. These efforts are focused on aligning with CMS’s strategic goals, including making rural America healthy again, providing sustainable access to care, workforce development, innovative care delivery, and technology modernization. Program Insights Panelists also highlighted how RHTP differs from existing rural health programs. The Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, for example, funds initiatives focused on quality improvement, hospital technical assistance programs for operational challenges, and targeted pilot programs to test the feasibility of ideas related to community needs. By contrast, RHTP will provide states with a large, flexible infusion of funds to augment existing and novel rural health care efforts. States will also be permitted to use RHTP dollars for one-time investments (e.g., electronic health record systems, diagnostic equipment, and network-building initiatives). Panelists emphasized the importance of tailoring approaches to state and community needs, noting that Tribal communities face especially severe challenges, requiring intentional engagement. The first session concluded with a focus on Alaska, where 73.7% of hospitals are in rural areas — a key driver of Senator Murkowski’s strong advocacy for the fund. Her legislative director noted the state’s persistent struggles with connectivity, limited primary care access, workforce shortages, and low patient volume. Previous funding formulas, which relied heavily on hospital bed counts or numbers of health care facilities, often disadvantaged Alaska and similar states. RHTP, structured as a cooperative agreement, gives states both predictability and flexibility: dollars they can count on, combined with broad authority to design solutions in partnership with CMS protocols and assistance. CMS has existing protocols for grant management, and Congress will likely ask for clear reporting requirements as they monitor the successful implementation of the fund. Panel Two: State and Stakeholder Perspectives Rural Health Challenges To align visions with on-the-ground realities, health department leaders from Pennsylvania and Mississippi described their extensive efforts underway to gather input and identify priorities that are both sustainable and impactful, underscoring the importance of community engagement in shaping state strategies. Panelists noted that states are working through a broad list of rural health challenges, including: Maternal and child health. Behavioral health. Substance use disorder. Emergency medical services. Transportation barriers. Aging populations. Specialist shortages. Data modernization (including cybersecurity, AI, broadband, training, and administrative support). Telehealth. Workforce shortages. Hospital, clinic and federally qualified health care center closures. Payment models (public and private). Improving health information exchanges and electronic heath records were also mentioned as universal goals. RHTP is designed with flexibility to tackle these issues and to craft solutions (some of them can be shelf-ready, such as technology or prevention kits) to respond to the diverse needs of rural communities. Aligning Programs Panelists were asked how they are working with partners to achieve alignment for their programs. All concurred that strategic planning is essential, with an emphasis on local partnerships and regional collaborations. It was stressed that rural health care should ideally be delivered as close to the community level as possible, supported by a robust ecosystem. Speakers agreed that the financial health of rural areas is inseparable from the health of their hospitals and clinics. It was underscored that local residents are deeply invested in their communities and want to see them thrive. Transforming rural health care systems will require large-scale collaborations at a local level, which are built on trust, a shared vision, and a clear understanding of the long-term goals. The challenges of chronic disease, which occurs and leads to death at significantly higher rates in rural areas, surfaced. Panelists agreed that tackling this issue requires major investments in ancillary professions — such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and community health workers — alongside a renewed emphasis on primary care services and alleviating the acute shortage of primary care physicians. According to the American Medical Association, roughly 65% of rural areas face a shortage of primary care providers, and only 4%-5% of incoming medical students now come from rural backgrounds. Some solutions noted by the panelists were extending medical student rotations in rural settings from a few weeks to 12 or more, coupled with financial and professional incentives. Encouragingly, research shows that students from rural areas are far more likely to return home as practicing physicians. Final Words Panelists overwhelmingly agreed that RHTP represents an unprecedented opportunity for states — though, notably, not for U.S. territories or Washington, D.C. — to expand access, raise the quality of rural health care, and ultimately improve both quality of life and life expectancy for their rural residents. The $50 billion fund is not only a lifeline but also a testing ground, and if implemented successfully, it could serve as a model to pave the way for future federal investments of this magnitude in rural health. For more information on RHTP, please email MAHARural@cms.hhs.gov. Participants Part One: Federal Senator Lisa Murkowski and Angela Ramponi, MPH, Legislative Director Emily Chen, MBA, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tom Morris, MPA, Associate Administrator for Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Moderated by Carlos Jackson, Principal, Cornerstone Government Affairs Part Two: State and Stakeholder Daniel Edney, MD, FACP, FASAM, State Health Officer, Mississippi State Department of Health Debra Bogen, MD, FAAP, Secretary of Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health Zil Joyce Dixon Romero, State Government Affairs Manager, National Rural Health Association Lindsey Browning, Deputy Executive Director of Programs, National Association of Medicaid Directors Moderated by Susan Kansagra, MD, MBA, Chief Medical Officer, ASTHO article yes

North Dakota Lead Exposure Outreach Program North Dakota Develops Tribal Communication Plan to Support Lead Poisoning Prevention Learn how North Dakota's lead prevention team built strong partnerships with tribal communities in this blog post. Madison Novosel, Paula Comeau Tribal Communication Plan Partnerships with local jurisdictions are crucial to the effectiveness of the North Dakota Lead Prevention Program. This collaboration enhances the depth and sustainability of the community outreach. One priority after transitioning the program from the Department of Environmental Quality to North Dakota Health and Human Services was to connect with local public health units and ensure they were informed about the change. When reaching out to local partners, the lead prevention team realized that there was not a document that clearly outlined who the correct contacts were between tribal communities and state agencies for lead-related events. Recognizing this gap led the team to develop a communication plan to strengthen coordination between the tribal and state lead prevention programs with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s environmental health official. This communication plan established points of contact between the state program and tribal government officials if a lead-related event were to occur involving tribal members or on tribal land. It clearly charted out the corresponding contacts for specific scenarios, which included: A tribal community member who lives on or off the reservation receives an elevated blood lead result. A tribal community member in the Head Start Program receives an elevated blood lead result. An environmental assessment or remediation is requested/needed on tribal lands. Tribal government officials are interested in hosting a screening event or identifying a screening clinic. Community Engagement The outreach to Standing Rock resulted in more opportunities for collaboration. NDHHS staff were invited to attend a community health event at the local high school. This opportunity revealed a gap in the state lead program; no formal outreach guidelines had been developed yet, as the program was (and still is) in its infancy. The team began to create a lead prevention curriculum guide to be used for low-cost outreach activities at the state and local level. The activities range from interactive lead-safe nutrition games to identifying potential lead hazards in a model home. The team was able to pilot one of the activities in the curriculum guide at the Standing Rock Community High School’s “Walk for Wellness.” Students and community members were asked to play a game that teaches dietary tips for preventing lead poisoning for a prize. Over 30 students and 10 community members came to the table to learn about lead prevention and have open discussions around environmental health. This engagement not only strengthened connections between NDHHS and the Standing Rock community, but also expanded education on lead poisoning prevention to a new population. Future Impact Attending the Walk for Wellness event enhanced collaboration with local public health staff also participating in the event. These in-person conversations offered firsthand insight into the challenges rural communities are facing in accessing care and lead testing. The team walked away with a better understanding of what needs to be addressed to support an increase in statewide lead screening, as well as deeper connections with new and existing partners. The lead outreach team at NDHHS will continue to seek more opportunities to conduct outreach efforts throughout the state, including other tribal communities. While spreading lead prevention education through outreach is important, having the opportunity to connect with those in communities face-to-face around the state is invaluable. These connections are essential to decreasing the burden of lead exposure across North Dakota. article yes

Reprioritizing Black Maternal Health How We Can Prioritize Black Maternal Health Lawrence Young Black women face significant rates of maternal morbidity and mortality — learn how public health can better support them in this blog post. I do not have to look far to understand the urgency of the Black maternal health crisis. I have watched friends, colleagues, and loved ones from every walk of life struggle through pregnancies that should have been safe and celebrated. Some are highly educated professionals. Others are young mothers still finding their way. Many had access to quality insurance and still faced complications, long hospital stays, and minimal follow-up care. Many have shared unfortunate experiences that run the gamut from feeling unheard or perhaps unnecessarily undergoing a procedure — the care in health care was not there for them. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a larger, structural failure that demands our attention and our action. As public health professionals, we must ask ourselves: How can we better care for and about Black mothers? And what would it look like to center them in the systems that were created to protect women in one of the most vulnerable times of their lives? Understanding the Root of the Crisis Black women in the United States are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than their White counterparts. In many states, including Connecticut, this difference persists even when controlling for education and income. These outcomes are not the result of individual choices or biological differences — they are the result of systems designed with historical blind spots. Education and income, often seen as protective factors, do not shield Black women from these outcomes. Research shows that pregnancy-related mortality rates are higher among Black women with a college degree than among White women with the same level of education or with less than a high school diploma. The same is true for women with respect to the risk of dying within the first year postpartum. These disparities grow with age and extend beyond mortality to include severe maternal morbidity, such as preeclampsia — a pregnancy complication related to high blood pressure — which can have lasting health impacts if untreated including death. Additionally, American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Asian, and Hispanic women all experience higher rates of ICU admission during delivery compared to White women. ICU admission is considered a key marker for maternal complications and system-level failure. Public Health as Partner in Progress Public health has a responsibility to do more than document issues and concerns. We must be in the business of addressing them. In Connecticut, we are working across agencies and community organizations to move from acknowledgment to action. One of the most important leaders in this work is #Day43, an initiative launched by Waterbury Bridge to Success Community Partnership. The name refers to the period between 43 days and one year postpartum, during which approximately 20% of pregnancy-related deaths occur. #Day43 exists to raise awareness of Black maternal health and transform systems to support mothers. Their work spans research, advocacy, policy, technical assistance, and storytelling grounded in lived experience. Waterbury’s maternal health data reflects this crisis. According to the #Day43 Black Maternal Health Report, 18.6% of pregnant women in Waterbury received late or no prenatal care. Those in the city face higher rates of C-sections, limited access to postpartum care, and insufficient support for mental health and breastfeeding. The community described a significant lack of maternity care resources, particularly in the North End, where many Black and Hispanic families reside. Through initiatives like this, residents are not just seen as stakeholders. They are recognized as storytellers, system builders, and agents of change. Their leadership is shaping how we define, measure, and deliver maternal care in Connecticut. This vision aligns with broader maternal health equity efforts across the state. For example, The Connecticut Health Foundation is developing a Maternal Health Equity Blueprint in partnership with community leaders, researchers, and families. Waterbury voices are essential contributors to this process. Listening as a Path of Healing The experiences of Black mothers reflect a broader truth. Too often, our systems are not built to hear them. That lack of trust is both historical and current. It shows up in rushed appointments, dismissed symptoms, and inaccessible services. Community-based providers, such as doulas and midwives of color, are critical to bridging this gap. They do more than provide care — they restore dignity. Yet these providers are often underfunded and undervalued in mainstream health care systems. Public health must champion integrating these providers into existing systems and promoting long-term sustainability. To maximize maternal health outcomes, the next phase of this work must intentionally include structured cross-sector collaboration. It must focus on building systems that educate both providers and families on urgent maternal warning signs, provide consistent discharge education, and strengthen local surveillance and outreach infrastructure. These strategies are essential, scalable, and lifesaving. We cannot improve outcomes without acknowledging the deep cultural, emotional, and psychological work required to rebuild trust. We cannot heal what we do not hear. Re-Examining the “Public” in Public Health Re-examining the public in public health means placing the needs of our most vulnerable communities at the center. It means investing in care that is integrative and supportive with community co-designed solutions. It also means wholistically addressing other intersecting systems that influence maternal outcomes. We can start by: Expanding funding for community-based perinatal health workers, including doulas and midwives. Embedding relevant metrics into maternal health program design and evaluation. Creating statewide listening sessions and family advisory councils to ensure policies reflect lived realities. Partnering across sectors to improve access to safe housing, transportation, and mental health supports for new mothers. Supporting local initiatives like #Day43 that lead from within communities and reflect community-defined solutions. Educating families on health information and individual health rights through accessible, trusted channels. To truly care for and about Black mothers, we must act beyond awareness months and social media campaigns. We must improve current processes and design opportunities that will support them and keep them alive. Public health was created to serve the public. The most powerful way to honor that mission is to focus on the public, ensuring they are a priority and not an afterthought. article yes

Discover how leadership coaching sessions reinforced partnerships between public health and community-based organizations.