Displaying 1-20 of 22 results for

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 Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories.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in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services.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

An issue brief by ASTHO and the Duke University Margolis Center for Health Policy that highlights considerations for state health officials as they look to maximize the benefits of COVID-19 therapeutics.

This brief focuses on how telehealth expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased access to care for pregnant and postpartum women, and made maternal and child health care services like doulas and midwives more accessible.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, temporarily expanding the use of telehealth technologies by removing various requirements and waiving certain restrictions. Many states also expanded telehealth access through changes to state Medicaid laws. These temporary policy changes created an uptick of telehealth use that improved access to care for millions of Americans—but questions remain about which policy changes will stick around beyond the pandemic. Currently, states are making decisions about what temporary policies to permanently implement and which policies to end without disrupting the delivery of care and further exacerbating health disparities.

ASTHO, in collaboration with CDC, provided full-time disability and preparedness specialists to 17 jurisdictions to better meet the needs of people with disabilities. In this brief, specialists share their thoughts on why people living with disabilities may be hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine and some approaches public health officials can take to address vaccine hesitancy in people living with disabilities.

This Health Policy Update is an overview of state legislative activity to increase financial stability for families during the COVID-19 pandemic which may help to prevent adverse childhood experiences.

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.

Partnering with Community Action Agencies Can Improve Trust in Vaccines astho, association of state and territorial health officials, association of state and territorial health officials astho, state health official, public health official, territorial health official, island jurisdictions, state health, health department, public health, state and territorial health, social determinants of health, johns hopkins, advance health equity, socially determined, health inequities, race ethnicity, covid-19 vaccines, health disparities, vaccine supply, high income countries, vaccine equity, vaccine distribution, vaccine hesitancy, immunization, centers for disease control, community action agencies, covid19 pandemic, at-risk populations, healthy equity Geetika Nadkarni Learn how community action teams are working to improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in their own communities. In the current climate surrounding vaccinations and other large-scale public health measures, it’s more important than ever for public health to engage communities. One way to do this is through working with community action agencies (CAAs), local entities that work to reduce poverty and reduce disparities among the populations they serve. Funded through the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), CAAs are an ideal complement to public health’s mission to address the social determinants of health and achieve greater equity. With support from CDC, ASTHO is working with the National Community Action Partnership and five CAAs in the Partnering for Vaccine Equity project, which aims to increase acceptance and uptake of vaccines among racial and ethnic minority groups and in rural communities. ASTHO chose to partner with CAAs as trusted community agents for this project because of their existing relationships within communities through programs such as Head Start, food banks, federal nutrition programs, and employment and housing assistance. Through their internal and external partnerships, they can reach people who may be concerned about vaccine safety and/or lack access to vaccination sites. Through this project, CAAs are partnering with residents, faith-based organizations, local schools and universities, state and local public health departments, and non-profits active in the community. They are also engaging a range of local providers, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), physicians, community health workers, medical and nursing students, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). These community action teams are working together to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake and to customize evidence-based strategies to their own communities and neighborhoods. article yes

Public health officials from all levels of government are working to respond to the existing outbreak of monkeypox, while preparing for the potential of more widespread transmission.

In honor of ASTHO’s 80th anniversary, a leadership panel—including CEO Michael Fraser, President Anne Zink, Past President Nirav Shah, and Idaho Commissioner of Health Elke Shaw-Tulloch—discusses the unique role ASTHO plays in the public health landscape.

With Omicron surges pushing jurisdictions to activate protocols for providing healthcare during crisis, it is important to incorporate disability inclusion into these crisis standards of care.

In the Public Health Review podcast debut, host Robert Johnson speaks with public health officials from Alaska, Kentucky, and West Virginia about the ongoing opioid epidemic in the U.S. and its intersections with other epidemics like neonatal alcohol syndrome and hepatitis C.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began the need for greater access to virtual reproductive health care services increased dramatically. Telehealth increased access to providers, eased workflows and infection protection for clinical staff, and reduced interruptions in care for many patients.

In 2021, ASTHO convened state environmental health directors and directors of public health preparedness to discuss innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic such as virtual inspections. This ASTHOBrief explores how state health and partner agencies developed methods to support environmental health work and how they are continuing to adapt moving forward.

Policymakers seek to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by focusing on non-congregate sheltering and alternative housing for unhoused populations.

This Health Policy Update is an overview of policy strategies that states have taken at the executive and legislative levels to increase the healthcare workforce to more effectively and efficiently respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

A quick rundown of sessions and speakers at the 2022 ASTHO Public Health TechXpo.

Three public health experts share how they prioritized vaccine equity for American Indian and Alaskan Native communities on the local, state, and national levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.