Displaying 1-20 of 21 results for

According to the federal government, a homebased individual is someone who requires the help of another person or supportive device to leave the home, someone who is advised against leaving the home by a physician, and/or someone for whom it is extremely taxing to leave the home. Compared to non-homebased adults, homebased people are more likely to be older, have lower income, and belong to racial minority groups—as well as live with disabilities, chronic health conditions, and comorbidities. Individuals who are homebased therefore tend to be at increased risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

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 Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories.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

With data showing the number of the opioid overdose deaths escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic, access to naloxone, a medication that can reverse an opioid overdose, continues to be an important topic for policy makers. The number of laws and policies to increase access to naloxone have grown over the past several years. Policy makers across the country have expanded access to naloxone by allowing third-party prescriptions for friends, family, and other people who may encounter those at risk of an opioid overdose.

Economic security and well-being, job stability, access to safe and affordable housing, access to healthy and nutritious foods, and access to resources to manage mental and physical health—all of these things impact individual, family, and community health. The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally impacted each of these social determinants of health for many Americans. Furthermore, some communities and industries have faced harder economic impacts than others, including households with low incomes, non-white households, and households with children. Human services and public health leaders can collaborate to make sure we are rebuilding systems and programs in a way that creates healthier, more resilient families and communities.

Anticipating a rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines as they are authorized, the CDC developed COVID-19 Vaccination Program Operational Guidance in collaboration with state and local jurisdictions to outline how each jurisdiction will make an authorized vaccine widely available. In addition to the operational plans, there is a legal framework of federal and state laws supporting the distribution and administration of the FDA-authorized vaccines.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided an unprecedented opportunity to speed up developing Delaware’s Functional Assessment Service Team and to test it at scale.

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.

Well before COVID-19 hit, an increasing share of American households faced housing challenges. This is a public health concern because stable, affordable, and accessible housing has a direct and well-documented impact on physical and mental health outcomes. The window to act is now. Further, the high number of households with unstable housing and accumulating debt—as well as the stark racial disparities present—mean we must rethink how our systems and institutions operate.

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.

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.

ASTHO placed 14 disability and preparedness specialists in health agencies to support inclusivity of people living with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. In this brief, three of these specialists share their experiences with ensuring COVID-19 vaccination sites are accessible to people living with disabilities. They share their perspectives and recommendations for expanding vaccine site accessibility.

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

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

A One Health approach can give health agencies the connections they need to address climate and health.

During the the 2021-2022 legislative sessions, several states have enacted laws addressing flu prevention efforts.

Health in All Policies can be a successful strategy to expand collaboration between state and territorial agencies and other partners, but the terminology used in programs focused on these efforts can differ. While equity is often a prominent part of these efforts, it is not always included in the program title. ASTHO partnered with the Kansas Health Institute to host listening sessions to better understand how these efforts are framed and deployed.

Across the nation, public health agencies have mounted herculean efforts to stem the COVID-19 pandemic while addressing a pre-existing HIV epidemic and an opioid crisis that is serving as a source for many new HIV outbreaks. Tackling these public health crises simultaneously presents significant challenges as overdose deaths have spiked in the past year while HIV resources have been diverted leading to lower testing rates, fewer prescriptions for as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and a decrease in HIV treatment, all of which will are likely to increase the number of acute HIV infections.

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges for screening children’s blood lead levels, as screening rates across the country dropped during stay-at-home orders. A substantive federal policy change and provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are significantly changing the landscape for reporting and reducing childhood lead poisoning. Read what states are doing in this week’s health policy update.