Displaying 6 results for

While communities transition from emergency response to long-term monitoring and recovery, the federal government and states are taking legislative action to improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

Accompanying an infusion of federal funding, states are considering several policy changes to strengthen the public health workforce and address challenges within the health care workforce.

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 Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories.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in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services.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

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.

Outcomes and Implications of ACIP’s Vote on the Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Implications of ACIP Vote on Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Kim Martin, Jessica Baggett Learn about the outcomes and implications of the December 2025 ACIP vote on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. On Dec. 4 and 5, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held a long-anticipated meeting featuring two major topics of discussion: the hepatitis B birth dose and the pediatric vaccine schedule. The committee voted on two questions related to the pediatric hepatitis B vaccine schedule, both of which passed. To briefly summarize the outcome of the meeting, ACIP shifted from recommending a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns to individualized decision-making for newborns born to HBsAg-negative mothers. There was no change to the recommendation for infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers or whose HBsAg status is unknown. CDC has not yet adopted these changes. In the meantime, many states are taking actions to provide clarity to providers and promote public confidence in the vaccine. How States Are Taking Action In response to (and in some cases before) the new ACIP recommendations, several states issued recommendations, guidelines, standing orders, executive directives, and health alerts for providers to provide clarity. States Recommending or Encouraging the Full Vaccine Series Some states are issuing their own guidance and recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine series or encouraging providers to adhere to the series as is it was before the new ACIP recommendations: The Northeast Public Health Collaborative released a consensus statement before the ACIP meeting recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and a schedule that aligns with clinical recommendations. Collaborative members also issued statements reaffirming their adherence to established hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Maryland also released guidance for parents and caregivers about its childhood immunization recommendations. States in the West Coast Health Alliance issued statements supporting the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. These states include California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Many individual states also issued statements affirming the recommendation for the continued use of the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, including Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Vermont. States Issuing Standing Orders and Executive Directives At least two states issued a standing order or executive directive related to the hepatitis B vaccine: The Maryland Department of Health issued a standing order to ensure hepatitis B vaccine access for infants and children in the state. The standing order authorizes qualified health care providers to administer the hepatitis B vaccine and outlines the policies and procedures for administering the vaccine. In New Jersey, the acting health commissioner issued an executive directive recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. States Issuing Public Health Alerts and Advisories Well before the recent ACIP meeting, the Maine CDC issued a health advisory to providers recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. Since the ACIP meeting, at least two other states have released provider advisories. Maryland issued a letter to providers laying out the state’s hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, and New Hampshire issued a health alert with a continued recommendation for the full hepatitis B vaccine series and birth dose. In addition, Vermont sent a guidance letter to the providers in the state’s vaccine program. States Reexamine State Statutes and Agency Rules Linking to ACIP Recommendations Over the last several months, many states have proposed and enacted legislation to move away from sole reliance on ACIP recommendations. More recently, Massachusetts adopted H 4761, authorizing the health commissioner — in consultation with a newly established committee on immunization recommendations — to review and issue alternative standards to ACIP recommendations. States are also proposing changes to agency rules related to school and childcare immunization requirements. For example, Colorado’s health department has issued a proposed rule to modify the state’s standards for school and childcare immunization requirements and to align its rules with recent changes to state statute. Additional Considerations for States If CDC adopts the proposed ACIP recommendations, states can consider the following actions. Hepatitis B Screening States should continue to work with health care providers to close gaps in hepatitis B screening and follow-up for infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. Data show the most common cause of perinatal infection occurs when a mother with hepatitis B gives birth and the infant does not receive follow-up postexposure prophylaxis. Insurance Coverage While public and private insurance, including the Vaccines for Children program, are still required to cover the hepatitis B vaccine, such as any birth doses given to infants of HBsAg-negative mothers under shared clinical decision-making, states can consider creating additional coverage requirements. Some states have passed policies on insurance coverage, and other states have proposed legislation related to other vaccine coverage. Implementation of Shared Clinical Decision-Making While health care providers and parents have the flexibility to determine their approach for infants of HBsAg-negative mothers (i.e., continuing to recommend/give a birth dose), ACIP recommendations that rely on shared clinical decision-making have increased provider questions on how to have and document these conversations. States can work with medical associations, provider boards, and health care partners to ensure clinicians understand how to apply shared clinical decision-making recommendations. This includes educating staff in birthing hospitals, community clinics, and pediatric practices on how to counsel parents and document informed discussions. Jurisdictions can also develop or adapt educational materials and decision aids that clearly outline benefits, risks, timing, and follow-up options to support both providers and parents. More information on shared clinical decision-making is available from CDC and Common Health Coalition. States can also encourage providers and birthing institutions to examine workflows, Immunization Information System documentation, and follow-up to ensure scheduling of future doses. Implications for Vaccine Supply States can examine vaccine supply through the Vaccines for Children program to understand how the new recommendations impact supply of single antigen hepatitis B vaccines. If a significant percentage of the population receives vaccines on a different timetable, it could impact supply and timing for other vaccinations, given the reliance on combination vaccines for hepatitis B dose two and three, which can include DTaP, polio, and Hib vaccines. Supplemental Resources Common Health Coalition: Vaccine Resources December 2025 ACIP Meeting: Hepatitis B Updates for Health Leaders (PDF) Vaccine Integrity Project – Hepatitis B by Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Understanding the Benefits of Vaccines: Common Questions by HealthyChildren.org Childhood Vaccinations (PDF) by Your Local Epidemiologist Hep B Birth Dose Media Toolkit by Hepatitis B Foundation Reframing the Conversation About Child and Adolescent Vaccinations by Frameworks Institute CDC: ACIP Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations ACIP Meeting Materials for Public Posting: Hepatitis B Birth Dose Briefing Document (PDF) Hepatitis B Birth Dose Vaccination (PDF) article yes