Displaying 10 results for

Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

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

Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding and Administration in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping public health funding and administration in 2026, including increased funding for behavioral health and other areas. Decades of underinvestment in the nation’s public health system have impacted agencies’ ability to respond to health challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of a chronically under-resourced sector tasked with responding to a global emergency. While public health has received influxes of funding through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan Act over the last five years, both were temporary injections of funding in response to COVID-19. There have been efforts to provide longer term funding for public health improvements through the Public Health Infrastructure Grant and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, but this funding faces an uncertain future: There have been multiple reductions in federal funding to the Prevention and Public Health Fund since its creation in 2010. Moreover, state public health agencies are preparing for the possibility of federal funding being reduced or cancelled. This, coupled with balanced budget requirements, is driving states to explore ways to improve their public health investments while bolstering infrastructure — focusing on health departments’ core services, and ensuring access to quality public health programs at the state and local levels. Increased Funding for Public Health In 2025, 47 states enacted or will enact budget bills. While overall nationwide funding for public health in FY26 was roughly equivalent to FY25, at least half of the state health departments had some form of increased funding (e.g., Medicaid, provider reimbursement rates, and specific public health initiatives and programs). For example: Behavioral Health: Colorado SB 25-206 included a $1.6 million increase in funding to provide behavioral health services in primary care settings. Certification: Illinois SB 2510 includes a $6 million increase to support licensing, inspecting, and certifying health care facilities for compliance with state and federal regulations. Maternal and Child Health: Georgia HB 68 provided a nearly $3 million increase in funding to expand a pilot program that provides home visits in at-risk and underserved communities during pregnancy and early childhood. Rural Health: Arizona’s budget bills include $4 million to expand access to health care through the development of rural medical residency programs. School-Based Health Centers: Delaware HB 225 appropriates funding to develop school-based health centers in elementary schools with more than 90% of students classified as low-income, multilingual learners, or underrepresented minorities. Leg Prospectus-2026 - Funding - Rural Health Improved Public Health Administration Several states passed legislation restructuring their public health systems. Nevada enacted SB 494, dividing the previous Department of Health and Human Services into two separate agencies. The bill gives the new health agency, called the Nevada Health Authority, the authority to oversee health programs (e.g., Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), manage health care compliance and consumer health services, and develop policy that improves health care access and cost efficiency. Hawaii’s HB 1120 formally gives the Department of Health the authority to prevent, address, and abate any issues that pose a threat to public health and/or environmental health, such as toxic materials, vector-borne diseases, and climate change. More than half of U.S. state health agencies are decentralized or largely decentralized, meaning many public health services are provided by city, county, or regional health departments that are separate from the state health agency. In 2025, at least two states enacted legislation enhancing local health departments’ abilities to provide core public health services: Utah SB 172 requires the Department of Environmental Quality to enter into cooperative agreements with local health departments to prevent and respond to potential health and safety threats from the environment. It also establishes a governance committee of state and local health department personnel to evaluate proposed policy changes affecting local health departments and ensure allocated resources meet the minimum performance standard. Washington HB 1946 modifies the membership requirements for local health boards, allowing federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands in the board’s jurisdiction to have members on the board. It also allows urban Indian organizations recognized by the Indian Health Service that provide services within that jurisdiction to have members. Looking Ahead ASTHO anticipates states and territories will continue considering and adopting legislation to provide state funding for public health and improve public health infrastructure, including those that: Create contingency plans or rainy-day funds in the event of reduced federal funding. Establish partnerships with neighboring states to share health data. Promote sharing services and resources within local health departments. Leverage regionalization as a tool to consolidate and share scarce public health resources. Adapt the funding and management of public health grants to ensure efficiency. Improve public health data systems to promote greater efficiency. OE22-2203 PHIG 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.

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

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

ASTHO staff identified a range of evidence-supported policies considered by state legislatures that could prevent ACEs. This report synthesizes these research and policy proposals and is intended for public health practitioners and policymakers who are considering adopting similar policies.

Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process How state Medicaid agencies can request enhanced federal funding for Medicaid Enterprise Systems and related activities. Why is the Advanced Planning Document process important? Based on information from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Federal Register, the Advanced Planning Document (APD) process is a procedure through which states develop a plan of action for their Medicaid information technology (Medicaid IT) projects. These plans are for designing, implementing, or operating Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) projects. State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) submit completed APDs to CMS—specifically a designated state officer in the Center for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Services (CMCS) Data and Systems Group (DSG)—to request federal financial participation for their activities. The state officer reviews APDs to assess whether states’ requests for federal financial participation for designing, developing, implementing, or maintaining MES activities contribute to the economic and efficient operation of Medicaid and meet specific technical and operational criteria defined in statute, regulation, or sub-regulatory guidance. A state that receives federal financial participation can see increased access to stable federal funding to support MES activities. In addition, APDs are used to monitor a state’s project performance and outcomes. What are the three types of APDs? There are three types of APDs: Planning, Implementation, and Operational (Table 1). Table - Resource - Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process What are the major steps for states in the APD process? To request enhanced federal funding for MES, SMAs must complete the APD template that aligns with where they are in the development of their project (for example, design or maintenance) and submit it to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The APD process contains five major steps and can take many months to complete: Meet with key state contacts and decision-makers. Based on information from the Public Health Informatics Institute’s information and tip sheets, before developing the APD, the SMA should identify and engage key state contacts and decision makers to solicit their input about the proposed project and secure their and their staff’s collaboration to complete and submit the APD to the CMCS DSG state officer. The state health agency (SHA) should work closely with the SMA during this process to ensure that they provide needed support to the SMA. For example, the SHA may gather information for the SMA to include in the APD or advise on how to complete particular sections of the APD. During this process, the SMA and SHA should consult with their respective agency leadership to discuss the type of technological solutions Public Health maintains, Public Health’s relationship with the state Medicaid program, and the opportunity to align systems to reduce overall state costs and improve state efficiency through the APD process. The SMA and SHA should also engage the MES lead, who can offer critical information about current MES components and component certification needed to complete the APD. In addition, GAO recommends states involve their chief information official in overseeing Medicaid IT projects because they can play a critical role in decision making related to IT budgets, management, and oversight. Next, the SMA and SHA should engage the CMCS DSG state officer to develop a strong understanding of how the APD can support the Medicaid program and serve a public health interest. Coordinating with the state project management office can help integrate the diverse parties and processes needed to develop and submit the APD for approval. It can also help ensure that states develop a comprehensive and flexible timeline for the APD process, stay aware of approaching deadlines, and meet ad hoc requirements. Develop the appropriate APD. Next, based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c), the SMA and SHA should identify which of the three types of APDs to submit to the CMCS DSG state officer. Planning APDs are recommended for large and complex projects, such as statewide projects. However, if a state can identify a clear and easy pathway to integrate a public health information technology system with a current MES procurement or development phase, it can forgo developing a Planning APD and directly develop or update an existing Implementation APD. For example, if a state is looking to integrate its counties’ public health data into its MES at once, it should develop a Planning APD as the project is large and affects all counties in the state. However, if a state already has most of its counties’ public health data in its MES but is looking to add a single county’s data to its MES using the same process it previously and successfully used to add the other counties’ data, it may not need to submit a Planning APD. If a state has already successfully integrated its counties’ public health data into its MES and is looking to make major technology upgrades and improvements, it should submit an Operational APD. Regardless of the type of APD the state submits, the SMA and SHA should work together to ensure the request meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding (see separate document Conditions for Enhanced Funding: The Basics). Submit the APD for approval and be available for revisions. Based on information from CMS, GAO, and the Office of Child Support and Enforcement, the state should then submit the APD to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The SMA and SHA should plan to receive questions and revision requests from the CMCS DSG state officer and ensure that the state has staff capacity to answer questions and revise and resubmit. Approval conditions can be found at 45 C.F.R. § 307.15, but approval criteria might vary by Medicaid IT project and other factors. If approved, implement the plan. Next, the state can carry out the plan described in its Planning and Implementation APDs. After the Medicaid IT project has been operating for at least six months, states can request system certification from CMS. According to CMS, certification is required to receive the enhanced 75 percent federal financial participation for operations. The certification process includes states submitting to CMS an intake form, a certification request letter, and supplemental materials with information on its system. CMS may then start its review to assess whether the state’s system meets certification requirements. If approved, monitor and report progress and submit other APDs as needed. Based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c) and 45 C.F.R. § Part 95 Subpart F and information from CMS, CMCS, Office of Child Support and Enforcement, as the state continues with its Medicaid IT project, it should adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements for enhanced federal funding. It also should submit annual APDs as required. If the state wants to make any major changes to the Medicaid IT project in concept, scope, cost allocation approach, timeline, and other key areas, it must develop and submit an as-needed APD. An as-needed APD is due no later than 60 days after the occurrence of the change. State examples: Medicaid Enterprise System projects Based on information from Alvarez & Marsel, state MES projects will vary based on factors such as the maturity of a state’s technology infrastructure, its specific data needs, and its available resources. As such, projects to design, implement, or operate MES can range in size, complexity, and timeline. For example, the Alabama MES Modernization Program, the Wyoming Integrated Next Generation System Project, and the Florida Health Care Connections project all seek to transform their singular Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) into modular, multi-vendor MES, but differ in approach. In addition, Arizonia and Hawaii are collaborating to modernize their shared MES. For more information on state MES projects, see the Medicaid Enterprise System Solution/Module Contract Status Report. This webpage lists states’ MMIS and Eligibility and Enrollment contract information for their MES projects. It also lists contact information for state officers to reach out to learn more about states’ MES projects. website yes

ASTHO’s 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part One legislative session, state policy, data collection, domestic violence, health information exchange, data privacy, substance misuse, overdose prevention, sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health, contraceptive care, climate change, public health, protect data, user data, personal data, centers for disease control, disease control and prevention, social media, data management, primary care, health organizations, higher risk, family planning, data sources, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Lillian Colasurdo, Maggie Davis, Lana McKinney, JoAnne McClure This past December, ASTHO announced the top 10 public health state policy issues to watch for during the 2024 state and territorial legislative sessions. With at least 30 states concluding their regularly scheduled 2024 sessions, here is a brief update on five of the topics to watch. Data Collection and Exchange As expected, there was an increase in proposed legislation that specifically advances electronic health data access, encourages interoperability, and safeguards identifiable patient health records; this was particularly true for vital records. Hundreds of bills have been introduced this session addressing state vital records systems. The state of Illinois alone has already passed several bills, including HB 2856, which requires veteran status to be designated on death certificates, and HB 2841, which prohibits the assessment of fees to victims of domestic violence who are seeking a certified vital record (birth or death certificate) from the state. Other states such as Arizona (SB 1252) considered legislation that would require the Department of Health to provide vital records information on deceased individuals to the qualifying health information exchange (HIE). Arizona is one of eight jurisdictions (AZ, FL, IA, IL, NH, NJ, OK, and WV) that have proposed legislation addressing HIEs this session. Most of these bills increase requirements to connect to HIEs, but New Hampshire HB 1663 and Oklahoma HB 3556 would allow patients and health care providers to opt out of HIEs. As many states look to address health data privacy concerns, New Hampshire recently passed a constitutional amendment granting the explicit right to privacy and has introduced HB 1663, which would update many of the state’s privacy laws regarding medical records to conform with the constitutional requirements. Just next door, Maine considered legislation (LD 1902) that would strengthen privacy requirements for reproductive and gender-affirming patient health information. Finally, the launch of the new federal Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) led to the Florida legislature proposing SB 668, which, had it passed, would have required hospitals to make patient records available through a nationally recognized trusted exchange framework. It would also have required the Agency for Health Care Administration to adopt relevant rules. Substance Misuse and Overdose Prevention Measures to prevent substance misuse and reduce overdoses, namely increasing access to opioid antagonists, such as naloxone and regulating substances with the potential for misuse, are priorities this legislative season. ASTHO anticipated that states would consider legislation to reduce fatal overdoses including decriminalizing drug checking equipment, expanding naloxone access and distribution, establishing overdose prevention centers, and establishing state regulatory frameworks for commercial substances with the potential for misuse, including kratom and Delta-8. Current legislative priorities to expand access to naloxone include public spaces, such as libraries, schools, workplaces. Island jurisdictions along with at least four states—Colorado (HB 24-1003), Tennessee (SB 2141), Virginia (HB 732), and Wisconsin (AB 223)—passed legislation to provide greater access to and/or proper storage of naloxone in school settings. Additionally, Virginia passed HB 342 that requires naloxone access in state agency buildings. These legislative actions, along with the approval last year by the FDA of two non-prescription naloxone spray products for over-the-counter use, are collectively powerful policy shifts to expand access to naloxone. In an attempt to regulate substances with the potential for abuse or misuse, specifically kratom, eight states have considered legislation that would restrict the sale to people under the age of 18. Similarly, twelve states have considered legislation that would restrict the sale of kratom to those under the age of 21. At least 22 states have considered legislation that would compel specific labeling requirements for kratom. Of those, California (AB 2365) and New Jersey (A 1188) would require kratom products to be registered with the state health department annually and require lab testing of the product to meet certain qualifications. Preventing Sexually Transmitted Infections ASTHO has spotlighted the growing concerns of rising rates of sexually transmitted infections and state actions reducing congenital syphilis rates and expanding access to HIV prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Rates of both syphilis and congenital syphilis continue to rise at an alarming rate, with more than 10 times as many babies being born with syphilis in 2022 than in 2012. Routine screening and timely and adequate treatment of pregnant people for syphilis, ideally more than 30 days before delivery, can effectively prevent this condition in newborns. Due to increasing cases, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently updated their guidance for obstetrician–gynecologists and other obstetric care professionals advising serological screening for all pregnant individuals at the first prenatal visit and universal screening at the third trimester and at birth. During the 2024 legislative session at least two states—Missouri (SB 1260) and Maryland (HB 119)—are considering legislation that would require testing during pregnancy care at the third trimester for syphilis. Maryland’s legislature passed HB 119, which would require screening at the third trimester and at birth, as well as requiring the hospital to determine the syphilis status of the birthing parent before discharging the newborn. In 2023, New York enacted legislation (A 3007) that requires syphilis screening in the third trimester, and in the current legislative session they are considering S 2472, which would allow the state health department to provide education about congenital syphilis and screenings. At least six states have considered and passed legislation during the 2024 legislative session regarding expanded access for HIV prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Of those considered, Georgia enacted HB 1028 to allow PEP to be issued by a standing order; Florida’s legislature passed HB 159 that would allow pharmacists to screen for HIV exposure, order, and dispense prevention drugs PEP and PrEP and sent it to the governor. Similarly, in Delaware the Senate chamber passed SB 194 that would permit pharmacists to provide PrEP and PEP pursuant to an approved protocol. Family and Reproductive Health Policymakers across all levels of government continued taking steps to make it easier for people to access contraceptives. In 2023, at least 14 states enacted laws in 2023 to facilitate expanding access to contraceptive care by either expanding the ability for pharmacists to dispense birth control without an individualized prescription and/or allowing pharmacists to dispense up to 12 months of contraceptives at once. So far in 2024, at least 13 jurisdictions considered legislation allowing pharmacists to dispense contraceptives without a prescription and at least 18 states considered legislation supporting access to 12 month supply of contraceptives. Following FDA’s July 2023 approval of Opill—the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill—the drug is currently available in stores with several major pharmacies and health plans announcing that they will provide the medication at zero cost for many health plan sponsors. To further support access to Opill, at least two states (New Mexico and Wisconsin) issued standing orders for Opill to facilitate Medicaid coverage of the medication. Additionally, Maryland’s legislature passed SB 527 in March 2024, which requires community colleges to develop and implement a plan to provide students access to OTC contraception. In February 2024, New York enacted S 8096 allowing the commissioner of health to issue a standing order allowing a pharmacist to dispense self-administered hormonal contraceptives, effective retroactively to January 1, 2024. Under the new law, New York’s Commissioner of Health issued a standing order to allow pharmacists to dispense up to 12 months of self-administered hormonal contraceptives like birth control pills, vaginal rings, and contraceptive patches. Optimal Health for All ASTHO anticipates policymakers will take steps to improve collection of health disparities data, address inequities rural communities face in accessing care, and to support climate change adaptation planning efforts. So far in the 2024 legislative session, several states are considering bills to improve health care access and outcomes in rural areas. California is considering legislation (SB 945) that would build an integrated data dashboard to provide the public with information on the health impacts caused by wildfires and the effectiveness of forest health and wildfire mitigation on health outcomes. Additionally, California (AB 2342) is looking to ensure critical access hospitals on remote islands receive adequate funding through a dedicated annual supplement. New York is considering at least two bills that would promote rural health care access. First, New York S 8582 would create a pilot program to identify rural health zones and convene a rural health zone board

Continuing ASTHO’s Legislative Prospectus series—which highlights the top 10 public health policy issues for 2022—this post focuses on mental and behavioral health, as well as supporting the public health workforce.