Displaying 1-20 of 22 results for

Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots JoAnne Deehr Suicides continue to be a critical public health issue — learn how states are leveraging policy to improve suicide prevention. Suicide remains a persistent public health challenge, affecting people of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and income levels in the United States. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, more than 49,300 Americans died by suicide in 2023. National suicide rates steadily rose from 2003 until 2018 and have remained high since then, reflecting an enduring and widespread impact. While all communities are affected by suicide, certain demographics face higher risks. Disproportionately higher rates of suicide are seen among elderly Americans, Veterans, individuals with lower income, less education, and those living in rural areas. People in certain industries, such as mining, construction, and public safety, are also at elevated risk. At the same time, emerging technologies like chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have raised new considerations related to safety, oversight, and appropriate use in mental health settings, underscoring the need for thoughtful state approaches to suicide prevention. Policymakers are responding to these challenges in multiple ways, including establishing state suicide prevention infrastructure and regulating AI chatbot use in mental health. Suicide Prevention Infrastructure Legislation Suicide prevention efforts are most effective when states and territories have dedicated infrastructure — such as suicide prevention offices, coordinators, commissions, and fatality review processes — to support coordination, surveillance, and implementation of evidence-based strategies. These structures enable state and territorial health agencies to identify populations and communities at increased risk, align partners across public health, health care, and public safety, and pursue sustainable funding for suicide prevention and crisis system improvements. ASTHO’s Suicide Prevention Offices and Committees Legal Map highlights the varied policy approaches states have taken to establish this infrastructure and identifies which states had statutory suicide prevention structures in place as of January 1, 2025. During the 2025 legislative session, states considered at least 30 bills related to establishing suicide prevention offices, coordinators, advisory bodies, and suicide fatality reviews. Five of these bills were enacted, including Delaware’s HB 54 which establishes the state’s Office of Suicide Prevention. Delaware also enacted HB 87, expanding membership in the state’s Suicide Prevention Coalition to include someone who has experienced suicidal ideation or survived a suicide attempt and someone who has lost a loved one to suicide. Conversely, Oklahoma enacted SB 676, repealing the section of the state’s Suicide Prevention Act that established the Oklahoma Suicide Prevention Council, which was slated to sunset in 2020. The council was originally tasked with identifying issues and promoting strategies to prevent suicide, and providing technical assistance on best practices for identifying people at risk of suicide. The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services still serves as the leading agency for implementing the remainder of tasks outlined in the Act. Illinois and Texas enacted legislation establishing advisory bodies focused on suicide prevention among first responders. In Texas, HB 1593 creates a committee to study suicide prevention and peer support programs within fire departments and requires a report with recommendations by September 2026. In Illinois, HB 2551 reconstitutes the First Responders Suicide Prevention Task Force, and increases membership in the task force to include a member from an organization that provides mental health training and support to first responders and two members who represent organizations that advocate on behalf of public safety telecommunicators, such as 911 operators and dispatchers. The bill also charges the task force with developing a final report by December 2026. Both bodies are scheduled to sunset in January 2027. Currently, Wisconsin has several types of fatality review teams operating through voluntary efforts with no law formally establishing or governing these teams. Wisconsin is considering SB 192, which would formally establish processes for reviewing fatalities, including deaths by suicide. It would also direct the Department of Health Services to establish a fatality review program comprised of established local teams and authorize the department to establish state fatality review teams. AI Chatbots While states continue to strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure, policymakers are beginning to turn their attention to emerging mental health considerations related to AI. Since emerging in the 1950s, AI has evolved from rule-based systems to today's machine learning and natural language processing applications, powering everything from data analysis to interactive chatbots. Recent AI advances enable chatbots to simulate human conversation so convincingly that users may forget they are interacting with a machine. However, these systems lack genuine empathy and cannot substitute for professional mental health treatment. Their tendency to be excessively agreeable creates particular dangers for people experiencing suicidal ideation, leading some states to explore regulations governing AI chatbot use in mental health and suicide prevention contexts. At least 19 states considered legislation regulating the use of AI for mental health related reasons to promote user safety. At least five bills were enacted, including California SB 243, which requires chatbot platform operators to disclose that users are interacting with AI if confusion could occur, develop protocols to prevent and respond to suicidal ideation or self-harm, and report annually on safety measures to the state Office of Suicide Prevention. The California legislature also passed AB 1064, which the Governor subsequently vetoed due to concerns that its broad restrictions on AI companion chatbots for minors could limit access to potentially beneficial tools. Illinois and Nevada passed legislation that largely prohibits AI from providing behavioral health services. Illinois HB 1806 restricts the use of AI for therapy or psychotherapy unless delivered by a licensed professional who is required to inform the patient, or their legal representative, in writing and receive consent. The law also prohibits licensed professionals from allowing AI to make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly with clients and allows the use of AI only for administrative or supplemental tasks under professional oversight. Nevada AB 406 similarly prohibits AI systems from providing or representing themselves as offering professional mental or behavioral health care, prohibits AI from performing the functions of a school counselor, psychologist, or social worker in public schools, and allows licensed professionals to use AI only for administrative or supportive purposes, with oversight to ensure accuracy and safety. New York and Utah passed laws requiring mental health chatbots to clearly disclose that they are not human. As part of their annual budget, New York S 3008 mandates that AI companion systems capable of simulating human-like interactions detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, provide crisis referrals, and regularly disclose that users are interacting with AI rather than a person. Utah HB 452 requires AI-driven mental health chatbots to provide clear disclosures and limits advertising and data practices. At the federal level, on December 11, 2025, the White House issued an executive order seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence and create a “minimally burdensome” federal approach. The order also directs the Department of Justice to form an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws deemed in conflict with this federal policy, and the Department of Commerce to limit eligibility for certain federal funds for states that take a non-preferred approach. The scope and criteria of these federal actions, including their impact on state laws aimed at suicide prevention, have not been clearly defined. Advancing suicide prevention will require states and territories to take comprehensive approaches that address both systemic gaps within state infrastructure and emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policy developments and provide relevant updates. Reviewed by - Baker-White, Maffey article yes

States Pursue Policy Options to Support Access to Over-the-Counter Contraception State Policy to Support Over-the-Counter Contraception Access Christina Severin Learn about state policy options that can help to support over-the-counter contraception access including levers within Medicaid programs. Effective contraceptive care improves maternal health outcomes by helping individuals plan if and when they become pregnant. Additionally, some contraceptive methods may reduce the risk of certain cancers and protect against sexually transmitted infections. While the most effective methods generally require a visit to a health care provider, over-the-counter (OTC) options may address certain barriers to accessing contraception (e.g., taking time off work for a medical appointment and lack of health insurance or access to health care providers/settings). The New Age of Nonprescription Oral Contraceptives A significant change in the marketplace of OTC options occurred in 2023 when FDA approved the first daily non-prescription oral contraceptive. This progestin-only pill —known as Opill — is considered both safe and highly effective at preventing pregnancy when taken correctly. Opill reached stores in early 2024 and has a suggested retail price of about $20 per month or $50 for a three-month supply. While OTC oral contraceptives like Opill may improve access among individuals not currently using contraception or those using a less effective method, high out-of-pocket costs can be a barrier. One way to limit out-of-pocket costs is to require private health insurance coverage of contraception without cost-sharing. ACA requires most private health insurance plans to do this, but it does not extend to all health insurances or contraceptives. For OTC contraceptives, the landscape is even more complex: While plans are encouraged to cover OTC emergency contraception at no cost and without a prescription, it is not required. HHS and the Departments of Labor and Treasury issued a proposed rule in 2023 that would have required broader coverage of OTC contraception without a prescription or cost-sharing, but the rule was later withdrawn. Without a federal mandate, states can pursue coverage requirements through the health insurance products they regulate. Jurisdictions can also support OTC contraception access in their Medicaid programs. While Medicaid requires coverage of family planning supplies without cost-sharing, jurisdictions have some flexibility in how they design this benefit, and the scope of coverage depends on jurisdiction and state plan-specific factors. Jurisdictions also have flexibility in determining how they provide prescription drug coverage for contraceptive medications and what OTC products are covered. State Legislative Action Legislation is one way for states to promote access to OTC contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives, through state-regulated plans and provider scope of practice considerations. Since 2024, several states have enacted laws requiring coverage of OTC hormonal contraception, including Delaware (SB 232), which directs insurance carriers to cover FDA-approved OTC contraception with or without a prescription, and Maine (LD 163), which requires coverage of nonprescription oral hormonal contraception. At least two states have clarified the role of pharmacists in supporting access to OTC contraceptives. Massachusetts (HB 4800) allows pharmacist dispensing of OTC oral contraception per a standing order and provides liability protections, while California (AB 50) allows pharmacists to furnish self-administered OTC hormonal contraception without complying with the state’s protocols for prescription-only oral contraceptives. States have also enacted laws to explore or support broader access to OTC contraception, including at least three bills enacted in Maryland since 2024: HB 367/SB 527 requires community colleges to develop an OTC contraception access plan and allows the health department to serve as a resource, including for consultation on vending machine access. HB 1171/SB 944 allows local health department registered nurses to dispense OTC contraception. SB 674/HB 939 creates a collaborative tasked with studying and making recommendations on OTC contraceptive access, with a final report due to the governor and legislature by Jan. 1, 2027. Other Policy Levers Legislation isn’t the only policy lever available to jurisdictions looking to support OTC contraception access. A number of states have taken executive actions to improve access, including (but not exclusively) through Medicaid. While jurisdictions already have the flexibility to support OTC contraceptive access in their Medicaid programs, Medicaid rules require a prescription even for OTC products, which may present a barrier for some individuals. One potential solution is to use standing orders, which allow individuals direct access to OTC products at a pharmacy, without having to visit a separate provider for a prescription first. To ease access to OTC hormonal contraception specifically, several states have recently utilized standing orders that facilitate Medicaid coverage, including Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. Additionally, in 2024, North Carolina announced that it was removing barriers to OTC oral contraception, and would cover condoms and spermicide as OTC products. Outside of Medicaid, several other states have taken action to support access to OTC hormonal contraception: In 2024, the Governor of Arizona issued an executive order directing the Department of Administration to designate Opill and OTC hormonal contraception as a no-cost essential health benefit for state employees, among other actions to expand coverage and access. Also in 2024, Pennsylvania issued guidance to health insurers encouraging coverage of OTC hormonal contraception and highlighting two insurers intending to comply with the guidance. Finally, Michigan’s health agency, in partnership with the Governor’s office, implemented a Take Control of Your Birth Control campaign. This initiative distributed OTC contraception at hundreds of community sites across the state, with a stated goal of connecting individuals to insurance coverage, including Medicaid. While the campaign recently ended, the state distributed more than 400,000 OTC contraceptive resources (e.g., condoms, emergency contraception, and oral contraceptives) and saw an increased number of Medicaid applications. Jurisdictions can play a significant role in connecting public health and health care industry leadership, providers, and other experts — promoting awareness, increasing utilization, and encouraging connection to existing resources. Related Content - Blog - State Policy to Support OTC Contraception Access article yes

Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e

There are significant disparities in pregnancy-related outcomes in the United States. Many of these deaths considered preventable, so state and federal policy makers are taking steps to improve health outcomes for pregnant people.

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.

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.

ASTHO notes the top state public health policy issues in an annual Legislative Prospectus series. ASTHO is publishing a prospectus for the top 10 policy issues to watch in 2022. This week we are featuring data modernization and privacy protections.

Policymakers all over the country have used legislation about farmers markets and sugar-sweetened beverages to help curb many of the negative impacts of food environments.

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.

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2025 state legislative actions on maternal and child health.

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

States Continue to Address PFAS in U.S. Food and Water Supply States Continue Addressing PFAS in Food and Water Supplies Heather Tomlinson, Beth Giambrone Read how federal and state actions aim to tighten regulations to reduce PFAS exposure in the U.S. food and water supply. Use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), manufactured chemicals that resist water and heat, has steadily increased since they were first developed in the 1940s. PFAS are present in a wide variety of consumer products. PFAS do not degrade easily and can result in increasing concentrations of contamination in water and soil. PFAS exposure has been linked to a variety of health impacts, causing state and federal governments to enact legislation and create policies that reduce their presence in consumer products. States are also working on ways to address and communicate about PFAS contamination and elimination. PFAS in Food and Food Packaging FDA has been evaluating potential dietary exposure by testing foods most commonly eaten by the U.S. public for PFAS through the Total Diet Study (TDS). The initial findings indicate that the vast majority do not — 97% of the 810 fresh and processed foods samples, to be precise. Nevertheless, some specific food subtypes have shown a higher prevalence, with over half of TDS seafood samples detecting at least one type of PFAS. As part of their technical assistance to states, FDA can test foods produced in areas with known environmental contamination to evaluate potential contamination of human and animal food. One recent example came from two dairy farms in New Mexico with known PFAS groundwater contamination; this sampling resulted in milk samples from one farm showing PFAS levels at a potential health concern threshold and lead to them being discarded prior to entering the food supply. Consumers can also be exposed to PFAS through food packaging. As of February 2024, FDA announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer sold for food packaging in the United States, eliminating the primary source of dietary exposure from food contact surfaces. At least 17 states have introduced legislation in their 2025 sessions to prohibit selling food packaging that contains PFAS, with bills in seven states seeing significant movement. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted HB 212, which prohibits selling food packaging and other products containing PFAS starting January 1, 2027. Bills in California SB 682, Illinois SB 1531, and New York S 187 that would prohibit manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling products containing PFAS (including food packaging) advanced in the first chamber. Regulating Drinking Water In April 2024, EPA used their authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS found in drinking water. This National Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) established individual MCLs for PFOA,PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX and a Hazard Index MCL for mixtures of two or more PFAS (specifically PFHxS, PFNA, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS). Under the rule, public water systems must complete initial monitoring for PFAS by 2027 and continuously monitor thereafter. In addition, they must inform the public about PFAS levels in their drinking water and, beginning in 2029, any public water system that exceeds one or more of the MCLs must reduce the PFAS levels and notify the public of the violation. A recent announcement from EPA stated that while they intend to retain the current MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at four parts per trillion (ppt), they will “rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS.” The agency will also propose to give drinking water systems until 2031 to come into compliance with the PFAS rule. A proposed rule is planned for a fall release, with finalization in the spring of 2026. Finally, EPA plans to establish a framework for exemptions and provide assistance to drinking water systems through the PFAS OUTReach Initiative. EPA delegates responsibility for enforcing regulations for public water systems to states that meet certain requirements. Under the current federal rule, states have two years to establish regulations that are at least as stringent as current EPA standards. At least 20 states currently have regulatory standards for at least one PFAS in drinking water, and so far in the 2025 sessions, at least six states introduced legislation to establish new or updated MCLs: Indiana (HB 1366), North Carolina (SB 384), and West Virginia (HB 3475) introduced bills directing their health departments to establish MCLs for certain PFAS contaminants. North Carolina’s bill also requires the Commission on Public Health to consider adopting MCLs for PFAS contaminants not listed in their legislation if at least two other states have set MCLs or issued guidance. The New York state Senate recently passed S 3207, which would tighten MCLs for PFOS and PFOA from 10 ppt to 4 ppt, and establish MCLs of 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. The measure is currently in the Assembly for consideration. Pennsylvania HB 578 would establish MCLs for PFAS at 10 ppt, and would allow MCLs established by the Environmental Quality Board or executive order of the governor to supersede current MCLs. Vermont H 286 would establish MCLs for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHPA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) at zero ppt, and MCLs for any other testable PFAS at 20 ppt. Two states also introduced legislation modifying requirements for monitoring or reporting PFAS. Maine recently enacted LD 1326, which codifies the requirements to monitor and report PFAS compounds in accordance with EPA’s final rule and requires public notification of the type and level of PFAS in drinking water if they exceed the federal standard. Delaware SB 72 would require the Department of Health and Social Services to create a website where residents can access information related to the level(s) of PFAS in public drinking water systems, and require water utility companies to provide notice of excess PFAS levels to residents who receive water from that system. The measure passed the Senate in May and is currently in the House for consideration. PFAS is a cross-cutting issue, impacting health departments, agricultural agencies, environmental agencies, and the public. State and territorial health agencies can collaborate with community groups to create a broad coalition that can work together across their respective areas to address PFAS contamination. Many states have created internal cross-agency workgroups to evaluate and address PFAS exposures. ASTHO will continue to provide updates on PFAS elimination and MCL implementation. article yes

State Policies Aim to Eliminate Food Deserts Beth Giambrone Learn how states are working to improve access to healthy foods and eliminate food deserts in this Health Policy Update. The environment where we live, work, and play can shape eating habits and make healthy eating difficult. This is especially true when nutritious foods are costly and unavailable and unhealthy foods are abundant and accessible. More than 47 million people nationwide live in food insecure households, including more than 7 million children. In addition, more than 27 million people live in "food deserts," generally defined as areas where residents do not have a convenient option for affordable, healthy food, like a supermarket or large grocery store. People who live in food deserts may be at higher risk of obesity and chronic disease. Furthermore, children and young adults who live in food insecure households are more likely to have poor academic outcomes. Increasing Access to Healthy Foods In recent years, jurisdictions have taken a multi-layered approach to increasing access to healthy foods. In 2023, the Texas legislature enacted HB 3323, which established a food system security and resiliency planning council, and requires a food system security plan for reasonably-priced food to ensure public health and welfare, economic development, the protection of the state’s agricultural resources, and includes legislative recommendations to facilitate the availability of food in the state. In 2024, Delaware enacted SB 254, establishing the Delaware Grocery Initiative to expand access to healthy foods in the state’s food deserts and areas at risk of becoming food deserts. The bill authorizes the state’s Division of Small Business to award grants and financial assistance to entities that provide or support affordable, accessible, or healthy food, including food banks and pantries, supermarkets, and corner stores. It also directs the Delaware Council on Farm & Food Policy to develop a strategy to address food insecurity in communities throughout the state and issue a report by June 1, 2025. Also in 2024, Colorado enacted HB 24-1416, codifying an incentive program designed to increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income communities. In 2024, jurisdictions also enacted legislation that makes supplemental nutritional assistance more accessible. California (AB 2786) requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to allow newly created certified mobile farmers’ markets to participate in the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, if approved by USDA. Connecticut (HB 5003) requires the Department of Agriculture to purchase and make needed equipment available so certain nutrition program participants can make purchases at farmers’ markets. And Pennsylvania (SB 721) established a permanent Women, Infants, and Children State Advisory Board to advise the Department of Health on solutions to increase participation in the WIC program, including increasing access to WIC-authorized stores for participants. Jurisdictions also enacted legislation ensuring students receive healthy school meals through farm-to-school programs. New Hampshire HB 1678 created a pilot program that incentivizes school districts to buy food for school meals that come from local farms and producers. Virginia HB 830/SB 314 established a Farm to School Program Task Force within the Department of Education to increase farm-to-school school programs within the state, including programs where public schools purchase and feature locally produced food prominently in school meals and learning opportunities related to local food and agriculture. Ensuring Students are Fed At the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year, eight states, including California, Colorado, Maine Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont, provided free school meals to all public-school students regardless of income. In 2023, Illinois (HB 2471) and Washington (HB 1238) also enacted legislation to provide universal free school meals or expand access to free school meals for public school students. The programs in both states are subject to funding. In 2024, at least two jurisdictions enacted legislation to study and report on the cost and impact of providing free breakfast and lunch to all public-school students. Maryland (SB 579) required the Department of Education to submit a report on the cost of providing free meals to all public school students by December 1, 2024, while Virginia (SB 283) directed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to explore the impact of offering free school meals to all students and identify options to eliminate student and school meal debt and leverage federal and state programs to provide school meals. Virginia’s report was published in November 2024 and, while noting the significant costs and sustainability concerns associated with free school meals for all students, it included several strategies for maximizing existing meal programs in the state. A number of jurisdictions have also expanded eligibility requirements or updated student meal program policies in recent legislative sessions. Two states enacted legislation requiring all public schools to provide a free breakfast and lunch to students who qualify for a reduced-price meal under the Federal School Breakfast Program and Federal School Lunch Program: Louisiana in 2023 (HB 282) and Delaware in 2024 (HB 125). New Jersey (A5684) took a similar approach and also expanded state-based income eligibility criteria to allow more students to receive free meals at school. In 2023, North Dakota (HB 1494) enacted a law requiring schools participating in the federal school lunch program to adopt and publish a school meals policy that prohibits schools from taking action against students who lack funds or have unpaid meal balances, such as taking away a student’s food if they have already been served, requiring the student to work to pay off the debt, or limiting participation in school activities due to an unpaid balance. Several states also enacted legislation to benefit students during the non-school months through summer food programs. In 2023, Maine enacted LD 947, which requires summer food service program rules to allow for maximum flexibility under federal law for mealtimes and packaging of meals to send home with students. That same year, as part of a broader piece of human services legislation, California (AB 120) required the State Department of Social Services to maximize participation in the Summer EBT program, which provides funding to families with school-aged children to buy groceries during the summer. And in 2024, Hawaii (HB 2430) and New Hampshire (SB 499) enacted legislation authorizing participation in the Summer EBT program. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on this important issue. article 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

In 2023 legislative sessions, states considered measures to improve access to care for pregnant people experiencing substance use disorder, increase provider knowledge of screening and treatment practices, coordinate care for conditions co-occurring with SUD, and keeping families together.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a particularly negative impact on the mental health of adolescent girls. Fortunately, state legislators have been addressing school-based mental health through legislation enacted since the beginning of the pandemic.

An ASTHO blog article on leave policies to support better work/life balance.

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.

Each year, ASTHO notes the top public health policy issues to watch in the upcoming year. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances are synthetic chemicals that can migrate into soil, water, and air during production and use, and can accumulate in the blood of people and animals over time from exposure.