Displaying 17 results for

Good news and bad news on tobacco use: smoking rates are down but e-cigarette use continuing rapid rise among youth. Read how states are combating the problem.

State Policy Trends in Cybersecurity and Public Health Preparedness Maggie Nilz Learn how states are including cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness work in this Health Policy Update. Cybersecurity is an increasingly important component of public health preparedness as state cybersecurity policy intersects with public health agency responsibilities. Public health agencies rely on interconnected digital systems and critical infrastructure for disease surveillance, laboratory reporting, emergency communications, and health data management, making cybersecurity critical to maintaining these functions. Beyond compromising sensitive data and potentially harming patients, cyber incidents can disrupt essential public health services, including emergency response operations. Health care data breaches have steadily increased over the last 15 years, highlighting growing risks for government and health systems. A recent report showed that more than 7,000 health care data breaches were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services since 2009, and reported HIPAA data breaches in 2023 were nearly double the number recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, preparedness capacity has lagged: as of 2022, only 13% of local health departments reported being prepared for cyber-related disruptions, and recent scans show cybersecurity is rarely included in emergency preparedness planning. In response at the federal level, HHS recently announced it is undoing a 2024 reorganization by returning department-wide technology responsibilities to the Office of the Chief Information Officer while refocusing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on improving nationwide health IT interoperability and data sharing. In recent years, state and territorial legislatures have begun to address these gaps by incorporating cybersecurity into preparedness, health care oversight, and statewide governance structures. These legislative trends signal a need to integrate cybersecurity into emergency operations plans, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and safeguard the continuity of public health services. Some of the most recent policies considered and enacted by legislatures treat cyber incidents as emergencies, expand reporting requirements, and strengthen cyber governance. Cyber Incidents Are Being Built into Emergency Preparedness Frameworks In response to these growing threats, jurisdictions have begun incorporating cyber response into emergency plans and strategies, reinforcing cybersecurity as essential to preparedness. These developments highlight growing awareness that cyber incidents can disrupt critical services, much like natural disasters. In 2025, New York enacted S 7672, which requires municipal entities and public authorities report cybersecurity incidents and demands for ransom to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. In addition, it directs the Director of the Office of Information Services to establish cybersecurity training and protection standards for state systems as well as require cybersecurity training for state and local government employees. Virginia is currently considering HB 83, which would establish a volunteer Cyber Civilian Corps within the state IT agency to provide rapid assistance during cybersecurity incidents affecting municipalities, nonprofits, education, and critical infrastructure. Preparedness efforts also extend beyond legislation to executive action. In February 2026, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz authorized $1.2 million in state disaster assistance to support response efforts and restore critical systems in response to a cyber incident that disrupted digital services in Saint Paul on July 29, 2025. Additionally, the National Governors Association has included cybersecurity as a primary consideration for planning and preparedness in their latest edition of the Public Health Emergency Playbook. Health care and Public Health Critical Sectors Are Facing New Cyber Requirements Beyond emergency response frameworks, jurisdictions are also adopting cybersecurity reporting and planning requirements for health care and public health organizations. Companion bills in Tennessee (HB 511/SB 555) would require health care providers and facilities to notify their contracted health insurers of cybersecurity incidents. In Maine, LD 2103 would require hospitals to adopt cybersecurity plans to protect patient data and maintain operations, and must include cybersecurity training for employees and board members. New Jersey is looking to adopt and implement a more comprehensive cybersecurity plan across all sectors. This session, legislators have introduced at least two cyber security bills: A 3231 would require “sensitive businesses” (defined as those engaged in financial, essential infrastructure, or health care industries) to report cybersecurity incidents to the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) when they are aware of their occurrence and would require NJCCIC to conduct a cybersecurity audit within 30 days of notification. A 3283 would require the same “sensitive businesses” to implement cybersecurity programs in accordance with standards adopted by NJCCIC and certify compliance annually. As states expand reporting and cybersecurity requirements, these obligations may intersect with public health reporting and continuity planning. States Are Strengthening Government Cyber Governance and Coordination In addition to sector-specific requirements, jurisdictions are also strengthening the governance structures responsible for coordinating cybersecurity, improving their ability to respond to large-scale incidents affecting public systems. Legislation enacted recently in Texas and California aim to improve coordination among state government by establishing a state agency centralizing cybersecurity incident prevention and response (Texas HB 150) and mandating the development of a cybersecurity playbook to strengthen information sharing (California AB 979). A 2024 bill enacted in Puerto Rico (PC 1530) requires commonwealth agencies to develop and implement a cybersecurity program, which must include a yearly risk assessment as well as vulnerability assessment. At least three jurisdictions are currently considering bills strengthening established cybersecurity programs, with two states recently passing legislation. Utah recently enacted a bill authorizing the Utah Cyber Center to conduct voluntary cybersecurity risk assessments for critical infrastructure and coordinate with government entities on infrastructure safety (HB 165). Utah also enacted legislation creating a specific funding stream for the Center to use for various activities, including implementing a statewide cybersecurity plan and conducting assessments for governmental entities (SB 123). Kansas enacted HB 2574, which would require chief information security officers for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to adopt cybersecurity programs based on a nationally recognized standard for governmental entities. Finally, Florida recently passed SB 7024, which would expand the state’s public record exemption to include risk assessments, information related to cybersecurity breaches, and information related to data protection, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive cybersecurity information held by state agencies; the bill is with the governor for final consideration. Key Takeaways for Preparedness Leaders Cybersecurity is critical for preparedness across multiple policy areas, and requires new planning, coordination, and oversight responsibilities. By including cyber incidents into disaster frameworks, standards for health care organizations, and governance, preparedness leaders may find themselves more directly engaged in integrating cybersecurity into emergency operations, exercises, and cross-sector partnerships. For state and territorial health agencies beginning to incorporate cybersecurity into their preparedness plans, agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provide jurisdictional support and resources to guide this work. article yes

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

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

Reconciling the tension between public health and civil liberties is one of the most significant challenges of public health law and ethics. The Supreme Court of the United States historically upheld state authority to enact and enforce public health laws that temporarily limit a person’s civil liberties, such as quarantine and isolation powers that restrict a person’s freedom of assembly in order to prevent the spread of contagious disease. There have been many legal challenges to the public health orders issued to slow the spread of COVID-19—many of the claims asserting violations of First Amendment rights of assembly, association, and expression—but they’ve largely been rejected by the courts. However, courts have treated claims asserting violations of the free exercise of religion more favorably, which may indicate an impending shift in how courts analyze the impact state and territorial actions may have on religious organizations.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further amplified the need for strong tobacco prevention and cessation policies. Research indicates that tobacco use is associated with increased rate of COVID-19 disease progression and increased likelihood of death among hospitalized patients, and that e-cigarette use is associated with a greatly increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis in youth and young adults.

In the U.S., jurisdictions vary in their newborn screening practices and requirements related to the scope of testing, approach to parental consent, options for blood sample destruction, sample retention periods, and permissible uses of newborn blood samples.

Do Cottage Foods Really Come from a Cottage? Beth Giambrone Even if you're not familiar with the term "cottage foods," chances are you have purchased them—think getting a loaf of bread from your weekend farmers market or cookies from a friend's home-based baking business. In some cases, they can also be sold online. So, what exactly are they? Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate at a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods in the jurisdiction where they are created. Cottage foods are exempt from many state food and safety regulations, with supporters of expanding cottage food laws asserting that existing laws burden small business and restrict competition and consumer freedom. Those opposing the expansion of cottage foods argue the need to ensure food safety and to protect consumers from food borne illness. Here's a primer on cottage foods and how they're regulated. What's the difference between a cottage food kitchen and a commercial kitchen? Commercial kitchens (sometimes known as shared use kitchens) are large, industrial spaces where food can be produced in high volumes; they can also be rented out for shared use. While every state subjects commercial kitchens to food safety inspection and regulations, a few states require inspection of microenterprise or home kitchens producing cottage foods. Does the government have a role in regulating cottage foods? While several federal agencies regulate commercial food products—such as USDA for meat processing and FDA for produce—cottage foods are not subject to federal regulation because they are typically only sold within a state and not across state lines. At the state level, cottage food producers are subject to the health and safety laws and regulations of the state in which they are operating. Some states require cottage food producers to register their business or to have training and/or certification in safe food handling. Currently, all 50 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of cottage food law in place. Under most state laws, cottage food producers are exempt from food safety laws that apply to food establishments. These exempt rules are usually based on the type of food product produced, the point of sale, and the labeling requirements associated with the food. Although cottage food producers are exempt from certain requirements, all states allow the Department of Health to investigate complaints related to foodborne illness and fine producers if there are violations. Since the 2020 legislative sessions, at least 17 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) considered bills related to cottage foods, often centering around product sales, food products, and labeling. An overview of the conditions and a snapshot of the laws passed in states are below. What are common cottage food products? Most state laws limit which food products can be produced and sold as cottage foods. And while specific allowable foods vary state to state, some common restrictions on the type of food sold include foods requiring temperature control (e.g., meat and dairy products) and fermented or pickled foods. Foods such as dairy-free baked goods (e.g., breads and biscuits), candies, and jams are popular cottage food products. Over the last few years, states have expanded the types of foods that qualify to be a cottage food. In 2021, Illinois enacted SB 2007, amending the types of foods permissible under the cottage food law from a delineated list of canned foods (e.g. jams and syrups) to a general standard that mirrors the FDA definition of "low-acid canned food." The New Jersey legislature passed A 3991 in 2022 to exempt raw, unprocessed honey from the state's cottage food regulations. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Oklahoma enacted its "Homemade Food Freedom Act" (HB 1032) in 2021. This new law allows any packaged food or beverage (excluding alcoholic beverages, unpasteurized milk, or cannabis products) to be considered a cottage food rather than only baked goods made without meat or fresh fruits. Additionally, the law allows beekeepers who produce less than 500 gallons of honey per year to qualify for the state's food freedom exemptions if the honey is produced from hives located in the state and sold directly to the consumer. Similarly, the 2022 "Tennessee Food Freedom Act" (HB 813/SB 693) broadly expands the types of homemade foods eligible for sale under the cottage food law to include any non-time/temperature-controlled food item or non-alcoholic beverage. What limitations do states place on cottage food sales? Most states limit cottage food producers to direct-to-consumer sales, such as at a farmers market or roadside stand. More than half of states allow online and direct-to-consumer sales as long as they are to in-state consumers only. While the producer is usually required to deliver the products, at least five states allow delivery by a third party. Several states have considered allowing the sale of cottage food in retail settings. In 2020, Wyoming enacted HB 84, which increased the gross sales cap for producers and allowed producers of non-temperature controlled foods (e.g., jams, vegetables, dried soup mixes) to use third-party vendors like a retail shop rather than solely relying on gross sales. Furthermore, the Wyoming legislature expanded the use of third-party vendors to include the sale of eggs in 2021 by enacting HB 118. A 2021 Arkansas law (HB 248) also allows for the sale of cottage food products at retail stores. Additionally, many states define cottage foods based on the number of items sold or the annual gross sales. The gross sales cap limits vary greatly across states, ranging from $3,000 to $250,000. At least twenty states have no gross sales limit. At least one state (Ohio) places a limit on meals sold per week from home kitchens. What are common labeling requirements for cottage foods? Most states require cottage food producers label their goods. While specific labeling requirements vary state to state, producers generally must provide the name of the product, a list of ingredients, known allergens (e.g., nuts), contact information of the producer, and a statement declaring the product was made in a kitchen exempt from licensing and inspection regulations. In some states, cottage food producers are allowed to use an identification number in place of contact information on product labels. Maryland enacted HB 1017 in 2020, which allows cottage food producers to use a unique identification number issued by the Department of Health in lieu of the business name and address. Arkansas HB 248 (referenced above) also allows producers to use an identification number. What's next? State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving, with more foodstuffs exempt from state food and safety regulations increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks necessitating a public health response. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

Families who wish to breastfeed in the United States often face barriers in workplace and school settings. To address these disparities, federal, state, and territorial governments are adopting policies to improve lactation accommodations in school and workplace settings.

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States and widely recognized as a crisis, specifically among our youth, a population in which incidences have been rapidly increasing. Fortunately, suicide prevention and mental health support are issues that benefit from bipartisan support.

Each year, ASTHO notes the top public health policy issues to watch in the upcoming year. ASTHO has published a prospectus on several issues, with more coming later this month. ASTHO kicked off its top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2022 with Immunization the first week in January. This week, we are focusing on e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products.

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

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2025 state legislative actions on substance misuse and overdose prevention.

Policy Trends Shaping Access to Care in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Access to Care in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping access to care in 2026, including supporting community health workers and improving rural health care. Public health agencies have a role in supporting access to care, which means assuring timely access to covered health care services provided by a qualified workforce. However, many communities experience challenges in accessing health care services, providers, facilities, or affordable care. Gaps in access to services that prevent chronic disease, address maternal health and behavioral health challenges, and other health goals undermine public health’s ability to improve community health. Strategies to improve access to care can include focused attention on underserved or at-risk communities or populations, including rural populations. To support access to comprehensive health care services, state legislatures continue to explore laws that strengthen clinical and community-based health workforces, support rural health care facilities, and promote access to care across the lifespan, including for women. Access to Supportive and Community-Based Health Services Community health workers (CHWs) are frontline public health workers who serve as a link between health and social services and the community, and can help address the social and behavioral health drivers of health outcomes. Many jurisdictions pursued policies to support CHWs by defining the workforce, establishing training or certification programs, and pursuing financial sustainability including through Medicaid programs. In 2025, more than a dozen states considered legislation related to CHWs, with several states enacting laws that recognize CHWs as providers and/or authorize Medicaid coverage and reimbursement. This includes Arkansas HB 1258, which establishes a state certification for CHWs, defines their role, and requires compensation for certified CHW services from both Medicaid and certain regulated health plans in the state. Montana (HB 850) and Oklahoma (SB 424) enacted bills to regulate CHWs but both bills were vetoed by their respective governors. In Oklahoma, the legislature overrode the veto. Rhode Island (S 0705) considered legislation that would require regulated health plans to cover CHW services, and Virginia enacted SB 981 which requires the health department to report on the status of the CHW workforce and future needs. Doulas are non-medical professionals who support individuals during pregnancy, birth, and the postpartum period. Doula care has been shown to reduce the rate of both cesarean sections and postpartum anxiety or depression, and may be cost effective, particularly for Medicaid programs. A majority of states are either pursuing or already offering doula coverage in their Medicaid programs. At least fourteen jurisdictions considered legislation in 2025 to recognize or provide coverage of doula services by Medicaid programs or private insurance. At least six states enacted laws regarding Medicaid coverage of doulas, including Louisiana (HB 454), Montana (SB 319), Utah (SB 284), and Vermont (S 53). In Maine, LD 1523 directs the health department to begin the rate development process for future coverage of doula services, establish a doula council to support that process and provide other advice to the department, and issue a report on the overall progress by February 2027. Arkansas (HB 1252) established a scope of practice for certified community-based doulas and requires compensation by both the Medicaid program and other health benefit plans in the state. Stabilizing and Growing Rural Health Care Access Rural communities face a number of health care challenges, including limited health care providers and financial strain on hospitals and other rural health care facilities. Several states explored strategic initiatives to support rural health care access, both broadly and for specific populations. California enacted SB 338 which establishes a virtual health hub to expand access to health services for farmworkers in rural communities. Iowa enacted HF 972, directing the health department to seek CMS approval for a hub-and-spoke model to support the state’s rural health providers. Finally, Texas enacted HB 18 which creates a rural hospital officers academy to support the education and development of these leaders, includes additional financial support for rural hospitals with obstetrics and gynecology services, and codifies current state programs and offices supporting rural hospitals. More than a third of U.S. counties are considered maternal care deserts, which are places where there are no obstetric providers or facilities. Several states enacted legislation to expand access to pregnancy and maternal health care in rural and underserved areas, including California which enacted SB 669 to create a pilot program for five rural hospitals to provide perinatal services on a standby basis. Arizona (HB 2332) will establish an advisory committee to make recommendations that will ensure the availability of “obstetrics, gynecology and maternal mental health services in low-volume, high-risk rural communities.” And in Connecticut, the governor signed several bills aimed at increasing access to maternal health care, including HB 7102 which requires the development of a strategic plan to increase the number of obstetric facilities in underserved areas of the state. Leg Prospectus-2026 - Access - Rural Health Expanding Support for Mid-Life Women's Health Care Women may experience a number of disruptive symptoms during perimenopause — the transition period before menopause — including difficulty sleeping, memory lapses, hot flashes, and general pain and discomfort. Following menopause, low hormone levels can increase the risk of chronic diseases like osteoporosis, heart disease, and stroke. Lack of knowledge about menopause and its wide range of symptoms, along with stigma, can prevent women from seeking treatment or other supports. Recognizing a growing need to address women's health across the entire lifespan, not just the reproductive years, state legislatures are exploring laws that address the menopause transition and its impacts through education and tailored health care access. In 2025, several jurisdictions — including Texas (HB 3961), Arizona (HB 2734), and Connecticut (AB 6593) — considered legislation directing the development, coordination, or distribution of educational programs and resources on menopause or perimenopause for women or providers, with Maine (LD 1079) enacting a measure requiring the health department to work to create and disseminate informational materials on perimenopause and menopause. Several other states have explored insurance coverage requirements, including New Jersey (A 5278/S 4148) and New York (A 5444) that would require certain health insurers and plans to cover menopausal and perimenopausal care and treatment. California (AB 432) would have required prescription coverage of drugs relevant to perimenopause and menopause care and treatment, and incentivize menopause-specific education for physicians, but the governor vetoed the bill and called for the state health and human services agency to propose policy changes for next year’s budget that address concerns about cost. Looking Ahead ASTHO expects states and territories to continue considering policies related to access to care, including legislation that: Increases coverage of and access to community-based health professionals like doulas, CHWs, and peer support specialists. Improves access to over-the-counter contraception. Recognizes telehealth's role in the health care system to ensure continued access to remote health care, particularly in rural communities. Supports access to reproductive care and women’s health services across the lifespan, including additional funding or other flexibilities to address anticipated changes in the federal funding landscape (e.g., Title X). OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

States Stay Prepared by Supporting the Public Health Workforce Margaret Nilz, Christina Severin Learn how states use policy to support emergency preparedness and bolster the public health workforce. Public health — particularly public health preparedness — continues to experience workforce shortages, driven by longstanding systemic challenges such as chronic underfunding, high turnover, limited recruitment, and an aging workforce. While some jurisdictions report increased capacity to hire and train public health staff in recent years, they often rely on short-term or temporary funding streams, which limit long-term sustainability. State, local, tribal, and territorial health agencies have varying capacities to respond to public health emergencies, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Because a limited workforce can inhibit emergency preparedness efforts, jurisdictions recognize the importance of cultivating a resilient public health preparedness workforce to respond to future emergencies. In recent years, jurisdictions have pursued several policy interventions to bolster the public health preparedness workforce such as legislation supporting front-line clinical staff and first responders, and rulemaking and other executive powers to provide structural and financial support to critical personnel. Legislative Efforts Legislative efforts to increase benefits and support for health care and public health workers can help address the root causes of workforce challenges and lay the groundwork for sustainable, long-term investment in public health preparedness. Laws that establish standards and expectations for the preparedness workforce, including expansions of benefits or additional training, support workforce growth and retention. Since 2024, several jurisdictions expanded mental health benefits and related support for first responders and other preparedness personnel. Both Alaska (SB 103) and California (AB 2859) enacted legislation that allows peer support programs for emergency service personnel. In Alaska, the bill creates programs for entities such as law enforcement agencies, firefighters, and emergency dispatchers, while California’s bill creates programs to serve a variety of health care providers involved in emergency medical care, including physicians, nurses, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Utah enacted HB 378, which requires the Department of Public Safety to annually distribute information about its critical incident stress management program to first responder agencies. The bill also requires first responder agencies to annually notify employees about the availability of mental health resources, including periodic screenings for employees and continued support for retired or separated first responders and their spouses. On a broader scale, Hawaii SB 3279 recently established a well-being project tasked with mental health trainings and support for several community organizations, including first responders, hospitals, and medical staff. In Washington, HB 2311 directs the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission to develop resources for first responder wellness, including a peer support network for active and retired first responders and their families. States have also enacted legislation expanding traditional employment-related benefits, including Colorado (HB 24-1219), which expanded certain health benefits for firefighters to include part-time and volunteer firefighters, and Idaho HB 55, which allows retired public employees to volunteer with public employers without it being considered reemployment. In addition, Georgia HB 451 requires state and local entities to provide disability benefits for first responders who experience occupational or volunteer-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Finally, several jurisdictions enacted legislation to support education and training for their public health and health care workforce. For example, Kentucky HB 484 established an emergency medical service education grant program that provides tuition support for students pursuing paramedic certification, wage reimbursement to ambulance providers whose employees pursue certification, and funding for institutions planning to offer EMT, advanced EMT, and paramedic programs. Oklahoma HB 1696 expands eligibility for the Oklahoma Medical Loan Repayment program to include certified nurse practitioners. Two new laws in Puerto Rico require police officers with the Puerto Rico Police Bureau to be certified in first aid or immediate rescue (PC 0859) and adds seminars on sign language, suicide prevention, and conflict mediation to the Bureau’s continuing education training (PC 0543). Other Policy Levers: Beyond the Legislature Jurisdictions can also use non-legislative policy tools to enhance workforce capacity in public health preparedness. This includes rulemaking, where executive agencies use existing legal authority to adopt or amend regulations. Regulations have the force of law and can help support the public health workforce by establishing licensure standards, training requirements, and operational protocols. Wisconsin, following the enactment of AB 576 in 2024, is developing rules to establish a program for peer support and critical stress management teams in the state. And Utah recently adopted rules for its first responder mental health services grant, which helps these professionals pursue a degree or certification as a mental health provider. Government agencies can also leverage grants and contracts to fund and otherwise direct workforce development initiatives, support training programs, and expand capacity in targeted areas. Jurisdictions can strategically direct funds to address skill gaps and assist local, state, tribal, and territorial agencies build a more resilient workforce. One example of this is in Michigan, where in 2024 the state health agency issued a request for grant proposals to award up to $9 million in EMS workforce grants, building on similar awards to address EMS shortages in 2023. Executive orders are another policy option for jurisdictions to consider as they explore different pathways to workforce sustainability. Executive orders are issued by a jurisdiction’s chief executive (often the governor) and direct certain policy actions or activities. Generally, the power to issue an executive order comes from existing law or a jurisdiction’s constitution and, in most cases, does not require legislative approval or review. Several states have leveraged executive orders to advance the public health workforce and support preparedness activities more specifically. For example, Vermont and New Jersey have recently used executive orders to create or extend advisory councils on issues pertinent to public health preparedness. In 2024, Virginia’s governor issued an executive order formalizing the Office of First Responder Wellness, which provides training, counseling, and other resources to first responders in Virginia. In 2023, the governor of Maryland issued an executive order establishing a State of Preparedness directive if there is a risk of public emergency, and the actions state agencies must undertake to promote improved coordination and hazard planning. Key Takeaways Addressing public health emergency preparedness workforce challenges demands strategic, long-term policy solutions, but several implementation options are available. Health agencies can pursue a variety of policy interventions to support and prepare their public health workforce for future emergencies. ASTHO will continue to monitor this important issue and provide updates as appropriate. article yes

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