Displaying 11 results for

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

Ripple Effect: What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law Andy Baker-White This Health Policy Update highlights how U.S. states and territories are using policy to codify important public health recommendations. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a volunteer panel of national experts that issues evidence-based letter-grade recommendations on clinical preventive services. Under the Affordable Care Act, services with an A or B grade must be covered by most private health insurance plans without cost-sharing, with similar requirements for Medicaid enrollees and Medicare beneficiaries. An estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that in 2020, these services reached approximately 264 million Americans. States and territories implement these recommendations through statutes and rules. ASTHO identified over 200 state and territorial laws referencing the USPSTF, including in insurance statutes, Medicaid rules, disease-specific laws, and state employee health plan requirements. Over the past year, the stability of USPSTF recommendations has come into question. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood confirmed the HHS Secretary’s authority to block USPSTF recommendations and remove task force members. News reports in July 2025 indicated that HHS Secretary Kennedy intended to remove all USPSTF members, and in May 2026 fired the chair and vice-chair of the task force. Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories. In addition, if the USPSTF fails to convene in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services. To meet these challenges, states and territories are taking steps to ensure the continued scientific basis for preventive health services within their own law. Dynamic References to USPSTF Recommendations States and territories often use dynamic references to USPSTF recommendations in regulating health plan coverage of preventive services. This allows the jurisdiction to automatically require coverage for the most current USPSTF recommendations. Laws in West Virginia (state employee health plans), Oregon (regulated health plans), Hawaii (health director standing orders), and Alaska (adult Medicaid enrollees) use this approach. While dynamic references allow jurisdictions to stay up to date with the recommendations, if the task force withdraws any guidance, then those preventive services would no longer require no-cost coverage without additional action from those jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions address this by specifying that certain USPSTF guidance changes will not apply. For example, Guam’s law requires continued no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings and authorizes the health director to adjust diabetes screening recommendations if USPSTF recommendations cease. Illinois specifies that the 2009 USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening and mammography are not to be considered current because national medical bodies created differing recommendations for screening. Another way jurisdictions avoid the unpredictability of using dynamic references is locking in the date of the USPSTF recommendations that are used for coverage requirements. For example, Massachusetts requires its state employee health plan to cover USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect by July 1, 2023. Using a version of USPSTF recommendations from a specific date maintains a base level of coverage regardless of future changes, though adopting new recommendations or removing outdated recommendations would require separate action. During this year’s legislative sessions, several states enacted or proposed legislation to remove dynamic USPSTF references. For example, Maryland passed legislation (HB 637 and SB 385) to lock in the USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect on December 31, 2024. Washington enacted HB 2242 requiring coverage of USPSTF A and B recommendations in effect on June 30, 2025, as well as recommendations adopted by the state insurance commissioner. A bill passed in Delaware, HB 338, would require the use of the USPSTF recommendations from January 1, 2025. Overall, however, neither dynamic nor fixed references to USPSTF recommendations address how jurisdictions can keep up with new scientific data and advances in preventive services in the absence of ongoing USPSTF review and recommendations. To fill this need, some states have enacted legislation that creates processes for reviewing data and establishing recommendations. For example, the new Maryland law mentioned above also authorizes the state’s health secretary to adopt preventive service recommendations that have not been recommended by or that differ from USPSTF. The new process requires notice and a 30-day comment period, an analysis by the Maryland Health Care Commission, and citations to the authoritative medical body upon which the recommendation is based. Disease-Specific Statutes: USPSTF Grades as Care Standards and Thresholds Many states also use USPSTF grades as thresholds for specific preventive services, establishing the standard of care, or issuing standing orders. For example, Arkansas law defines "follow-up colonoscopy" by reference to a colorectal screening assigned an A or B grade by the USPSTF, while Nevada’s law directs primary care providers to use criteria set out in USPSTF recommendations to screen adult women for BRCA mutations. In Hawaii, the state health director is authorized to issue public health standing orders for current USPSTF A and B recommended services, and in Idaho the law uses USPSTF guidance for applying ocular antibiotic prophylaxis to newborns as the standard for medical practice in the state. Some states are considering legislation to distance preventive service coverage requirements from USPSTF recommendations. For example, while New Jersey's current law requires no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings in accordance with the method and frequency recommended by the USPSTF, introduced legislation (A4916 and S4254) would remove the reference to USPSTF recommendations and instead authorize one screening per year for persons aged 33 or older. More broadly, Hawaii considered legislation (HB 1898 and SB 3133) that would have authorized the state’s health department to “make recommendations relating to clinical preventive service recommendations of the [USPSTF] Force that have been assigned a grade of A or B as of July 1, 2025” and require no-cost coverage for the department’s recommendations. However, this legislation did not pass. State Employee Benefit Plans USPSTF recommendations may also be used to establish preventive health services covered by state employee health plans. A West Virginia statute requires the state’s employee health plans to cover mammograms consistent with "current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force," while the health plan document further states that preventive services are "subject to change as USPSTF…recommendations are updated.” In Ohio, a regulation requires state employee health benefits include all USPSTF-recommended tobacco cessation services and authorizes the state health director to update covered services if USPSTF guidance changes. Missouri law requires full coverage of USPSTF graded A and B recommended prescription and prescribed over-the-counter drugs for state plan members. The Path Forward USPSTF recommendations have helped millions of Americans receive critical health services at no cost, and states and territories have built practices, programs, and standards on that foundation. From adopting fixed-date references to establishing state-level recommendation authority to creating new state review bodies, legislative activity this year reflects a broad effort to address ripple effects from potential future changes to or lack of USPSTF guidance. Health officials may be asked to assess their jurisdiction’s laws and their use of USPSTF recommendations, and coordinate with insurance commissioners, Medicaid directors, and employee benefits administrators to confirm consistent agency interpretation and identify where action is needed. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policies as they develop. article yes

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

This toolkit is designed to support public health leaders in leveraging the policy development process to achieve health equity in their jurisdiction.

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

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

The 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.

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

State and territorial health agencies continue to be challenged by the opioid epidemic, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing the opioid crisis requires a robust public health response, which could be helped by resources from pending and future opioid settlement funds.

This Health Policy Update is an overview of policy strategies that states have taken at the executive and legislative levels to increase the healthcare workforce to more effectively and efficiently respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.