Displaying 16 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

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

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

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.

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 Legislative Prospectus | Prevention 2025 state legislative action on infectious disease control and prevention.

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

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.

As new diseases or emergencies arise, working alongside trusted committees can help health officials quickly respond and prevent undue burden on at-risk groups such as people with disabilities, pregnant people, and children.

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.

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

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.