Displaying 10 results for

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century, as well as some of the most powerful and cost-effective tools to prevent disease, disparities, disability, and death among children and adults. The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented development and distribution of the vaccines against the novel coronavirus have generated much focus on state laws related to vaccinations. As state and territorial legislatures prepare to convene in the coming weeks, we can already identify several topics within vaccine law that policymakers across the country will consider.

States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Looking to the future, states are improving access to care, providing subsidies for tuition costs, expanding hours of licensed facilities, increasing access, and meeting the needs of both parents and children.

As the number of COVID-19 vaccinations grows, some states are looking at their vaccination rates to determine when to loosen measures that mitigate the spread of COVID-19, such as venue capacity limits, business closure times, and masking requirements. As vaccinations allow businesses to reopen and customers to return, questions have arisen about whether venues or services—especially those that bring people in close contact for long periods of times—such as retail stores, concert venues, entertainment venues, air travel, cruise ships, etc., can require patrons or customers to verify that they received a COVID-19 vaccine. So far, state policy makers have had mixed views on the issue.

A pressing public health issue before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the need for public health interventions to reduce tobacco use is heightened with a strong association between tobacco use, in all forms, with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., claiming approximately 480,000 deaths each year. Evidence-based policies to reduce tobacco use like raising the age of sale to 21, increasing tobacco pricing, and prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products are common public health strategies enacted through state legislation. As anticipated in ASTHO’s 2021 Legislative Prospectus on E-Cigarettes, states are considering many of these evidenced-based tobacco reduction strategies during the 2021 legislative sessions.

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

Learn how states are regulating kratom, a plant-derived substance growing in popularity, in this Health Policy Update.

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

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.