Displaying 1-20 of 38 results for

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

Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food and Chronic Disease in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food & Chronic Disease in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping healthy food and chronic disease in 2026, such as regulating ingredients and modifying SNAP. A growing focus on links between nutrition and public health outcomes is driving legislative efforts across the country, with states actively responding to rising rates and the cost of chronic disease. As state legislatures consider ways to combat chronic diseases, they are also implementing policies aimed at addressing the food environment by introducing and enacting bills that regulate ultra-processed foods (UPFs), adjust SNAP benefits, and improve access to healthy food. Regulating Food Ingredients and Ultra-Processed Foods While efforts to define and regulate UPFs are still in development at the federal level, several states have decided to move forward with legislation targeting the use of specific artificial dyes and chemical preservatives in food products. West Virginia enacted HB 2354, prohibiting the sale or manufacturing of any food containing a list of specified dyes and certain preservatives. Similarly, Vermont is considering H 260, and New York is considering companion bills S 1239/A 1556. These bills aim to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food containing a core group of chemicals (e.g., potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3). Meanwhile, North Carolina introduced HB 440, which would prohibit additional color additives and ban the sale of food products containing nine specific dyes and chemicals. Pennsylvania introduced HB 1134, which focused on warning labels and would require foods with dyes Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, or Yellow 6 to include a label that states, “This product contains synthetic colors, which may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Leg Prospectus-2026 - CD - CA Restricting Ingredients in School Meals While previous years have focused on access to school meals, a growing wave of recent state legislation aims to eliminate UPFs, synthetic dyes, and chemical preservatives from children's diets. Several states have enacted or advanced bans on specific chemical additives in school meals: Utah’s HB 402 and Virginia’s HB 1910 prohibit schools from offering food containing common food dyes (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) or certain preservatives like potassium bromate and propylparaben. Similarly, Texas enacted SB 314 prohibiting specific additives in free or reduced-price school meals and SB 25, which mandates warning labels and expands state nutrition curriculum. In addition, other jurisdictions have introduced but not passed numerous bills proposing similar restrictions including South Carolina's HB 4339, which would prohibit certain additives in school meals. Modifying SNAP SNAP is the nation's largest federal food assistance program, providing benefits to low-income households. While the program is federally funded and administered by USDA through its Food and Nutrition Service, individual state agencies operate and manage eligibility and distribution. Since SNAP is governed by federal law, states must obtain a USDA waiver to implement changes that deviate from the federal rules. Several states are exploring waivers to limit the use of SNAP funds for purchasing candy and sweetened beverages or soft drinks, with Arkansas (SB 217), Idaho (HB 109), and Texas (SB 379) having passed legislation. Arkansas's new law requires the Department of Human Services to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks, and reapply annually if denied. This dual ban was also the subject of bills introduced in Wyoming (HB 323) and South Carolina (HB 4061). Indiana (HB 1486) considered broader restrictions on “accessory foods,” aiming to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for items like chips, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soft drinks, and prepared desserts while New Jersey (A 5697/S 4348) introduced a narrower set of proposed restrictions, focused on soft drinks (including soda and sugary/sweetened beverages). Expanding Detection and Coverage for Chronic Diseases In response to high chronic disease rates — including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses — states are enacting and proposing legislation focused on treatment coverage, awareness, and prevention. Several states are directly addressing obesity and pre-diabetes by mandating insurance coverage. Colorado (SB 25-048) enacted legislation requiring large group health plans to cover treatment for obesity and pre-diabetes, including medical nutrition therapy and metabolic/bariatric surgery. In Nevada, AB 555 caps patient cost-sharing for a 30-day supply of insulin for people with state-regulated commercial health plans. To aid early detection of diabetes, New Hampshire (SB 102), Louisiana (SB 26), and Florida (SB 958) enacted new laws requiring the creation of informational materials on Type 1 diabetes risk factors, warning signs, and screening available to students and parents. To reduce financial barriers to necessary cancer screenings, several states have enacted bills to mandate insurance coverage and/or lower the cost of diagnostic breast exams and supplemental testing. Virginia (HB 1828), Florida (SB 158), and Oklahoma (HB 1389) have enacted bills to limit or lower the cost of such breast imaging. Meanwhile, Colorado enacted HB 25-296, clarifying that health insurers cover medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging that goes beyond routine screening. Looking Ahead ASTHO expects state and territories to continue advancing legislative proposals that focus on the prevention of chronic diseases and access to healthy foods in 2026. Future legislative action may include: Establishing policies to address food insecurity and promote access to nutritional foods by targeting food deserts. Exploring policy and leadership options to discourage the consumption of high-sugar drinks. Developing and adopting standards for healthy food procurement policies for state agencies and public institutions to increase the demand for nutritious products. Continuing to enact insurance coverage mandates for comprehensive chronic disease screenings and treatment. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

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

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

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.

More than 100 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and an additional 25% are at high risk of closure, and COVID-19 has magnified the existing stressors on rural healthcare. As a result, states are using a variety of measures to address and prevent more rural hospital closures.

As COVID-19 emerged and spread in the U.S., people working and residing in long-term care facilities have experienced a significant burden of COVID-19 cases and deaths. As of Oct. 8, deaths associated with these facilities account for 40% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. Health officials have taken measures to improve their funding and capacity.

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.

Three ways policymakers are addressing access to care are through telehealth, safety net and emergency services, and adjusted reimbursement rates to Medicaid-enrolled providers.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: tobacco, HIV, mental health, PFAS, and opioids.

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.

Supporting policies that reduce HIV stigma and promote health equity is an important public health issue.

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted youth mental health, particularly as a result of school closures, social isolation, family economic hardship, fear of family loss or illness, and reduced access to healthcare. However, states have many strategies to choose from to improve youth mental health and reduce suicide.

As the weather warms, state and territorial health agencies prepare to address a rise in public health risks associated with recreational water activities, such as water-related injury, drowning, waterborne disease outbreaks, and exposure to harmful algae or cyanobacteria.

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.

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

Learn how state legislation is expanding access to drug checking equipment and screening in this Health Policy Update.

Learn how states are using policy to promote mosquito control and reduce the transmission of mosquito-borne disease in this Health Policy Update.

States Are Innovating to Improve Indoor Air Quality Abe Kulungara Indoor air quality can significantly impact health and well-being—learn how states are using policy to address this issue. Whether at home, in the workplace, or in schools, the air we breathe inside is affected by improper ventilation, exposure to toxic chemical cleaning agents, buildup of moisture, and the presence of pests—all of which contribute to poor indoor air quality (IAQ). In addition, increases in extreme weather conditions (e.g., heat, hurricanes, flooding) can deteriorate buildings, reducing the physical barriers between outdoor and indoor spaces. And inadequate weatherization of schools and buildings can lead to indoor fungi and mold growth. Indoor air pollutants can have both short-term and long-term impacts on public health and well-being. Some examples of health outcomes (and their associated hazards) include: acute injury (carbon monoxide and other asphyxiants from combustion and safety hazards from improper design), cancer (asbestos and radon), infectious disease (COVID-19), as well as allergic disorders and asthma (mold and other products of damp indoor environments. Furthermore, poor IAQ in school can potentially affect comfort, concentration, and student performance. While the United States has made significant progress in improving outdoor environmental quality, improvements in indoor environments have been much slower, despite Americans spending approximately 90% of their lives indoors. In many cases, the responsibility for improving IAQ falls to individual states, resulting in a patchwork of regulations and varied approaches across the country. Indoor Air Quality at the Federal Level The federal government’s authority over indoor air quality is limited to federal buildings but there is no current comprehensive national regulation specifically focused on indoor air quality. Notwithstanding, federal laws and regulations addressing outdoor air quality can indirectly impact indoor air quality. For example, the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to establish and enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants in outdoor air, such as ground-level ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Improvements to ambient air quality will have an impact on indoor air quality as well. Even though the federal government’s role in IAQ is less direct, agencies including EPA have issued voluntary guidelines and best practices. This gap in federal regulations offers state and local governments the opportunity to set standards for their jurisdictions. The Model Clean Indoor Air Quality Act The Model Clean Indoor Air Quality Act (MCIAA) provides a framework for states to adopt and implement measures that are most relevant to their local needs and circumstances, much like the Model Food Code is used by states for food safety regulations. The Act consists of six main articles, each containing key sections designed to support a comprehensive mission of safeguarding and enhancing IAQ in public buildings through collaboration among public and private entities. The Act also presents extensive statutory language on IAQ and offers states the flexibility to choose the components that best suit their specific needs, priorities, and local conditions. By adopting the Model Act or portions of it, states can establish standards for ventilation, moisture control, hazardous materials use, and public education efforts. State Actions on Indoor Air Quality A growing number of states are proactively improving indoor air quality. Massachusetts recently introduced SD 2588, which incorporates language from MCIAA, while others are addressing IAQ issues more broadly, enacting legislation that prohibits smoking in indoor public spaces or responding to specific local challenges (e.g., mold, radon, volatile organic compounds ). At least five states are considering various bills relating to air quality in public schools. Massachusetts (SD 173 and SD 630) and New Jersey (S 1033) are establishing task forces or commissions to study indoor air quality. Connecticut (HB 5873), New York (A 2649) Virginia (HB 2618 and SB 1413) are establishing or amending indoor air quality standards for public schools. Massachusetts (HD 2890) is also prohibiting cleaning agents that could have an adverse effect on health. As states consider streamlining indoor air quality standards using the MCIAA, there are a large number of current statutes that improve IAQ. For example, Florida requires their Department of Health to have an IAQ testing and monitoring program to assess health risks from exposure to chemical, physical, and biological agents in the indoor environment. In Hawaii, the Department of Health is authorized to correct indoor air pollution problems in all buildings. The agency must establish and coordinate an IAQ assessment network involving state agencies and managers of publicly owned buildings to identify, evaluate, and resolve indoor air pollution problems. The statute also grants the agency the authority to implement a program for approving plans to construct, inspect, and monitor ventilation systems, as well as to provide IAQ information to managers, owners, and occupants of both public and private buildings. Other states, such as Washington and Oregon, have implemented programs that focus on IAQ in schools, acknowledging children’s unique vulnerabilities to poor air quality. ASTHO will continue to monitor and provide updates. article yes

Preventing Hypertension Through State Policy Efforts Preventing Hypertension Through State Policy Efforts Beth Giambrone Learn how state legislatures are working to prevent hypertension through avenues like expanded access to care, insurance, and education. Nearly half of all U.S. adults live with hypertension, or high blood pressure. Often called a “silent killer” because it has no noticeable symptoms, hypertension significantly increases the risk of serious health problems, such as heart attack, stroke, and vision loss. It’s also one of the most expensive health conditions, with recent research showing that more than 10% of health care expenditures were associated with hypertension. Managing high blood pressure through a healthy diet, lifestyle changes, and medication (if necessary) are some of the most protective mechanisms against serious health effects. In recent years, state legislatures have started exploring ways to support residents in preventing and managing hypertension through expanded access to care, insurance coverage, and education. Access to Care Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, accounting for about 20% of deaths in 2023. Focusing on heart health during key milestones such as pregnancy and menopause can provide a vital safety net in times of significant physical change. Pregnancy can act as a natural "stress test" for the heart, and approximately 10% of all pregnancies are affected by hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (e.g., chronic and gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia). In 2026, at least four states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia) are considering bills that would establish pilot programs to improve maternal health for individuals receiving Medicaid, one activity being remote monitoring of blood pressure. Two bills in Florida (HB 1029 and SB 1508) would expand current home visiting programs (i.e., Healthy Start) to include expectant mothers and require the Department of Health to provide them with home blood pressure monitors. Meanwhile, New York companion bills (A 5529 and S 3881) would establish comprehensive care centers in Kings and Bronx Counties. These centers would provide prenatal through postpartum services as well as heart health care, while collaborating with local organizations and universities to research and close gaps in care. Like pregnancy, perimenopause and menopause cause hormonal shifts that make the heart and blood vessels more sensitive to change, increasing the risk for cardiovascular disease. North Carolina (SB 522) is considering a comprehensive bill that aims to improve care for women between the ages of 40 and 65. It would require health insurance to cover services the state deems essential for midlife care, including those that prevent cardiovascular disease. Insurance Coverage In addition, states are exploring how insurance coverage and regulation can support hypertension treatment and prevention, with several aiming to cover blood pressure monitors: Florida’s SB 736 would require the state’s Medicaid program to cover blood pressure monitoring devices for prescribed patients who participate in follow-up care. Minnesota companion bills (HF 2320 and SF 1963) would mandate that health plans cover one monitor every three years for people with uncontrolled blood pressure, and reimburse providers for patient training. Similarly, West Virginia’s SB 252 would provide blood pressure monitors to Medicaid enrollees with uncontrolled hypertension during pregnancy or the first postpartum year. Additionally, New York is considering legislation to reduce health insurance premiums when certain conditions are met. A 7177 would allow health insurers to offer premium reductions if the individual participates in a qualified wellness program (e.g., risk management) or programs that mitigate chronic disease, like hypertension, or promote physical fitness. Public Awareness and Education During this legislative session, several jurisdictions are also exploring public and school-based awareness of heart healthy activities. For example, Georgia’s HB 459 would authorize the Department of Health to implement a comprehensive campaign that includes developing educational materials, partnering with schools and colleges to educate students on cardiovascular disease (i.e., recognizing symptoms), and assisting community health centers with providing free or low-cost screenings. West Virginia is also considering two bills (SB 39 and SB 819) that would mandate 12-week nutrition and aerobic exercise programs for elementary students. Finally, Mississippi introduced a suite of bills (HB 1367, HB 192, and HB 1088) to standardize physical activity, improve nutrition standards, and mandate health curriculums across all grade levels, but the bills recently died in committee. Conclusion Policies aimed at improving heart health can go a long way in reducing hypertension and stopping the silent killer. ASTHO will continue to monitor policies that address hypertension as a core component of public health and provide any necessary updates. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes