Displaying 1-20 of 29 results for

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 ASTHO State Health Policy team provides brief updates on 5 of the ten state health policy issues to watch in 2022: mental and behavioral health, rural health, e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, HIV and PFAS.

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.

Accompanying an infusion of federal funding, states are considering several policy changes to strengthen the public health workforce and address challenges within the health care workforce.

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

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 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

Learn how state and territorial legislatures can bolster or restrict public health legal authority, with examples from early COVID-19 as well as 2024.

Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

While communities transition from emergency response to long-term monitoring and recovery, the federal government and states are taking legislative action to improve emergency preparedness capabilities.

Each September marks National Preparedness Month. This year, public health emergency preparedness professionals look back on 20 years since the 9/11 attacks—the event that effectively launched the preparedness field—while actively responding to COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted both the physical and mental health well-being of youth. Disruptions in both their home and school life have put youth at risk for poor mental health outcomes that include increased anxiety, depression, and risk of suicide. This Mental Health Month we examine state and territorial legislation that addresses youth mental health.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

ASTHO's 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part Two Beth Giambrone, Maggie Davis, Christina Severin ASTHO's Public Health Legislative Update on Tobacco, Mental Health, Environmental Health, Workforce, and Containing Infectious Disease By the end of April, at least 36 states will have concluded their regularly scheduled 2024 sessions, with several states passing laws on important public health issues. Earlier this month, ASTHO provided a brief update on five of the top 10 public health state policy issues to watch during the 2024 state and territorial legislative sessions; this update examines the remaining five. Containing the Spread of Infectious Disease Public health agencies have a responsibility to keep their communities safe and healthy by maintaining foundational public health services including identifying, containing, and preventing the spread of communicable disease. ASTHO supports maintaining and guaranteeing robust public health legal authorities allowing public health leaders to meet their responsibilities for containing the spread of infectious disease. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, state and territorial legislatures considered many bills to change public health agency’s legal authorities to meet their responsibility, a trend that ASTHO anticipated continuing into 2024. So far, at least 28 states have considered, and at least two legislatures passed, bills relating to public health authority to address the spread of infectious disease in 2024. For example, the Hawaii legislature passed SB 3122, expanding public health authority by providing the state health official broad authority to issue standing orders for people 18 years and older to receive evidence-based services recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. In March, however, Utah enacted HB 405, which limits local public health official’s authority to issue an isolation or quarantine order to specific conditions unless the local legislative body agrees that a new, drug resistant, or reemerging pathogen likely to cause high mortality or morbidity needs containment. Environmental Health Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has the authority to set national standards for public drinking water. These standards establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals for public water systems. In April 2024, EPA released a final rule establishing legally enforceable MCLs for six PFAS compounds that occur in drinking water. Public water systems have until 2027 to complete initial monitoring and inform residents of the levels of PFAS in their water, and until 2029 to act if their drinking water levels exceed the MCLs. To date in 2024, at least four states have enacted or are considering legislation that would aid in monitoring and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Virginia recently enacted HB 1085/SB 243, which requires that the Department of Health notify the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of any results from their monitoring of public water systems that show MCL exceedances, at which time requires DEQ to implement a plan to prioritize and conduct assessments of the public water system's raw water source(s). The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed H 7439, which would require the Department of Environmental Management to determine the maximum number of PFAS detectable by standard laboratory methods, and specifies the types of water systems that will be required to monitor untreated drinking water for those PFAS by June 1, 2025. Massachusetts is considering H 853, which would require the Department of Environmental Protection to maintain a list of municipalities where PFAS levels exceed the MCL and provide vouchers to homes in those municipalities to purchase home water filtration equipment. Strengthening the Public Health Workforce With several successes in 2023, ASTHO anticipated legislatures to continue considering legislation to strengthen the public health and health care workforces that represent the communities they serve during the 2024 legislative sessions. One strategy is establishing career pathway programs that provide students training and support to pursue public health careers. At least six states have considered, and three have passed, bills creating or strengthening a career pathway program during the current legislative sessions. At least two states have enacted programs to address health care provider shortages in April. Maine’s legislature passed LD 2268, which would allow internationally trained physicians to receive a limited license to practice medicine and address provider shortages in rural areas of the state. Washington enacted SB 5582, directing community and technical colleges to develop a plan in consultation with local workforce development councils and health care employers to train more nurses over the next four years. In May, Hawaii’s legislature passed HB 1827 appropriating funds to support public high school health care workforce certificate programs to support graduates seeking entry-level positions in the health care industry. Supporting Mental Health Children and adolescents continue to experience mental health issues, with teen girls reporting significant challenges. Schools can play an important role in supporting the mental health of all students through direct services or policies that address prevention, education or coordination. In 2024, a number of jurisdictions considered legislation related to youth mental health, through training requirements for staff and students, and support for treatment flexibility in the school setting. At least six jurisdictions considered bills related to mental health education for students, including specific suicide and violence prevention content. Virigina enacted HB 603, which requires school health instruction to include information about common mental health challenges, helpful coping strategies, the importance of seeking help from a professional or other adult, and available school resources. Several jurisdictions, including Virginia (HB 224), Minnesota (HF 4363) and Missouri (HB 2471), also considered establishing or amending suicide prevention and related mental health training programs for teachers and other school staff. Finally, several jurisdictions considered legislation to explore or otherwise support using telehealth services in schools for mental health services. Minnesota is considering legislation that would create a pilot program to determine whether the availability of telehealth services in schools increases mental health access (SF 4236) as well as a requirement to provide space at secondary schools for students to receive telehealth mental health services (HF 3542). New York is currently considering S 8976, which would authorize telehealth services in schools to be delivered by licensed providers, while Maryland enacted HB 522 in April, which requires school districts to develop guidelines to allow telehealth appointments at schools starting in the 2025-26 school year. Tobacco and Nicotine Products According to the American Lung Association, 22 states do not have comprehensive smoke-free laws that help protect against the dangers of second-hand smoke in a variety of settings (e.g., multi-family homes, public spaces, restaurants), or reduce the number of people who start smoking. At least 16 states have introduced legislation aimed at creating, promoting, or expanding smoke-free environments. Connecticut recently enacted SB 132, which expands their clean indoor air act to prohibit vaping at dog race tracks. The Maryland legislature passed HB 238/SB 244, which would update their Clean Indoor Air Act to prohibit vaping in public indoor areas, indoor places of employment, and mass transportation. In addition, the Alabama Senate recently passed SB 37, which would prohibit vaping in public places. In addition, at least 14 states have introduced legislation to either prohibit or further restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol products. For example, bills introduced in Hawaii (HB 2441/SB 3130), Minnesota (HF 2177/SF 2123), and New Jersey (S 1947) would prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, within their jurisdiction. In addition, a bill in New York (A 699/S4477) would ban the sale of flavored smokeless tobacco products within five hundred feet of a public or private school. ASTHO’s state health policy team continues to monitor these important public health issues and will provide relevant updates. website yes

Earth Day is a natural time to examine current and future climate change policies that impact human health, including clean air, safe drinking water, access to food, and secure shelter.

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