Displaying 1-20 of 77 results for

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

On the 32nd anniversary of the ADA, this blog post explores state legislation around the country that supports people living with disabilities.

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 Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories.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in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services.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

Good news and bad news on tobacco use: smoking rates are down but e-cigarette use continuing rapid rise among youth. Read how states are combating the problem.

During the 2022 state legislative sessions, at least 20 states considered bills that would require a religious exemption to a vaccine requirement. As state legislatures continue considering vaccine protocols for COVID-19, HPV, and other diseases—along with what types of exemptions should be given—courts are reconsidering what type of vaccine requirements are constitutional.

National HIV Testing Day is observed each year on June 27, the goal is to encourage people to get tested and know their HIV status. Recent legislation on this topic speaks to its prioritization and importance; themes include: consent for HIV testing, site-specific processes for routine screening, increased access to testing.

States Pursue Policy Options to Support Access to Over-the-Counter Contraception State Policy to Support Over-the-Counter Contraception Access Christina Severin Learn about state policy options that can help to support over-the-counter contraception access including levers within Medicaid programs. Effective contraceptive care improves maternal health outcomes by helping individuals plan if and when they become pregnant. Additionally, some contraceptive methods may reduce the risk of certain cancers and protect against sexually transmitted infections. While the most effective methods generally require a visit to a health care provider, over-the-counter (OTC) options may address certain barriers to accessing contraception (e.g., taking time off work for a medical appointment and lack of health insurance or access to health care providers/settings). The New Age of Nonprescription Oral Contraceptives A significant change in the marketplace of OTC options occurred in 2023 when FDA approved the first daily non-prescription oral contraceptive. This progestin-only pill —known as Opill — is considered both safe and highly effective at preventing pregnancy when taken correctly. Opill reached stores in early 2024 and has a suggested retail price of about $20 per month or $50 for a three-month supply. While OTC oral contraceptives like Opill may improve access among individuals not currently using contraception or those using a less effective method, high out-of-pocket costs can be a barrier. One way to limit out-of-pocket costs is to require private health insurance coverage of contraception without cost-sharing. ACA requires most private health insurance plans to do this, but it does not extend to all health insurances or contraceptives. For OTC contraceptives, the landscape is even more complex: While plans are encouraged to cover OTC emergency contraception at no cost and without a prescription, it is not required. HHS and the Departments of Labor and Treasury issued a proposed rule in 2023 that would have required broader coverage of OTC contraception without a prescription or cost-sharing, but the rule was later withdrawn. Without a federal mandate, states can pursue coverage requirements through the health insurance products they regulate. Jurisdictions can also support OTC contraception access in their Medicaid programs. While Medicaid requires coverage of family planning supplies without cost-sharing, jurisdictions have some flexibility in how they design this benefit, and the scope of coverage depends on jurisdiction and state plan-specific factors. Jurisdictions also have flexibility in determining how they provide prescription drug coverage for contraceptive medications and what OTC products are covered. State Legislative Action Legislation is one way for states to promote access to OTC contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives, through state-regulated plans and provider scope of practice considerations. Since 2024, several states have enacted laws requiring coverage of OTC hormonal contraception, including Delaware (SB 232), which directs insurance carriers to cover FDA-approved OTC contraception with or without a prescription, and Maine (LD 163), which requires coverage of nonprescription oral hormonal contraception. At least two states have clarified the role of pharmacists in supporting access to OTC contraceptives. Massachusetts (HB 4800) allows pharmacist dispensing of OTC oral contraception per a standing order and provides liability protections, while California (AB 50) allows pharmacists to furnish self-administered OTC hormonal contraception without complying with the state’s protocols for prescription-only oral contraceptives. States have also enacted laws to explore or support broader access to OTC contraception, including at least three bills enacted in Maryland since 2024: HB 367/SB 527 requires community colleges to develop an OTC contraception access plan and allows the health department to serve as a resource, including for consultation on vending machine access. HB 1171/SB 944 allows local health department registered nurses to dispense OTC contraception. SB 674/HB 939 creates a collaborative tasked with studying and making recommendations on OTC contraceptive access, with a final report due to the governor and legislature by Jan. 1, 2027. Other Policy Levers Legislation isn’t the only policy lever available to jurisdictions looking to support OTC contraception access. A number of states have taken executive actions to improve access, including (but not exclusively) through Medicaid. While jurisdictions already have the flexibility to support OTC contraceptive access in their Medicaid programs, Medicaid rules require a prescription even for OTC products, which may present a barrier for some individuals. One potential solution is to use standing orders, which allow individuals direct access to OTC products at a pharmacy, without having to visit a separate provider for a prescription first. To ease access to OTC hormonal contraception specifically, several states have recently utilized standing orders that facilitate Medicaid coverage, including Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. Additionally, in 2024, North Carolina announced that it was removing barriers to OTC oral contraception, and would cover condoms and spermicide as OTC products. Outside of Medicaid, several other states have taken action to support access to OTC hormonal contraception: In 2024, the Governor of Arizona issued an executive order directing the Department of Administration to designate Opill and OTC hormonal contraception as a no-cost essential health benefit for state employees, among other actions to expand coverage and access. Also in 2024, Pennsylvania issued guidance to health insurers encouraging coverage of OTC hormonal contraception and highlighting two insurers intending to comply with the guidance. Finally, Michigan’s health agency, in partnership with the Governor’s office, implemented a Take Control of Your Birth Control campaign. This initiative distributed OTC contraception at hundreds of community sites across the state, with a stated goal of connecting individuals to insurance coverage, including Medicaid. While the campaign recently ended, the state distributed more than 400,000 OTC contraceptive resources (e.g., condoms, emergency contraception, and oral contraceptives) and saw an increased number of Medicaid applications. Jurisdictions can play a significant role in connecting public health and health care industry leadership, providers, and other experts — promoting awareness, increasing utilization, and encouraging connection to existing resources. Related Content - Blog - State Policy to Support OTC Contraception Access article yes

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

State and federal actions to expand the doula workforce and improve maternal health.

Reviewing states' efforts to reduce children's exposure to lead.

Centering the Community’s Voice in State-Led Health Equity Initiatives health equity, public health departments, health outcomes, michigan public health institute, health disparities, underserved populations, marginalized communities, people of color, indigenous people, premature deaths, minority health, cultural competency, public health, life expectancy, improving health, american indians, health service, african american, native american, social determinants of health, sexual orientation, mortality rate, socioeconomic status, covid-19 pandemic, higher rates, alaska natives, group of people, racial groups, social economic, population health, department of health, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Lana McKinney, Jessica Fepelstein Establishing the community voice in health policy discussions. Over the past two years, ASTHO has worked directly with state public health departments and their communities to build capacity for improving health outcomes. These public health departments are building a culture of health equity through policies, practices, and quality improvement measures. This includes the Strategies to Repair Equity and Transform Community Health (STRETCH) Initiative—a 10-state learning community hosted by ASTHO, the CDC Foundation, and the Michigan Public Health Institute. STRETCH supports states in operationalizing health equity and preventing the constant pressures caused by negative health outcomes on their communities. For example, poverty can create constant pressures just as water pushes against a dam, which can build to the point of breaking and push people into poverty. Additionally, ASTHO supports state and territorial recipients of CDC’s COVID-19 Health Disparities grant to improve the health of high-risk and underserved populations disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Health disparities impact the quality-of-life and financial well-being of communities, with the economic burden of health disparities increasing from $320 billion in 2014 to $451 billion in 2018. This includes associated costs of excess premature deaths, lost labor market productivity, and excess medical care for Americans of color as compared to their white counterparts. Events in recent years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, revealed the pressures that Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and other marginalized communities experience because of health disparities. Aligned with the technical assistance received by public health departments, several states have taken concrete steps to achieve optimal health for all by supporting training of public health staff and increasing engagement of under-represented and underserved communities in the policy process. Promoting Staff Health Equity Training Ensuring that public health staff and other leaders are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to provide culturally competent and equitable care to all patients, regardless of their social background or identity can improve health outcomes. In recent years, states have worked to expand access to cultural competency and humility training for health system workers. Nevada enacted legislation (AB 267) requiring the state Board of Health to establish the frequency for medical facilities and dependent care facilities to conduct cultural competency training for employees who have direct patient contact. It also (1) requires the Office of Minority Health and Equity and Department of Health and Human Services to establish and maintain a public-facing list of approved courses for cultural competency training, and (2) require nurses, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, counselors, social workers, and behavioral analysts to complete a minimum of three hours of cultural competency training to successfully renew their license. At least four other states—Illinois (SB 2427), Massachusetts (S 1413), Virginia (SB 1440), and Vermont (H 512)—considered bills expanding access to cultural competency training for health care professionals. Vermont’s bill would implement the recommendations of the Health Equity Advisory Commission to provide training and continuing education for health care providers to improve cultural competency, cultural humility, and antiracism in Vermont’s health care system. Public health agencies can also promote health equity training by allocating funding and providing training. For example, the Arizona Department of Health Services leveraged funding from CDC’s COVID-19 Health Disparities grant to establish the Advancing Health Equity, Addressing Disparities (AHEAD AZ) program with the University of Arizona Center for Rural Health, which supports the health care and public health workforce, including support for Arizona’s 17 Critical Access Hospitals health equity strategic plans, and implementing a COVID-19 testing program that provided testing to communities most in need regardless of socioeconomic or immigration status, including those living in correctional facilities and unhoused people. Health Equity Commissions Health equity commissions play a critical role in advancing optimal health for all by bringing together experts, stakeholders, and policymakers to draw on evidence-based approaches that address the root causes of health disparities and to develop strategies to prevent them. At least two states proposed legislation related to health equity commissions in 2023. Colorado passed a law (SB 23-151) extending its Health Equity Commission through 2029. New Jersey is considering S 3136, which would establish and require a Commission on Health Equity to, among other things, recommend implicit bias training requirements for health care providers. Empowering Community Members to Engage in the Policy Process Hearing directly from community members, particularly those with lived experience, provides health agencies with unique insights into the community’s needs and daily life, and helps gain support from those most affected by the policy. There can be several barriers to holistic community engagement, particularly for community members who have fewer resources. Policymakers can take steps to lower these barriers by providing access to childcare, supporting transportation costs to a meeting, and/or compensating community members for their time and effort supporting the policy development process. In 2022, Washington enacted SB 5793 to compensate community members with lived experience for their time and expertise when serving on boards, commissions, councils, committees and other similar policymaking groups. The law directed the state’s Office of Equity to develop equity-driven compensation guidelines for all state agencies, which Washington’s Department of Health used to create and implement its Community Compensation Guidelines. These compensation guidelines outline how and when community members can be paid for their time and expenses when engaging in the policy process. Such methods are particularly valuable because the communities facing the most inequity are also the ones most systemically marginalized. Similarly, in 2023 Oregon’s legislature considered SB 694 to create a Task Force and Work Group Stipend Fund. The fund would provide for providing members who do not otherwise receive compensation for their participation to be compensated for their time and travel for task force or workgroup related work. ASTHO will continue to monitor policy developments supporting health equity programs and initiatives, providing relevant updates. Special thanks to Maggie Davis, JD, ASTHO’s director of state health policy, for her contributions to this blog. Additional Resources to Help Public Health Leaders Increase Community Engagement ASTHO’s Programmatic Health Initiatives and Strategies Georgia Health Policy Center’s Guide to Funding Navigation to help communities design and sustain equity-advancing investment. <!-- Strategies to Repair Equity and Transform Community Health (STRETCH) Initiative framework. --> website yes

To address the youth tobacco epidemic, jurisdictions filed lawsuits against JUUL to end their marketing practices aimed at youth and to obtain compensation from the financial toll experienced by communities.

Tobacco control has been a public health success in states across the nation, but there is still work to be done, especially surrounding the popularity of menthol and other types of flavored tobacco.

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.

How states are using 1115 waivers to improve health equity for people on Medicaid.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: data privacy and modernization, reproductive health, health equity, strengthening public health agencies, and immunization.

Every year in mid-July is National Youth Sports Week—in 2021 it falls on July 19-23. It’s an important health observance because youth sports create strong connections with peers and caring adults, as well as promote socio-emotional skills and positive well-being. The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s National Youth Sports Strategy outlines policies and strategies that support access to youth sports. NYSS Champions, including ASTHO, work to promote participation and recognize the positive health outcomes sports can have on youth, such as limiting the impacts of adverse childhood experiences and building resiliency.

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.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month and the importance of continued mental health promotion and suicide prevention efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we address the physical effects of COVID-19 through social distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination, we still need to prioritize mental health and well-being during and after the pandemic. A recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found increases in adults reporting symptoms of anxiety or depression (36.4% to 41.5%) and unmet mental health care need (9.2% to 11.7%) between Aug. 2020 to Feb. 2021.

Under the Tenth Amendment, states have the power to protect the health and welfare of their populations, including the authority to implement isolation and quarantine orders to limit the spread of disease. This post is an examination of state public health authority for isolation and quarantine.