Displaying 17 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.

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 Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories.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

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.

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.

Outcomes and Implications of ACIP’s Vote on the Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Implications of ACIP Vote on Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Kim Martin, Jessica Baggett Learn about the outcomes and implications of the December 2025 ACIP vote on the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. On Dec. 4 and 5, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) held a long-anticipated meeting featuring two major topics of discussion: the hepatitis B birth dose and the pediatric vaccine schedule. The committee voted on two questions related to the pediatric hepatitis B vaccine schedule, both of which passed. To briefly summarize the outcome of the meeting, ACIP shifted from recommending a universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns to individualized decision-making for newborns born to HBsAg-negative mothers. There was no change to the recommendation for infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers or whose HBsAg status is unknown. CDC has not yet adopted these changes. In the meantime, many states are taking actions to provide clarity to providers and promote public confidence in the vaccine. How States Are Taking Action In response to (and in some cases before) the new ACIP recommendations, several states issued recommendations, guidelines, standing orders, executive directives, and health alerts for providers to provide clarity. States Recommending or Encouraging the Full Vaccine Series Some states are issuing their own guidance and recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine series or encouraging providers to adhere to the series as is it was before the new ACIP recommendations: The Northeast Public Health Collaborative released a consensus statement before the ACIP meeting recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and a schedule that aligns with clinical recommendations. Collaborative members also issued statements reaffirming their adherence to established hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Maryland also released guidance for parents and caregivers about its childhood immunization recommendations. States in the West Coast Health Alliance issued statements supporting the universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. These states include California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Many individual states also issued statements affirming the recommendation for the continued use of the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, including Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and Vermont. States Issuing Standing Orders and Executive Directives At least two states issued a standing order or executive directive related to the hepatitis B vaccine: The Maryland Department of Health issued a standing order to ensure hepatitis B vaccine access for infants and children in the state. The standing order authorizes qualified health care providers to administer the hepatitis B vaccine and outlines the policies and procedures for administering the vaccine. In New Jersey, the acting health commissioner issued an executive directive recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. States Issuing Public Health Alerts and Advisories Well before the recent ACIP meeting, the Maine CDC issued a health advisory to providers recommending the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose and full series. Since the ACIP meeting, at least two other states have released provider advisories. Maryland issued a letter to providers laying out the state’s hepatitis B vaccine recommendations, and New Hampshire issued a health alert with a continued recommendation for the full hepatitis B vaccine series and birth dose. In addition, Vermont sent a guidance letter to the providers in the state’s vaccine program. States Reexamine State Statutes and Agency Rules Linking to ACIP Recommendations Over the last several months, many states have proposed and enacted legislation to move away from sole reliance on ACIP recommendations. More recently, Massachusetts adopted H 4761, authorizing the health commissioner — in consultation with a newly established committee on immunization recommendations — to review and issue alternative standards to ACIP recommendations. States are also proposing changes to agency rules related to school and childcare immunization requirements. For example, Colorado’s health department has issued a proposed rule to modify the state’s standards for school and childcare immunization requirements and to align its rules with recent changes to state statute. Additional Considerations for States If CDC adopts the proposed ACIP recommendations, states can consider the following actions. Hepatitis B Screening States should continue to work with health care providers to close gaps in hepatitis B screening and follow-up for infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. Data show the most common cause of perinatal infection occurs when a mother with hepatitis B gives birth and the infant does not receive follow-up postexposure prophylaxis. Insurance Coverage While public and private insurance, including the Vaccines for Children program, are still required to cover the hepatitis B vaccine, such as any birth doses given to infants of HBsAg-negative mothers under shared clinical decision-making, states can consider creating additional coverage requirements. Some states have passed policies on insurance coverage, and other states have proposed legislation related to other vaccine coverage. Implementation of Shared Clinical Decision-Making While health care providers and parents have the flexibility to determine their approach for infants of HBsAg-negative mothers (i.e., continuing to recommend/give a birth dose), ACIP recommendations that rely on shared clinical decision-making have increased provider questions on how to have and document these conversations. States can work with medical associations, provider boards, and health care partners to ensure clinicians understand how to apply shared clinical decision-making recommendations. This includes educating staff in birthing hospitals, community clinics, and pediatric practices on how to counsel parents and document informed discussions. Jurisdictions can also develop or adapt educational materials and decision aids that clearly outline benefits, risks, timing, and follow-up options to support both providers and parents. More information on shared clinical decision-making is available from CDC and Common Health Coalition. States can also encourage providers and birthing institutions to examine workflows, Immunization Information System documentation, and follow-up to ensure scheduling of future doses. Implications for Vaccine Supply States can examine vaccine supply through the Vaccines for Children program to understand how the new recommendations impact supply of single antigen hepatitis B vaccines. If a significant percentage of the population receives vaccines on a different timetable, it could impact supply and timing for other vaccinations, given the reliance on combination vaccines for hepatitis B dose two and three, which can include DTaP, polio, and Hib vaccines. Supplemental Resources Common Health Coalition: Vaccine Resources December 2025 ACIP Meeting: Hepatitis B Updates for Health Leaders (PDF) Vaccine Integrity Project – Hepatitis B by Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Understanding the Benefits of Vaccines: Common Questions by HealthyChildren.org Childhood Vaccinations (PDF) by Your Local Epidemiologist Hep B Birth Dose Media Toolkit by Hepatitis B Foundation Reframing the Conversation About Child and Adolescent Vaccinations by Frameworks Institute CDC: ACIP Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations ACIP Meeting Materials for Public Posting: Hepatitis B Birth Dose Briefing Document (PDF) Hepatitis B Birth Dose Vaccination (PDF) article yes

State Policy Advances in Extreme Weather Preparedness Margaret Nilz Learn about recent policies that aim to improve extreme weather preparedness, boost community resilience, and ultimately protect public health. Extreme weather events are increasing in both frequency and severity — challenging public health systems, straining infrastructure, and risking lives. As states face rising temperatures, more intense wildfires, historic flooding, and stronger hurricanes, state legislatures are adopting forward-looking policies to improve preparedness. These policies aim to boost community resilience, protect public health, and modernize emergency responses across the country. They reflect a move toward proactive planning and investment, grounded in innovation and cross-sector collaboration. Strengthening Critical Infrastructure A growing area of legislative focus is pre-disaster planning and infrastructure resilience, with jurisdictions considering policies that proactively strengthen critical systems (e.g., infrastructure, energy, and communications). For example, in Maine, LD 1 creates the Office of Resilience, tasked with coordinating and implementing state policies to improve resistance to extreme weather events. It also increases homeowners’ access to home resiliency grants, establishes a revolving loan fund for county, municipal, and tribal hazard mitigation infrastructure projects, and invests in floodplain mapping improvements. Texas SB 75 establishes a Grid Security Commission, directs an evaluation of hazards to the state’s electric grid, and makes recommendations that ensure municipalities have energy, power, and fuel supplies in the event of a catastrophic power outage. Jurisdictions are also considering legislation that would: Amend procedures for cities and counties to finance post-disaster infrastructure repair and long-term climate adaptation projects (California SB 782). Require biennial emergency preparedness exercises as well as conduct disaster preparedness training in vulnerable areas (California AB 1200). Create a real-time, interoperable emergency communication platform to improve coordination across agencies during disasters (Texas HB 147). Addressing Wildfire Risk and Air Quality Jurisdictions are also paying close attention to growing wildfire threats and subsequent poor air quality. They’re moving beyond emergency response, ensuring systems/personnel are in place before a crisis unfolds and advancing wildfire mitigation strategies. Systems and Personnel Hawaii recently enacted HB 1064, establishing an Office of the State Fire Marshal. The office is tasked with increasing the state’s readiness for wildfires, including exploring opportunities to reduce wildfire risk and developing a statewide map that displays wildfire hazard zones. California is considering AB 1003, which would require the Department of Public Health to complete a plan that includes recommendations for counties during a significant air quality event by June 30, 2026. California is considering AB 1003, which would require the Department of Public Health to complete a plan that includes recommendations for counties during a significant air quality event by June 30, 2026. It would also require these plans to incorporate county-specific outreach, stakeholder communication, and implementation. These measures build critical infrastructure for training, staffing, and coordinated response. Mitigation Strategies California (SB 326) introduced policies that accelerate the implementation of ember-resistant zones, enhance risk modeling, and support local governments through grant funding for fire reduction efforts. New legislation (CA SB 629) also updates the state’s fire hazard severity maps and sets new criteria for safety zones, including annual defensible space inspections to help residents manage fuel loads around their homes. In Colorado, recently enacted laws support increased use of prescribed burns to improve forest health (SB 7) and empower local fire protection jurisdictions to mandate vegetation removal from private properties (HB 1009). Oregon enacted SB 85, which requires the State Fire Marshal to develop recommendations for community-based wildfire mitigation and submit them to the legislature by February 2, 2026. Two bills being considered in California would: Require the creation of a framework for wildfire mitigation and a wildfire risk forecast (SB 326). Update the state’s fire hazard severity maps and set new criteria for safety zones, including annual defensible space inspections to help residents manage fuel loads around their homes (SB 629). Together, these policies signal a shift from reactive firefighting to community-level risk reduction and long-term adaptation. Improving Flooding and Hurricane Preparedness Flooding, hurricanes, and coastal erosion remain central concerns for many states, particularly those already experiencing repeat disaster declarations. As flooding and coastal threats intensify, states are taking multi-pronged approaches to preparedness — investing in early warning systems, expanding access to mitigation funding, and examining the readiness of critical facilities. These policies can assist states in both major non-hurricane flood events and hurricane preparedness and response. Several states are working to improve community-level preparedness and emergency alert systems. Vermont recently enacted H 397, which expands the Governor’s authority in the anticipation of a flood event, increases municipal access to weather alert systems, and expands access to disaster recovery grants. Texas recently introduced HB 108, which requires the Division of Emergency Management to develop a flood preparedness guide for local organizations that includes structured guidance around training, communication, and post-disaster recovery. Alongside these efforts, states are strengthening long-term mitigation strategies through grant and buyout programs. Massachusetts (H 980) and New Jersey (A 5226) are considering legislation that would establish funding programs for municipalities to address flooding (i.e., through risk assessments and mitigation measures). In Virginia, recently enacted HB 2077 expands eligibility for the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund to include federally and state-recognized tribes. Employing Innovation and Research Innovation continues to shape the next frontier of preparedness policy as jurisdictions pilot emerging technologies, promote cross-sector collaboration, and rethink how they can adapt infrastructure for a changing climate. In California, legislators are considering three bills that merge cutting-edge science with emergency responses: AB 270 directs the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to assess whether autonomous firefighting helicopters could be transitioned to operational use in the state. SB 599 proposes improvements to atmospheric river forecasting, a key strategy in flood management. SB 223 would establish a centralized wildfire smoke and health data platform within the Department of Public Health to better inform public health decisions during smoke events. Additionally, jurisdictions are addressing the resilience of the built environment, balancing traditional engineering with nature-based approaches. Mississippi enacted HB 959, extending a program focused on wind hazard mitigation and grants to retrofit homes to July 2028. Additionally, Puerto Rico introduced PS 579 (en español), which establishes the use of natural mitigation structures (e.g., sand deposits and coral planting) as the first alternative to protect infrastructure affected by coastal erosion, flooding, or other events. In Conclusion The scale of today’s public health challenges requires long-term planning, robust infrastructure, and coordination across different sectors and levels of government. Investments in real-time data systems, interoperable communication, and resilient financing tools will be essential. This Preparedness Month, the increasing momentum behind jurisdiction-level policy action shows a clear understanding: Preparedness is public health. And by focusing on resilience, jurisdictions are not only preparing for the next emergency — they are actively creating a healthier, safer, and more climate-resilient future. ASTHO will continue to monitor and provide updates on extreme weather preparedness legislation. 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

During the 2023 legislative session, a number of states enacted policies that advance ACEs prevention measures and support families in ensuring safe places for their children to live, grow, and play.

Restrictions on flavored tobacco and nicotine products, including menthol, may reduce sales and reduce the number of new users.

Research confirms that strengthening economic supports can improve parental mental health, children’s health, education, and social outcomes.

Over the past several years, states and jurisdictions have continued to implement important policies to reduce tobacco and nicotine use, including increasing tobacco prices, expanding areas deemed “smoke-free,” limiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, and supporting tobacco cessation programs.

An ASTHO blog article on leave policies to support better work/life balance.

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 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.

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