Displaying 1-20 of 33 results for

Breastfeeding is considered the gold standard in postnatal care for both birthing persons and infants. Yet racial disparities in breastfeeding initiation and duration rates continue to persist. Effective intervention strategies require a multi-level approach that includes comprehensive legal, policy, and programmatic efforts.

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

Policymakers all over the country have used legislation about farmers markets and sugar-sweetened beverages to help curb many of the negative impacts of food environments.

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

Responsible for planting, growing, harvesting, processing, and preparing the food we eat, agricultural workers are essential workers during the COVID-19 response to keep the U.S. food supply chain operating efficiently. But farmworkers are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to lack of physical distancing, lack of access to health insurance and sick leave, and poor access to clean water for handwashing throughout the work day.

There are a number of court cases playing out across the country that could affect the options state and territorial health officials have to limit the spread of disease and promote health and well-being.

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.

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

Public health agencies are working to reduce dementia risk and to optimize the health and well-being of people living with dementia and their caregivers.

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.

Pharmacies have long been instrumental partners in providing lifesaving vaccines nationwide. As state and territorial health officials evaluate their COVID-19 response, planners must include input from the pharmacy community when identifying areas for improvement, as well as best vaccination practices in advance of future public health emergencies.

This June marked the 40-year anniversary of the first five cases of what later became known as AIDS reported in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Since then, more than 32 million people have died from the disease worldwide and nearly 38 million currently live with the HIV virus (including 1.2 million people in the United States). Over that period, tremendous strides have been made in HIV testing, prevention strategies, and treatment of individuals living with the virus to ensure that they can lead healthier and longer lives. While these advancements have led to significant progress in reducing HIV/AIDS-related deaths and new infection rates, HIV/AIDS continues to be a persistent problem in the United States. The federal government and state legislatures are taking significant steps toward ending the HIV epidemic, including steps to reduce new infections, combating stigma, and advancing access to care and HIV prevention

Reconciling the tension between public health and civil liberties is one of the most significant challenges of public health law and ethics. The Supreme Court of the United States historically upheld state authority to enact and enforce public health laws that temporarily limit a person’s civil liberties, such as quarantine and isolation powers that restrict a person’s freedom of assembly in order to prevent the spread of contagious disease. There have been many legal challenges to the public health orders issued to slow the spread of COVID-19—many of the claims asserting violations of First Amendment rights of assembly, association, and expression—but they’ve largely been rejected by the courts. However, courts have treated claims asserting violations of the free exercise of religion more favorably, which may indicate an impending shift in how courts analyze the impact state and territorial actions may have on religious organizations.

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.

Conditioning school attendance on student vaccinations is an evidence-based way of maintaining and increasing vaccine coverage. State law establishes school vaccination requirements which apply not only to public schools but often to private schools and childcare facilities as well. All states allow an exemption for those where a vaccine poses a medical risk. Several states also allow non-medical exemptions, often based on an asserted religious, philosophical, or personal belief of the parents or child opposing vaccinations. However, a few states have recently abolished all non-medical exemptions.

Federal, State, and Stakeholder Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund Catherine Jones Explore federal, state, and stakeholder perspectives on the Rural Health Transformation Fund, shared at a discussion hosted by ASTHO and Cornerstore Government Affairs teams. In early July, ahead of final votes on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (full text H.R.1), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), joined by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), secured a $50 billion funding line for a new Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). This five-year mandatory fund is designed with two primary goals: To stabilize vulnerable rural hospitals, health centers, clinics, and their workforces. To improve access, affordability, modernization, and health outcomes for rural residents, who on average experience higher rates of chronic disease, shorter lifespans, and lower earning power compared to urban populations. To help states better understand how to apply and utilize RHTP dollars, ASTHO partnered with Cornerstone Government Affairs to host a discussion on Sept. 4 featuring two expert panels. Participants included representatives from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and HRSA, congressional staff, state health departments, and experts from the National Rural Health Association and National Association of Medicaid Directors. Lively discussions provided valuable insights into the application process, how states might deploy funds to build and sustain rural health programs, and the realities of delivering care on the ground. Panel One: Federal Perspectives Application Tips The first order of business was to provide potential applicants with essential information they need to apply. CMS is working quickly to release the Notice of Funding Opportunity in early September. Applications will be due in November, with funding decisions finalized by Dec. 31. This is a one-time application for the five-year mandatory fund, with dollars allocated evenly across FY26 to FY30 ($10 billion per year). Importantly, the RHTP fund is separate from — and unaffected by — FY26 Labor Health and Human Services, and Education discretionary appropriations outlined by the Senate and House, and any continuing resolutions. The $50 billion program will be divided into two parts. $25 billion will be distributed evenly among states that apply and have successful applications. The remaining $25 billion will be allocated at CMS’s discretion based on factors such as a state’s rural population, the number of rural health care facilities, and state policies and policy commitments. States will not be required to provide matching funds. In anticipation of the application deadline, many state health departments have been mobilizing over the past weeks. Health officials are convening task forces, launching working groups and public hearings, and issuing Requests for Information and surveys to shape projects and spending plans. These efforts are focused on aligning with CMS’s strategic goals, including making rural America healthy again, providing sustainable access to care, workforce development, innovative care delivery, and technology modernization. Program Insights Panelists also highlighted how RHTP differs from existing rural health programs. The Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, for example, funds initiatives focused on quality improvement, hospital technical assistance programs for operational challenges, and targeted pilot programs to test the feasibility of ideas related to community needs. By contrast, RHTP will provide states with a large, flexible infusion of funds to augment existing and novel rural health care efforts. States will also be permitted to use RHTP dollars for one-time investments (e.g., electronic health record systems, diagnostic equipment, and network-building initiatives). Panelists emphasized the importance of tailoring approaches to state and community needs, noting that Tribal communities face especially severe challenges, requiring intentional engagement. The first session concluded with a focus on Alaska, where 73.7% of hospitals are in rural areas — a key driver of Senator Murkowski’s strong advocacy for the fund. Her legislative director noted the state’s persistent struggles with connectivity, limited primary care access, workforce shortages, and low patient volume. Previous funding formulas, which relied heavily on hospital bed counts or numbers of health care facilities, often disadvantaged Alaska and similar states. RHTP, structured as a cooperative agreement, gives states both predictability and flexibility: dollars they can count on, combined with broad authority to design solutions in partnership with CMS protocols and assistance. CMS has existing protocols for grant management, and Congress will likely ask for clear reporting requirements as they monitor the successful implementation of the fund. Panel Two: State and Stakeholder Perspectives Rural Health Challenges To align visions with on-the-ground realities, health department leaders from Pennsylvania and Mississippi described their extensive efforts underway to gather input and identify priorities that are both sustainable and impactful, underscoring the importance of community engagement in shaping state strategies. Panelists noted that states are working through a broad list of rural health challenges, including: Maternal and child health. Behavioral health. Substance use disorder. Emergency medical services. Transportation barriers. Aging populations. Specialist shortages. Data modernization (including cybersecurity, AI, broadband, training, and administrative support). Telehealth. Workforce shortages. Hospital, clinic and federally qualified health care center closures. Payment models (public and private). Improving health information exchanges and electronic heath records were also mentioned as universal goals. RHTP is designed with flexibility to tackle these issues and to craft solutions (some of them can be shelf-ready, such as technology or prevention kits) to respond to the diverse needs of rural communities. Aligning Programs Panelists were asked how they are working with partners to achieve alignment for their programs. All concurred that strategic planning is essential, with an emphasis on local partnerships and regional collaborations. It was stressed that rural health care should ideally be delivered as close to the community level as possible, supported by a robust ecosystem. Speakers agreed that the financial health of rural areas is inseparable from the health of their hospitals and clinics. It was underscored that local residents are deeply invested in their communities and want to see them thrive. Transforming rural health care systems will require large-scale collaborations at a local level, which are built on trust, a shared vision, and a clear understanding of the long-term goals. The challenges of chronic disease, which occurs and leads to death at significantly higher rates in rural areas, surfaced. Panelists agreed that tackling this issue requires major investments in ancillary professions — such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and community health workers — alongside a renewed emphasis on primary care services and alleviating the acute shortage of primary care physicians. According to the American Medical Association, roughly 65% of rural areas face a shortage of primary care providers, and only 4%-5% of incoming medical students now come from rural backgrounds. Some solutions noted by the panelists were extending medical student rotations in rural settings from a few weeks to 12 or more, coupled with financial and professional incentives. Encouragingly, research shows that students from rural areas are far more likely to return home as practicing physicians. Final Words Panelists overwhelmingly agreed that RHTP represents an unprecedented opportunity for states — though, notably, not for U.S. territories or Washington, D.C. — to expand access, raise the quality of rural health care, and ultimately improve both quality of life and life expectancy for their rural residents. The $50 billion fund is not only a lifeline but also a testing ground, and if implemented successfully, it could serve as a model to pave the way for future federal investments of this magnitude in rural health. For more information on RHTP, please email MAHARural@cms.hhs.gov. Participants Part One: Federal Senator Lisa Murkowski and Angela Ramponi, MPH, Legislative Director Emily Chen, MBA, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Tom Morris, MPA, Associate Administrator for Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Moderated by Carlos Jackson, Principal, Cornerstone Government Affairs Part Two: State and Stakeholder Daniel Edney, MD, FACP, FASAM, State Health Officer, Mississippi State Department of Health Debra Bogen, MD, FAAP, Secretary of Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health Zil Joyce Dixon Romero, State Government Affairs Manager, National Rural Health Association Lindsey Browning, Deputy Executive Director of Programs, National Association of Medicaid Directors Moderated by Susan Kansagra, MD, MBA, Chief Medical Officer, ASTHO article yes

How Pennsylvania Health Department’s Cross-Sector Partnerships Are Strengthening Climate and Environmental Justice health department, pennsylvania department of health, climate change, low income neighborhoods, heart disease, mental health, children of color, adverse health effects, racial disparities, health equity, people of color, communities of color, public health, higher risk, health risks, race and ethnicity, family history, risk factors, social determinants of health, astho, association of state and territorial health officials For decades, Pennsylvania has worked across state government agencies on environmental justice issues. Pennsylvania has prioritized environmental justice due to the ongoing challenges of pollution and climate change faced in environmental justice areas. The state has the third most Superfund sites on EPA’s National Priorities List, and many of these sites are in low-income neighborhoods. Climate change is likely to exacerbate existing racial disparities across a broad range of health outcomes, including death, respiratory and heart disease, mental health, and heat-related illness, especially among infants and children of color. In October 2021, the state formally established the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) and the Environmental Justice Interagency Council (EJIC). As the first EJIC member to develop an Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, other EJIC members are now using Pennsylvania's plan as a blueprint. The plan provides a framework for continuing and building on DOH’s efforts to address health disparities associated with environmental health hazards in vulnerable communities. The strategic plan integrates environmental justice into the DOH’s internal and external processes to prioritize the needs of residents living in Environmental Justice communities. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

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

State policies about strategic stockpiling for public health emergencies.

How the Emergence of Xylazine Impacts Overdose Prevention Policy overdose prevention policy, overdose crisis, fatal overdoses, emergence of xylazine, illicit drug supply, toxicological testing, withdrawal symptoms, xylazine test strips, drug paraphernalia laws, drug checking, legislative action, drug supply, substance use disorders, controlled substance, opioid use disorder, centers for disease control, health care, harm reduction services, psychoactive substances, department of public health, illegal drug, type of drug, opioid crisis, prescription opioid, astho, association of state and territorial health officials JoAnne McClure, Victoria Pless How states are considering overdose policy changes as xylazine continues to emerge in the illicit drug market. Developing and adopting policies to reduce fatal overdoses can help public health leaders address the ever evolving and complex national overdose crisis. More than 109,000 fatal overdoses occurred in 2022, with the majority involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Adding to the overdose challenge is the emergence of xylazine, a non-opioid tranquilizer (i.e., sedative), that is being increasingly mixed with fentanyl in the illicit drug supply. As of November 2022, xylazine was found in the illicit drug supply in 48 of 50 states and Puerto Rico. Xylazine is currently associated with one in ten fatal fentanyl (11%) overdoses, a near-threefold increase from 2.9% in 2019. Toxicological testing for xylazine is not uniform and, as a result, its involvement in fatal overdoses may be underestimated. Some states have taken initiatives such as Indiana (HB 1286) and South Carolina, to improve the consistency of toxicological testing for xylazine. With xylazine’s addition to the overdose crisis, states are beginning to adopt laws to better regulate the supply of xylazine and detect its presence in the illicit drug supply. What is Xylazine? Xylazine, also known as “tranq” or “tranq dope,” is a central nervous system depressant causing drowsiness, slowed breathing, reduced heart rate, and hypotension, which can increase the risk of a fatal overdose. Xylazine is approved for veterinary use in the United States but is not FDA-approved for human medicine. Xylazine, can be added to substances that are ingested orally, snorted, sniffed, or—mostly commonly—injected intravenously, and has been added to or used to cut heroin and fentanyl to prolong their effects. People who use drugs may be unaware of xylazine’s presence, which can put them at a higher risk of fatal overdose. Xylazine use is associated with skin ulcers, lesions, abscesses that left untreated, can lead to amputation. People who develop a physical dependency on xylazine may develop severe withdrawal symptoms. Although symptoms of xylazine use and opioid use are similar—making it difficult to differentiate whether someone has used one or both substances—overdose reversal agents (e.g., naloxone) do not counteract the effects of xylazine. Public health leaders still recommend that naloxone be administered for a suspected opioid overdose because xylazine has been detected in substances alongside fentanyl. For a person experiencing a xylazine-involved overdose, public health leaders emphasize the need to seek treatment beyond naloxone. In addition to public health’s work to address xylazine in the illicit drug supply, some state and territorial legislatures are expanding or protecting access to xylazine test strips as well as steps to limit access to xylazine through the state drug schedule. Legalizing Drug-Checking Equipment Drug-checking equipment, such as fentanyl test strips, are evidence-based interventions that allow a person who uses drugs to test their supply for an adulterated substance. State drug paraphernalia laws historically prohibited drug checking equipment, limiting the possession, distribution and use of items like fentanyl test strips. To make fentanyl test strips more widely available to prevent overdose, legislatures rapidly changed their laws to either explicitly legalize fentanyl test strips or generally legalize drug checking equipment. As of July 5, 2023 more than 33 jurisdictions legally authorize the use of fentanyl test strips, 12 of which (Alaska, Colorado, Guam, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Vermont) generally authorize the possession and use of drug-checking equipment. Similar to fentanyl, people may not know whether they are exposed to xylazine when using other substances, increasing the risk for harm. New test strips can detect the presence of xylazine, however state drug paraphernalia laws that criminalize drug checking equipment may limit the accessibility of xylazine test strips to prevent overdose. In 2023, at least three states—Illinois (HB 3203), New Hampshire (HB 287), and Utah (SB 86)—enacted legislation to authorize or decriminalize use of drug-checking equipment for fentanyl and xylazine, ensuring that xylazine test strips are lawful and able to be distributed. Additionally, states that previously passed legislation to allow for fentanyl-specific drug checking are amending their statutes to include all drug checking to ensure the legal possession of xylazine test strips. For example, Delaware enacted (SB 189) that specifically legalized xylazine test strips. Two other states—Vermont (H 222) and New Jersey (SB 3957)—enacted laws expanding the authorization of fentanyl test strips to allow for all harm reduction supplies, including drug checking equipment, which would permit the use of xylazine test strips. The Question of Scheduling Drugs are scheduled based on their acceptable medical use and potential for misuse and severe psychological and/or physical dependence, with drugs in Schedule I being the most tightly regulated. Xylazine is not a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act so it is not DEA scheduled or controlled. Nevertheless, xylazine is subject to FDA regulation under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and state law. Prior to 2023, only two states directly or indirectly scheduled xylazine. Florida codified xylazine as a Schedule I substance in 2016, and xylazine could fall under Massachusetts’ Schedule VI designation, which applies to prescription drugs. As state and territorial leaders take steps to schedule xylazine, policymakers should consider whether scheduling or other criminal penalties will deter people from seeking care if they fear being arrested for unknowingly testing positive for exposure or xylazine use. Another consideration for leaders before scheduling xylazine is whether scheduling will also make possession of test strips illegal under the jurisdiction's drug paraphernalia law. In 2023 at least nine states–Delaware (SB 189), Illinois (HB 3873), Louisiana (HB 106), Michigan (HB 4913), New Jersey (A 5448), New York (A 5914), Oklahoma (SB 668), Rhode Island (HB 5922), and West Virginia (SB 546)—considered legislation to schedule xylazine as a controlled substance. Of those, Delaware, Rhode Island, and West Virginia enacted laws scheduling xylazine in 2023. In addition to legislative action, at least two governors (Ohio and Pennsylvania) took executive action to schedule xylazine. ASTHO’s overdose prevention and state health policy teams continue to monitor these important public health issues. website yes