ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2025 state legislative actions on data modernization and privacy.
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
Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding and Administration in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping public health funding and administration in 2026, including increased funding for behavioral health and other areas. Decades of underinvestment in the nation’s public health system have impacted agencies’ ability to respond to health challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of a chronically under-resourced sector tasked with responding to a global emergency. While public health has received influxes of funding through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan Act over the last five years, both were temporary injections of funding in response to COVID-19. There have been efforts to provide longer term funding for public health improvements through the Public Health Infrastructure Grant and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, but this funding faces an uncertain future: There have been multiple reductions in federal funding to the Prevention and Public Health Fund since its creation in 2010. Moreover, state public health agencies are preparing for the possibility of federal funding being reduced or cancelled. This, coupled with balanced budget requirements, is driving states to explore ways to improve their public health investments while bolstering infrastructure — focusing on health departments’ core services, and ensuring access to quality public health programs at the state and local levels. Increased Funding for Public Health In 2025, 47 states enacted or will enact budget bills. While overall nationwide funding for public health in FY26 was roughly equivalent to FY25, at least half of the state health departments had some form of increased funding (e.g., Medicaid, provider reimbursement rates, and specific public health initiatives and programs). For example: Behavioral Health: Colorado SB 25-206 included a $1.6 million increase in funding to provide behavioral health services in primary care settings. Certification: Illinois SB 2510 includes a $6 million increase to support licensing, inspecting, and certifying health care facilities for compliance with state and federal regulations. Maternal and Child Health: Georgia HB 68 provided a nearly $3 million increase in funding to expand a pilot program that provides home visits in at-risk and underserved communities during pregnancy and early childhood. Rural Health: Arizona’s budget bills include $4 million to expand access to health care through the development of rural medical residency programs. School-Based Health Centers: Delaware HB 225 appropriates funding to develop school-based health centers in elementary schools with more than 90% of students classified as low-income, multilingual learners, or underrepresented minorities. Leg Prospectus-2026 - Funding - Rural Health Improved Public Health Administration Several states passed legislation restructuring their public health systems. Nevada enacted SB 494, dividing the previous Department of Health and Human Services into two separate agencies. The bill gives the new health agency, called the Nevada Health Authority, the authority to oversee health programs (e.g., Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), manage health care compliance and consumer health services, and develop policy that improves health care access and cost efficiency. Hawaii’s HB 1120 formally gives the Department of Health the authority to prevent, address, and abate any issues that pose a threat to public health and/or environmental health, such as toxic materials, vector-borne diseases, and climate change. More than half of U.S. state health agencies are decentralized or largely decentralized, meaning many public health services are provided by city, county, or regional health departments that are separate from the state health agency. In 2025, at least two states enacted legislation enhancing local health departments’ abilities to provide core public health services: Utah SB 172 requires the Department of Environmental Quality to enter into cooperative agreements with local health departments to prevent and respond to potential health and safety threats from the environment. It also establishes a governance committee of state and local health department personnel to evaluate proposed policy changes affecting local health departments and ensure allocated resources meet the minimum performance standard. Washington HB 1946 modifies the membership requirements for local health boards, allowing federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands in the board’s jurisdiction to have members on the board. It also allows urban Indian organizations recognized by the Indian Health Service that provide services within that jurisdiction to have members. Looking Ahead ASTHO anticipates states and territories will continue considering and adopting legislation to provide state funding for public health and improve public health infrastructure, including those that: Create contingency plans or rainy-day funds in the event of reduced federal funding. Establish partnerships with neighboring states to share health data. Promote sharing services and resources within local health departments. Leverage regionalization as a tool to consolidate and share scarce public health resources. Adapt the funding and management of public health grants to ensure efficiency. Improve public health data systems to promote greater efficiency. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes
ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Prevention 2025 state legislative action on infectious disease control and prevention.
This report analyzes way that public health officials can mitigate the impact of disasters on pregnant people, neonates, and infants through a variety of policies, including policies related to preparing for, responding to, and recovering from a public health emergency.
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.
Public Health Approaches to Preventing Suicide and Promoting Mental Well-Being Public Health Approaches to Preventing Suicide Caitlin Langhorne Griffith, Arnelle Toffey Learn how to execute public health approaches to preventing suicide, which requires understanding the dynamics of policymaking and implementation. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, suicide remains a leading cause of death and disability among Americans of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and socioeconomic statuses. While suicide affects populations at all levels, it continues to be the second leading cause of death in individuals under 44 and disproportionately impacts veterans, individuals with lower income and educational attainment, and residents in rural areas, among other groups. Approximately 6% of the U.S. population has a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) (e.g., bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia), and a 2022 study found that almost 10% of people who die by suicide had a known SMI. In addition, individuals with or without SMI can experience suicidal ideation or attempts. Factors such as adverse childhood experiences, limited access to health care, and economic instability can contribute to suicide risk. Public health approaches that expand treatment access and address the drivers of suicide risk can help foster mental well-being in communities and reduce the risk of individuals dying by suicide, including those with SMI. However, executing these approaches requires understanding the dynamics of evidence-based strategies in policymaking and implementation. Population-Based Approaches Expanding access to mental health care is critical for reducing risk and managing symptoms of mental illness, as only 50% of young adults (18 to 25 years old) and 53% of adults (26 to 49 years old) with any mental illness received treatment in 2024. However, barriers to mental health care — such as availability of providers, access to telehealth, cost, and other systemic factors — can prevent individuals from receiving treatment, especially during serious declines in mental health. Population-based approaches can fill this gap by focusing on non-clinical interventions and activities that address chronic stressors and other factors contributing to mental health declines, improving mental health outcomes. Examples of these policies include: Addressing structural determinants of suicide risk (e.g., economic security). Promoting access to clinical services (e.g., Medicaid expansion and state mental health parity laws). Limiting access to lethal means for suicide (e.g., child access prevention laws and access to high-risk medications). 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline State health agencies can also consider approaches that provide and enhance direct crisis support. The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is a nationwide hotline that provides emotional support to individuals experiencing suicide, mental health, or substance use crises. Since its launch in July 2022, call volumes have steadily risen in all states, and the Lifeline has been shown to improve callers' mental well-being as well as reduce suicide risk. Implementation of the 988 Lifeline occurs at both the state and local levels, resulting in variations in funding and infrastructure across communities. In the most recent legislative session, jurisdictions enacted legislation to fund and sustain 988, ensuring consistency in quality and access across all communities. For example, North Dakota SB 2200 allocates funding for 988 operations from a community health trust fund, while Texas HB 5342 established a trust fund outside of the state treasury to support the 988 Lifeline. States also enacted legislation either consolidating (Colorado SB 236) or ensuring interoperability with 988 and 911 emergency lines (Nebraska LB 362), streamlining services and accessibility for those in need of mental health support. In addition, 12 states have adopted a 988 telecom fee — similar to fees that support 911 infrastructure in every state — to create a sustainable financing source for 988. Adolescent Mental Health Support at School Schools are a critical setting to support adolescent mental health, particularly for children with serious emotional disturbances who are at elevated risk of suicide. Several states have mandated suicide prevention training requirements for school personnel as part of ongoing professional certification requirements. Federal funding — such as the Suicide Training and Awareness Nationally Delivered for Universal Prevention Act, which focuses on evidence-based programs for students — can help states and tribes establish/expand training for school staff and equip them with the education to recognize warning signs and connect students to resources, alongside student-directed programs that increase mental health literacy and foster peer support. In the 2025 legislative session, at least three states enacted legislation focused on preventing youth student suicide. Kentucky (HB 48) and Montana (SB 369) mandate training for school staff on suicide awareness and prevention, while Virginia HB 2055 requires school staff to provide materials to parents on suicide prevention (including the safe storage of firearms) if they believe a student is at imminent risk. At least three additional states enacted legislation that requires student identification cards to include mental health information and suicide crisis resources, including the 988 Lifeline (Colorado SB 326, Illinois HB 3000, New Jersey A 4897). Georgia HB 268 requires public schools to provide at least one hour of suicide awareness prevention and training to students in grades 6-12. Conversely, an Idaho bill (SB 1199) that would amend a 2024 law to allow minors to access medical treatment when calling the 988 Lifeline without parental consent passed the Senate but did not advance in the House. Jurisdictions have also incorporated policies that provide additional safeguards for adolescents and their use of the internet: Utah recently enacted SB 98, which requires the state Board of Education to create a video presentation for parents outlining the safety and legal issues students may encounter while using technology. Maryland's SB 310 expands the state's Youth Suicide Prevention School Program to include instruction to students on the relationship between gambling and youth suicide. At the federal level, Congress is considering the Kids Online Safety Act, which requires platforms, applications, and streaming services that connect to the internet to exercise care in creating and implementing design features to prevent and mitigate harm to minors. Looking Forward It is important to understand suicide prevention approaches nationwide, including how jurisdictions formalize and strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure as well as promote healthier environments. Strategies for policymakers include the following: Analyzing and comparing suicide prevention infrastructure laws nationwide to identify gaps and guide jurisdictional changes. Building protective environments that address upstream social and structural risk factors (e.g., access to clinical services and food insecurity), while advancing policies that reduce access to lethal means. Strengthening school-based prevention efforts by leveraging available funding to expand evidence-based programs, train school staff, establish student-directed programs, and connect students to needed resources. Promoting safer online spaces for youth with policies that limit harmful design features, strengthen parent engagement, and increase online platform transparency. Continuing investments in crisis services to expand and sustain programs like the 988 Lifeline. Prioritizing economic support policies to strengthen families and reduce ACEs, supporting healthier development and well-being. Leveraging these legal and policy frameworks can reduce suicide risk, support mental well-being, and build a stronger public health system for all. article yes
States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes
Explore how states are enacting legislation to help justice-involved people avoid overdose illness and death and foster a smooth transition after release.
State Policy Trends in Cybersecurity and Public Health Preparedness Maggie Nilz Learn how states are including cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness work in this Health Policy Update. Cybersecurity is an increasingly important component of public health preparedness as state cybersecurity policy intersects with public health agency responsibilities. Public health agencies rely on interconnected digital systems and critical infrastructure for disease surveillance, laboratory reporting, emergency communications, and health data management, making cybersecurity critical to maintaining these functions. Beyond compromising sensitive data and potentially harming patients, cyber incidents can disrupt essential public health services, including emergency response operations. Health care data breaches have steadily increased over the last 15 years, highlighting growing risks for government and health systems. A recent report showed that more than 7,000 health care data breaches were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services since 2009, and reported HIPAA data breaches in 2023 were nearly double the number recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, preparedness capacity has lagged: as of 2022, only 13% of local health departments reported being prepared for cyber-related disruptions, and recent scans show cybersecurity is rarely included in emergency preparedness planning. In response at the federal level, HHS recently announced it is undoing a 2024 reorganization by returning department-wide technology responsibilities to the Office of the Chief Information Officer while refocusing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on improving nationwide health IT interoperability and data sharing. In recent years, state and territorial legislatures have begun to address these gaps by incorporating cybersecurity into preparedness, health care oversight, and statewide governance structures. These legislative trends signal a need to integrate cybersecurity into emergency operations plans, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and safeguard the continuity of public health services. Some of the most recent policies considered and enacted by legislatures treat cyber incidents as emergencies, expand reporting requirements, and strengthen cyber governance. Cyber Incidents Are Being Built into Emergency Preparedness Frameworks In response to these growing threats, jurisdictions have begun incorporating cyber response into emergency plans and strategies, reinforcing cybersecurity as essential to preparedness. These developments highlight growing awareness that cyber incidents can disrupt critical services, much like natural disasters. In 2025, New York enacted S 7672, which requires municipal entities and public authorities report cybersecurity incidents and demands for ransom to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. In addition, it directs the Director of the Office of Information Services to establish cybersecurity training and protection standards for state systems as well as require cybersecurity training for state and local government employees. Virginia is currently considering HB 83, which would establish a volunteer Cyber Civilian Corps within the state IT agency to provide rapid assistance during cybersecurity incidents affecting municipalities, nonprofits, education, and critical infrastructure. Preparedness efforts also extend beyond legislation to executive action. In February 2026, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz authorized $1.2 million in state disaster assistance to support response efforts and restore critical systems in response to a cyber incident that disrupted digital services in Saint Paul on July 29, 2025. Additionally, the National Governors Association has included cybersecurity as a primary consideration for planning and preparedness in their latest edition of the Public Health Emergency Playbook. Health care and Public Health Critical Sectors Are Facing New Cyber Requirements Beyond emergency response frameworks, jurisdictions are also adopting cybersecurity reporting and planning requirements for health care and public health organizations. Companion bills in Tennessee (HB 511/SB 555) would require health care providers and facilities to notify their contracted health insurers of cybersecurity incidents. In Maine, LD 2103 would require hospitals to adopt cybersecurity plans to protect patient data and maintain operations, and must include cybersecurity training for employees and board members. New Jersey is looking to adopt and implement a more comprehensive cybersecurity plan across all sectors. This session, legislators have introduced at least two cyber security bills: A 3231 would require “sensitive businesses” (defined as those engaged in financial, essential infrastructure, or health care industries) to report cybersecurity incidents to the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) when they are aware of their occurrence and would require NJCCIC to conduct a cybersecurity audit within 30 days of notification. A 3283 would require the same “sensitive businesses” to implement cybersecurity programs in accordance with standards adopted by NJCCIC and certify compliance annually. As states expand reporting and cybersecurity requirements, these obligations may intersect with public health reporting and continuity planning. States Are Strengthening Government Cyber Governance and Coordination In addition to sector-specific requirements, jurisdictions are also strengthening the governance structures responsible for coordinating cybersecurity, improving their ability to respond to large-scale incidents affecting public systems. Legislation enacted recently in Texas and California aim to improve coordination among state government by establishing a state agency centralizing cybersecurity incident prevention and response (Texas HB 150) and mandating the development of a cybersecurity playbook to strengthen information sharing (California AB 979). A 2024 bill enacted in Puerto Rico (PC 1530) requires commonwealth agencies to develop and implement a cybersecurity program, which must include a yearly risk assessment as well as vulnerability assessment. At least three jurisdictions are currently considering bills strengthening established cybersecurity programs, with two states recently passing legislation. Utah recently enacted a bill authorizing the Utah Cyber Center to conduct voluntary cybersecurity risk assessments for critical infrastructure and coordinate with government entities on infrastructure safety (HB 165). Utah also enacted legislation creating a specific funding stream for the Center to use for various activities, including implementing a statewide cybersecurity plan and conducting assessments for governmental entities (SB 123). Kansas enacted HB 2574, which would require chief information security officers for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to adopt cybersecurity programs based on a nationally recognized standard for governmental entities. Finally, Florida recently passed SB 7024, which would expand the state’s public record exemption to include risk assessments, information related to cybersecurity breaches, and information related to data protection, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive cybersecurity information held by state agencies; the bill is with the governor for final consideration. Key Takeaways for Preparedness Leaders Cybersecurity is critical for preparedness across multiple policy areas, and requires new planning, coordination, and oversight responsibilities. By including cyber incidents into disaster frameworks, standards for health care organizations, and governance, preparedness leaders may find themselves more directly engaged in integrating cybersecurity into emergency operations, exercises, and cross-sector partnerships. For state and territorial health agencies beginning to incorporate cybersecurity into their preparedness plans, agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provide jurisdictional support and resources to guide this work. article yes
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.
Learn how state and territorial legislatures can bolster or restrict public health legal authority, with examples from early COVID-19 as well as 2024.
Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots JoAnne Deehr Suicides continue to be a critical public health issue — learn how states are leveraging policy to improve suicide prevention. Suicide remains a persistent public health challenge, affecting people of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and income levels in the United States. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, more than 49,300 Americans died by suicide in 2023. National suicide rates steadily rose from 2003 until 2018 and have remained high since then, reflecting an enduring and widespread impact. While all communities are affected by suicide, certain demographics face higher risks. Disproportionately higher rates of suicide are seen among elderly Americans, Veterans, individuals with lower income, less education, and those living in rural areas. People in certain industries, such as mining, construction, and public safety, are also at elevated risk. At the same time, emerging technologies like chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have raised new considerations related to safety, oversight, and appropriate use in mental health settings, underscoring the need for thoughtful state approaches to suicide prevention. Policymakers are responding to these challenges in multiple ways, including establishing state suicide prevention infrastructure and regulating AI chatbot use in mental health. Suicide Prevention Infrastructure Legislation Suicide prevention efforts are most effective when states and territories have dedicated infrastructure — such as suicide prevention offices, coordinators, commissions, and fatality review processes — to support coordination, surveillance, and implementation of evidence-based strategies. These structures enable state and territorial health agencies to identify populations and communities at increased risk, align partners across public health, health care, and public safety, and pursue sustainable funding for suicide prevention and crisis system improvements. ASTHO’s Suicide Prevention Offices and Committees Legal Map highlights the varied policy approaches states have taken to establish this infrastructure and identifies which states had statutory suicide prevention structures in place as of January 1, 2025. During the 2025 legislative session, states considered at least 30 bills related to establishing suicide prevention offices, coordinators, advisory bodies, and suicide fatality reviews. Five of these bills were enacted, including Delaware’s HB 54 which establishes the state’s Office of Suicide Prevention. Delaware also enacted HB 87, expanding membership in the state’s Suicide Prevention Coalition to include someone who has experienced suicidal ideation or survived a suicide attempt and someone who has lost a loved one to suicide. Conversely, Oklahoma enacted SB 676, repealing the section of the state’s Suicide Prevention Act that established the Oklahoma Suicide Prevention Council, which was slated to sunset in 2020. The council was originally tasked with identifying issues and promoting strategies to prevent suicide, and providing technical assistance on best practices for identifying people at risk of suicide. The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services still serves as the leading agency for implementing the remainder of tasks outlined in the Act. Illinois and Texas enacted legislation establishing advisory bodies focused on suicide prevention among first responders. In Texas, HB 1593 creates a committee to study suicide prevention and peer support programs within fire departments and requires a report with recommendations by September 2026. In Illinois, HB 2551 reconstitutes the First Responders Suicide Prevention Task Force, and increases membership in the task force to include a member from an organization that provides mental health training and support to first responders and two members who represent organizations that advocate on behalf of public safety telecommunicators, such as 911 operators and dispatchers. The bill also charges the task force with developing a final report by December 2026. Both bodies are scheduled to sunset in January 2027. Currently, Wisconsin has several types of fatality review teams operating through voluntary efforts with no law formally establishing or governing these teams. Wisconsin is considering SB 192, which would formally establish processes for reviewing fatalities, including deaths by suicide. It would also direct the Department of Health Services to establish a fatality review program comprised of established local teams and authorize the department to establish state fatality review teams. AI Chatbots While states continue to strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure, policymakers are beginning to turn their attention to emerging mental health considerations related to AI. Since emerging in the 1950s, AI has evolved from rule-based systems to today's machine learning and natural language processing applications, powering everything from data analysis to interactive chatbots. Recent AI advances enable chatbots to simulate human conversation so convincingly that users may forget they are interacting with a machine. However, these systems lack genuine empathy and cannot substitute for professional mental health treatment. Their tendency to be excessively agreeable creates particular dangers for people experiencing suicidal ideation, leading some states to explore regulations governing AI chatbot use in mental health and suicide prevention contexts. At least 19 states considered legislation regulating the use of AI for mental health related reasons to promote user safety. At least five bills were enacted, including California SB 243, which requires chatbot platform operators to disclose that users are interacting with AI if confusion could occur, develop protocols to prevent and respond to suicidal ideation or self-harm, and report annually on safety measures to the state Office of Suicide Prevention. The California legislature also passed AB 1064, which the Governor subsequently vetoed due to concerns that its broad restrictions on AI companion chatbots for minors could limit access to potentially beneficial tools. Illinois and Nevada passed legislation that largely prohibits AI from providing behavioral health services. Illinois HB 1806 restricts the use of AI for therapy or psychotherapy unless delivered by a licensed professional who is required to inform the patient, or their legal representative, in writing and receive consent. The law also prohibits licensed professionals from allowing AI to make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly with clients and allows the use of AI only for administrative or supplemental tasks under professional oversight. Nevada AB 406 similarly prohibits AI systems from providing or representing themselves as offering professional mental or behavioral health care, prohibits AI from performing the functions of a school counselor, psychologist, or social worker in public schools, and allows licensed professionals to use AI only for administrative or supportive purposes, with oversight to ensure accuracy and safety. New York and Utah passed laws requiring mental health chatbots to clearly disclose that they are not human. As part of their annual budget, New York S 3008 mandates that AI companion systems capable of simulating human-like interactions detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, provide crisis referrals, and regularly disclose that users are interacting with AI rather than a person. Utah HB 452 requires AI-driven mental health chatbots to provide clear disclosures and limits advertising and data practices. At the federal level, on December 11, 2025, the White House issued an executive order seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence and create a “minimally burdensome” federal approach. The order also directs the Department of Justice to form an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws deemed in conflict with this federal policy, and the Department of Commerce to limit eligibility for certain federal funds for states that take a non-preferred approach. The scope and criteria of these federal actions, including their impact on state laws aimed at suicide prevention, have not been clearly defined. Advancing suicide prevention will require states and territories to take comprehensive approaches that address both systemic gaps within state infrastructure and emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policy developments and provide relevant updates. Reviewed by - Baker-White, Maffey article yes
More than 100 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and an additional 25% are at high risk of closure, and COVID-19 has magnified the existing stressors on rural healthcare. As a result, states are using a variety of measures to address and prevent more rural hospital closures.
A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: tobacco, HIV, mental health, PFAS, and opioids.
Economic security and well-being, job stability, access to safe and affordable housing, access to healthy and nutritious foods, and access to resources to manage mental and physical health—all of these things impact individual, family, and community health. The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally impacted each of these social determinants of health for many Americans. Furthermore, some communities and industries have faced harder economic impacts than others, including households with low incomes, non-white households, and households with children. Human services and public health leaders can collaborate to make sure we are rebuilding systems and programs in a way that creates healthier, more resilient families and communities.
State and local jurisdictions are developing Ending the HOV Epidemic plans. The EHE initiative has largely focused on four key strategies: Diagnose, Treat, Prevent, and Respond to potential outbreaks. The EHE initiative set a goal to increase the estimated percentage of individuals with indications for PrEP who have been prescribed PrEP to 50 percent by 2025, as the national average as of 2018 is 18.2 percent. Several states have proposed and/or passed legislation to ensure insurance coverage of PrEP and/or to allow pharmacists to prescribe and dispense it. In addition to efforts addressing cost-related challenges, states can also employ innovative approaches—such as telehealth—to expand access to PrEP services to those in need.
As many state legislatures seek to expand vaccine exemptions, it’s important to understand the fundamental differences in exemption type and their impact on a community.
Looking to the future, states are improving access to care, providing subsidies for tuition costs, expanding hours of licensed facilities, increasing access, and meeting the needs of both parents and children.
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.