Displaying 1-20 of 66 results for

In-depth analysis on state health policy surrounding the public health workforce. This is part of ASTHO's annual legislative prospectus series.

Policy Trends Shaping Behavioral Health in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Behavioral Health in 2026 Learn about the policy trends shaping behavioral health in 2026, including improving access to naloxone, mobile crisis units, and more. Public health efforts remain focused on reducing mental health-related harms and preventing substance use disorder and overdose. In 2024, an estimated 23.4% of U.S. adults — about 61.5 million people or more than one in five — experienced a mental illness, underscoring the widespread and urgent nature of mental health challenges nationwide. After years of rising fatalities, the United States saw its first notable decline in overdose deaths in 2023, followed by a nearly 24% decrease in 2024, with approximately 87,000 deaths reported over a 12-month period. While this progress is promising, overdose is still a leading cause of death in the United States, underscoring the need for sustained prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. To continue strengthening behavioral health systems and advancing overdose prevention, state and territorial legislatures are considering measures that promote mobile crisis units, support access to overdose prevention tools and treatment, and address the increased use of unregulated substances. Mobile Crisis Response Over the past decade, federal and state policy has emphasized community-based behavioral health crisis response. Building on early local models, the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act created a new Medicaid option for states to fund mobile crisis intervention services with a time-limited enhanced federal matching rate. States also integrated mobile crisis teams into broader crisis response systems aligned with the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. As implementation expands, state legislatures are considering measures to strengthen service coordination, sustain funding beyond the enhanced federal match period, and address workforce and capacity needs. During the 2025 legislative session, at least 13 states considered and six enacted measures related to behavioral health mobile crisis services. Rhode Island (HB 6118) will require insurance coverage for mobile response and stabilization services for children and adolescents under 18. In Washington, HB 1813 directs additional planning and coordination among service providers to promote access to crisis stabilization services for Medicaid enrollees. Leg Prospectus-2026 - SBH - SAMHSA CMS Naloxone Availability Naloxone is a life-saving medication that quickly reverses opioid overdoses. Approved for over-the-counter sale by FDA in 2023, its expanded availability has increased opportunities for timely intervention. To support access for people at risk for overdose, many states are advancing policies to make naloxone available in public settings — such as schools, libraries, and community centers — to empower bystanders to respond to and prevent overdose deaths. At least eight states have considered legislation to increase naloxone availability with a focus on youth. Colorado enacted SB 25-164 to advance youth overdose prevention, clarifying access to naloxone in school communal areas, like buses, and giving the state board of health authority to establish what entities can receive naloxone for distribution. Michigan is considering SB 404, which would require schools receiving naloxone from the health department to adopt policies regarding administration and explicitly limit liability of school employees administering naloxone. Montana enacted SB 503, which extends liability protections for those who administer expired opioid antagonists — like naloxone — including in schools. Leg Prospectus-2026 - SBH - MOUD Therapeutic Substances for Mental Health Diagnoses Psilocybin and ibogaine are naturally occurring psychoactive substances being studied for their potential to treat mental health and/or substance use disorders. As interest in their therapeutic applications grows, several states are considering legislation to expand access for clinical research and regulated therapeutic use. In 2025, more than two dozen states considered and seven states passed measures related to psilocybin. Arizona (SB 1555), Colorado (HB 25-1063), and Nebraska (LB 72) enacted laws that would allow psilocybin prescribing pending FDA approval, though this approval has not occurred. Iowa (HF 383) and Virginia (SB 1135) passed similar provisions but both governors vetoed the bills, citing the need to wait for FDA approval and DEA rescheduling before taking state-level action. At least 10 states considered legislation to study ibogaine or fund clinical trials exploring its potential to treat PTSD, depression, opioid use disorder, and related conditions. Washington considered SB 5204, which would support the study of ibogaine-assisted therapy for adults with opioid use disorder. And several states — including Nevada (AB 378), New York (S 4664), and Oregon (HB 3817) — considered legislation focused on supporting research and trials that improve the health of veterans and first responders. Finally, Texas enacted SB 2308 to establish a consortium focused on ibogaine research and trials to support FDA approval of the drug for treatment of various mental health and substance use disorders. Kratom Regulation Public health leaders are examining ways to reduce the potential misuse of unregulated substances, including kratom, a product derived from the leaves of a tropical tree that can act as both a stimulant and sedative, and that carries the risk of addiction and abuse. Kratom is not a scheduled drug under federal law, but the FDA has reiterated that there are no legally marketed drugs containing kratom and that it is not an appropriate dietary supplement or approved food additive. While FDA explores a scheduling action for 7-OH, a concentrated byproduct of kratom, a number of state legislatures are considering measures to regulate kratom products. At least 34 states considered and 11 states passed legislation regarding kratom in 2025, including Louisiana (SB 154) which criminalizes the possession and distribution of kratom. Another six states — Colorado (SB 25-072), Mississippi (HB 1077), Nebraska (LB 230), Rhode Island (SB 792), South Carolina (S 221), and South Dakota (HB 1056) — passed legislation restricting the sale of kratom to people under the age of 21 and establishing product labeling standards. Looking Ahead ASTHO anticipates states and territories to continue considering and adopting laws to prevent substance misuse and overdose and reduce mental health-related harms, including those that: Enhance support and capacity for behavioral health mobile crisis units and improve care coordination and entry across the behavioral health care continuum. Expand coverage for peer support specialists and establish baseline standards for peer support specialists in treatment and social support recovery services. Develop measures to study and decriminalize some psychoactive substances for potential mental health and substance use treatment. Develop innovative policies to link recently incarcerated persons to substance use disorder treatment. Improve access to medications for opioid use disorder by expanding telehealth availability, prohibiting prior authorization requirements, and ensuring comprehensive insurance coverage. Explore state regulatory frameworks for commercially available substances with the potential for misuse, including kratom and hemp-derived cannabinoids like Delta-8. 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

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

This Health Policy Update is an overview of state legislative activity to increase financial stability for families during the COVID-19 pandemic which may help to prevent adverse childhood experiences.

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.

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

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

State and federal efforts to bolster health care access for underserved rural communities.

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

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.

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.

Learn how states have increased and/or allocated funding to continue supporting core public health services.

Learn about the importance of exploring intermediaries that work alongside existing data platforms in addressing ongoing public health challenges.

State and Federal Actions to Reduce Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances’ Impact on Public Health safe drinking water act, per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, water supplies, contaminated groundwater, chemical companies, pfas contamination, forever chemicals, synthetic chemicals, maximum contaminant levels, industrial pretreatment program, polyfluoroalkyl substances pfas, chemical sales, chemical industry, bottled water, safe drinking water act sdwa, unregulated contaminants, companies in the world, united states, consumer products, 1996 amendments, national primary drinking water, surface water, water system, largest chemical companies, pfas strategic roadmap, primary drinking water regulations, pfas chemicals, pfoa and pfos, drinking water, testing for pfas, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Maggie Davis, Beth Giambrone State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health Since 2018, when the city of Stuart, Florida filed its lawsuit, communities across the United States have filed lawsuits against manufacturers that produce Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alleging that they contaminated groundwater and exposed residents to these harmful chemicals. In June 2023, manufacturer 3M agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle the Stuart lawsuit and others across the country with public drinking water systems. Similarly, chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached $1.18 billion settlement with local communities that have detected PFAS in their water supplies. PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in products like nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, which can migrate to soil, water, and air during production and use. Most of these chemicals remain in the environment without breaking down—hence the nickname “forever chemicals”—and can cause harmful health effects (e.g., higher risks of kidney or testicular cancer, and pre-eclampsia or high blood pressure among pregnant people) and are prevalent across the nation. Evidence shows the widespread nature of exposure to the chemicals and the economic costs of exposure. For example, a 2023 USGS study estimated that at least 45% of tap water nationwide could have one or more PFAS, while recent research estimates the annual cost of the disease burden attributable to long-chain (i.e., six or more carbon) PFAS exposure to be at least $5 billion. As communities seek restitution for PFAS contamination, federal and state policymakers are working to eliminate PFAS from ground water and drinking water and to mitigate exposure to these forever chemicals. Eliminating PFAS in Drinking Water Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has the authority to regulate the public drinking water supply in the United States. These regulations establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Treatment Techniques and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for public water systems. EPA’s recently proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation could potentially add six different PFAS compounds to the list of regulated contaminants. Within the PFAS chemical family, PFOA and PFOS are proposed to each have MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), while PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX would be regulated collectively as a mixture using EPA's Hazard Index approach. The proposed rule also could require public water systems to monitor and notify the public of PFAS levels and reduce the levels in drinking water if they exceed proposed standards. According to a survey conducted by the Environmental Council of the States, state guidelines vary; at least eleven states have established statewide MCLs for PFAS in drinking water. Some states prohibit their agencies from setting standards more stringent than federal ones and, in the absence of a federal standard, state agencies may hesitate to establish one that could easily be invalidated. In other cases, a lack of resources inhibits the agency’s capacity to set and enforce a PFAS standard. When a federal standard is established by EPA’s final rule, expected by the end of 2023, state primacy agencies will need to enforce the federal standard and adopt standards aligned with the federal standard or stronger within two years. Additional State Efforts to Reduce PFAS Exposure Even without MCLs, states are finding ways to mitigate the public’s exposure to PFAS. In 2023, states enacted legislation on banning PFAS in consumer products, increased requirements for testing and reporting of PFAS, and PFAS mitigation. Banning PFAS in Products Indiana enacted HB 1341 prohibiting fire departments from purchasing gear unless it contains a permanent label indicating whether it does or does not contain PFAS as of June 30, 2024. Minnesota’s HF 2310 prohibits selling or distributing products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026. An exception may be made if the manufacturer submits information to the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency such as the product, the amount of PFAS used, and the amount of PFAS in the product. The Oregon legislature enacted SB 543, which prohibits the selling or using polystyrene foam containers for prepared food, food containers containing intentionally added PFAS, and polystyrene packaging peanuts. Washington enacted HB 1047, which prohibits manufacturing, distributing, and selling cosmetic products with PFAS and other chemicals or chemical classes as of January 1, 2025. Testing/Reporting Indiana enacted HB 1219, establishing a pilot program that collects blood samples of previous or current firefighters, analyzes the samples for serum PFAS levels, and determines whether there are corresponding health implications associated with elevated serum PFAS levels. Maine’s LD 1248 requires bottlers who extract water from the state to sell as bottled water to test, regularly monitor, and report the presence of PFAS to the Department of Health and Human Services and post the results on a public-facing website. Sales of bottled water are prohibited if PFAS levels in the water source exceed the state or federal community water system standards, whichever is lower. Currently, Maine has an interim MCL standard of 20 ppt. Virginia’s HB 2189 directs the State Water Control Board to adopt regulations requiring industrial users of publicly owned treatment works to test waste streams for PFAS before and after cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, or processing items the user knows or reasonably should know uses PFAS chemicals. West Virginia’s HB 3189 requires its Department of Environmental Protection to identify and address sources of PFAS in raw sources of public drinking water systems. It also requires facilities to report the use of PFAS if they discharge to surface waters under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works under an industrial pretreatment program. Mitigation Connecticut enacted SB 100 establishing a PFAS testing account, which provides municipalities with grants or reimbursements for testing and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Maine enacted LD 289, which requires the state to purchase the real estate of a commercial farm found to be contaminated by PFAS before January 1, 2023 at the assessed fair market value but at no less than $20,000 per acre, and provides that the fair market value assessment cannot take PFAS contamination into consideration. Two enacted bills in Rhode Island (SB 724 and HB 5861) amend current law to add that if PFAS in drinking water exceed the state’s interim standard of 20 ppt, the state and the public water supply will enter into an agreement that requires dates for submittal of water treatment plans that will reduce the PFAS levels to or below the interim level. As more information emerges about the health effects of PFAS, states will be sure to continue their work to combat, mitigate, and report on their presence in the environment. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on all legislative and regulatory activity around this issue. Special Thanks-Blog - State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health website yes

In the current legislative cycle, there are several policy strategies that support the development and integration of community health workers into the public health workforce, including dedicated federal funding and state laws supporting workforce development programs, certification standards, and Medicaid coverage.

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.

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.

An increasing body of research finds racism can have a significant impact across one’s lifespan. Research shows that persistent exposure to racial discrimination may result in premature aging, poor health outcomes, and increased prevalence of certain chronic diseases. At every level of government, policymakers are seeking to acknowledge the systemic oppression of people of color that persists and to elevate racism as an urgent public health crisis comparable to other public health emergencies.

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.