Displaying 1-20 of 438 results for

These resources provide core insights into the rulemaking process for creating laws to advance public health.

ASTHO's State Health Policy and Federal Government Affairs teams examine trends and developments in public health law. These pieces, collectively called Health Policy Update, are a regular feature on ASTHO's blog.

How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care Ashley Cram Learn how federal and state policies are improving access to health care by supporting telehealth. Telehealth strengthens the health system by reducing barriers to access to health care and extending services to underserved communities. Federal and state policies — many born out of the COVID-19 pandemic — have increased the use of telehealth by patients and providers. This includes expanded reimbursement to allow more providers to deliver telehealth services in more locations and through more modalities. This Health Policy Update summarizes recent federal and state laws and policies that impact telehealth delivery and access to care. Federal Laws and Policies Rural Health Transformation Program Enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, the Rural Health Transformation Program appropriates $10 billion per fiscal year for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to award to eligible states looking to improve rural health care. CMS encouraged state applicants to focus on select strategies, including investment in technology platforms that enhance care delivery. This includes tools and resources that support telehealth overall and remote patient monitoring (RPM), which is a way for providers to monitor and support patients through the use of devices that support data collection and transmission. Applicants that participate in interstate licensure compacts are also incentivized throughout the five-year program period by being awarded additional points for participation, which may lead to states pursuing compact legislation in the coming years. Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities Set to Expire During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS issued numerous flexibilities that authorized broader telehealth use to expand access to care. Flexibilities included expansion of certain audio-only services, geographic areas and patient locations, and additional provider types eligible to deliver telehealth services. Current policy authorizes these pandemic-related telehealth flexibilities through January 30, 2026. Without permanent extension of these flexibilities, Medicare coverage for telehealth services beyond January 30, 2026, telehealth will again be limited to patients living in rural areas and to certain services, providers, and facilities. Physician Fee Schedule Changes CMS establishes the annual Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), which sets payment policy for health care services provided by physicians and other professionals to Medicare beneficiaries. The 2026 PFS includes new codes for RPM that allow providers to tailor monitoring frequency and engagement levels to meet patient needs. These codes, and the expansion of RPM, allow providers to effectively monitor health indicators such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose, and respiratory flow rates, to manage health issues. By regularly monitoring a patient’s health status, a provider can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and emergency department visits. Additionally, the PFS streamlined the process for adding eligible telehealth services for reimbursement by removing distinction between permanent and provisional services and focusing review on whether services can be delivered via telehealth. State Legislation Impacting Telehealth Delivery States are also developing policy solutions to enable broader access to telehealth services, including expansion of audio-only and RPM services. Audio-only telehealth services are the use of communications technology, without a visual component, to deliver synchronous health care services. This modality can ensure continuity of and access to care for patients who live in areas with limited broadband and/or those who lack access to a video-enabled device. In 2025, at least four states enacted laws related to audio-only telehealth services. This includes at least three states that extended coverage that would have otherwise expired. In Hawaii, SB 1281 extended the expiration of the state’s coverage of certain audio-only behavioral health services through 2027, while Minnesota (HF 2) took a similar approach to audio-only telehealth services, including certain behavioral health and substance use disorder services, through July 1, 2027. Similarly, Maryland (SB 372/HB 869) removed the sunset date for coverage of audio-only telehealth services. And more broadly, Missouri (SB 79) clarified the state’s telehealth definition to include audio-only technologies. RPM uses digital devices to monitor a patient’s health by collecting and sharing health information with providers. RPM is particularly effective for management of chronic conditions, allowing providers to engage in shared decision making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes through more regular monitoring. In recent years, several states enacted legislation to expand access to RPM including two bills in Louisiana. Enacted in 2024, HB 896 established the Louisiana RPM program for Medicaid patients with chronic conditions and a history of high-cost services, with the goal of improved care coordination and reduced costs. Then in 2025, SB 70 expanded these criteria to include pregnant and postpartum women and infants following discharge from the NICU. In Maryland, HB 553 specifies that the Medicaid program must cover the equipment and provider oversight of blood pressure monitoring for eligible recipients, including pregnant and postpartum individuals and those with chronic health conditions. Lastly, Virginia enacted SB 843 which directs the state Medicaid agency to develop a plan and cost estimate for expanding Medicaid eligibility for RPM for patients with chronic conditions. State and territorial health agencies can encourage public health programs to incorporate telehealth and propose policy solutions that enable broader utilization of telehealth modalities across the entire jurisdiction. States that are interested in expanding access to telehealth can visit ASTHO’s Telehealth Project Initiation and Scoping Assessment to conduct a review and identify opportunities to expand access to telehealth, particularly related to policy, infrastructure, and funding. UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health: Lessons from the 2025 and 2018-2019 Closures Catherine Jones Learn about the government shutdown effects on public health, with insights from the 2025 and 2018-2019 closures. When the federal government shuts down, it exposes vulnerabilities in our public health ecosystem. It also brings to light the critical role state and territorial health departments play to protect the health of their jurisdictions. While the political dynamics behind each shutdown may vary, the consequences are unfailingly disruptive. Some federal agencies and programs continue under mandatory or advance appropriations, but the day-to-day machinery that keeps the federal public health system functioning — workforce, oversight, and technical assistance — is impacted. Federal employees from shuttered agencies are either furloughed or required to work without pay if their roles are deemed essential to public safety, as with certain functions of HHS and FDA, among others. The effects of a shutdown can be temporary or long-lasting. In the past, Congress enacted guardrails to reduce the harm of future funding lapses, but the unpredictable nature of each shutdown ensures that disruption, loss, and hardship follow. A comparison of the 2025 and 2018-2019 shutdowns displays this impact — with the 2025 impasse becoming the longest shutdown in U.S. history, surpassing the 35-day record set during the December 2018 to January 2019 closure. Key Differences Between the Shutdowns The 2018-2019 shutdown, which was sparked over a funding fight for the U.S-Mexico border wall, spared HHS because the FY2019 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act had already been enacted before the funding lapse. As a result, core public-health agencies — including CMS, CDC, HRSA, and SAMHSA — continued operating. However, the programs funded through the Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill (e.g., SNAP, WIC, and FDA) were impacted, but the disruptions were somewhat contained: FDA paused some food and drug inspections, while SNAP and WIC administrators worked to stretch timing buffers to sustain benefits. The 2025 shutdown, by contrast, impacted HHS. Disputes over the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, (H.R. 5371), also known as a continuing resolution (CR) — compounded by an acrimonious stalemate over extending the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits (analyses show premiums could more than double in 2026 without extensions) and reversing Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill — placed health care directly in the shutdown’s epicenter. After 14 failed attempts to move the CR in the Senate, the measure was revised to extend federal funding through Jan. 30, 2026, and to reverse the Reductions in Force (RIFs) enacted during the lapse in appropriations. This CR was combined with three additional minibus appropriations packages, which included the Agriculture-FDA bill that funds SNAP and WIC through FY2026. On Nov. 10, the Senate narrowly mustered the 60 votes needed for passage, with eight Democratic senators joining in support. The bill then cleared the House on Nov. 12 with a 222-209 vote, and President Trump signed it the same day. The result of the 43-day shutdown was a deeper and more systemic breakdown. Furloughs and RIFs swept across agencies. Staffing gaps impacted CDC, SAMHSA, and CMS operations, while lawsuits proliferated over withheld pay, suspended contracts, and SNAP payment distribution. As of now, ACA subsidies remain unresolved, and the full repercussions of the 2025 shutdown continue to emerge. A Closer Look at the Shutdown Impacts Furloughs In 2025, the HHS contingency plan anticipated furloughing roughly 41% of its workforce, with CDC and NIH hit hardest — about 64% and 75% of staff, respectively. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, about 48% of HHS staff were furloughed, with CDC at 61% and NIH at 76%. After the 2018-2019 shutdown, Congress enacted the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, ensuring that all furloughed federal employees receive retroactive back pay once operations resume. The current CR provides a provision requiring the payment of federal employees who are furloughed or excepted during the lapse. Government contractors, unlike direct federal employees, are not guaranteed back pay after shutdowns. RIFs During the 2025 shutdown, CDC issued more than a thousand layoff notices, some later rescinded, while SAMHSA reported significant workforce losses. There were no RIFs during the 2018-2019 shutdown. In AFGE v. Donald J. Trump, federal-worker unions challenged the administration’s issuance of mass layoff notices during the 2025 shutdown, arguing that RIFs during a funding lapse violate the Antideficiency Act and are “arbitrary and capricious.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking further RIFs for hundreds of employees. This case is currently ongoing. To note, as part of the revised aforementioned CR, RIFs issued during this shutdown were reversed, returning to status quo workforce levels prior to the lapse of appropriations. WIC WIC entered October 2025 with funds from Section 32, providing $300 million as a bridge. Nationally, on average, WIC (a discretionary program) needs about $150 million per week to serve approximately 7 million women, infants, and children. To support access, several states tapped emergency funds and reallocated resources to food banks. In early November, the Trump Administration transferred $450 million from unused customs revenue to fund WIC. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, WIC continued to operate without gaps using prior-year funds. SNAP Roughly 42 million Americans currently rely on SNAP benefits. SNAP is considered mandatory spending, which allows payments to continue temporarily during a shutdown, but when a lapse exceeds 30 days, disruption risk escalates. During the 2025 shutdown, EBT payment delays triggered widespread litigation. In Coalition of States v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, over 25 states sued USDA for suspending benefits despite available contingency funds, citing violations of the Food and Nutrition Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal courts issued temporary restraining orders protecting millions of beneficiaries. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court to halt payments, and the Court granted the request. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, SNAP participants received benefits in December 2018 and January 2019. February benefits were also distributed in late January to avoid disruptions; these were not additional benefits. Tribal Health In 2025, the Indian Health Service remained open due to FY2026 enacted advance appropriations. This funding was in part a reaction to the dire consequences of the 2018-2019 shutdown in which the Tribal and Urban health programs reported having to limit health care services and resources, due to Indian Health Service employees having to work without pay or being furloughed. Unique Implications of the 2025 Shutdown As previously noted, because Congress fully funded HHS in 2018-2019 there was minimal impact on public health programs. However, the length and scope of the 2025 shutdown did impact HHS directly. For example: Mental health: Mental and behavioral health access contracted sharply as SAMHSA’s state-support network lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, due to shutdown RIFs as well as earlier rounds of layoffs and retirements. At-home care and telehealth: During the 2025 government shutdown, hospitals nationwide faced delayed Medicare reimbursements and the temporary suspension of hospital-at-home programs, which had become vital for managing capacity during workforce shortages. Telehealth expansion and remote monitoring efforts were also paused, causing many patients to pay out of pocket. U.S. territories: The pause on SNAP and the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) funding in November had disproportionate impacts on the U.S. territories, as higher percentages of their populations depend on SNAP and NAP (20%-40%). In three territories, legislatures passed bills to fund partial or full SNAP and NAP benefits for November. Implications for the Future of Public Health The 2025 shutdown underscored that lapses in government funding disrupt the public health ecosystem. A fully functioning system relies on steady collaboration from federal, state, local, and tribal health departments. The depth of the 2025 crisis has ignited bipartisan discussion about structural fixes to prevent governing by brinkmanship. Proposed congressional legislation includes bills to stabilize federal pay with automatic funding, contain congressional travel and adjournment until appropriations are complete, guarantee pay for federal workers and contractors, prevent disruption to SNAP and WIC programs, and ensure reimbursement to states. Padding Block - Large Related Contnet - Blog - Government Shutdown Effects on Public Health article yes

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

Read about deference to ACIP vaccine recommendations in state and territorial vaccine policy, following recent changes to the committee.

Learn about health legislative priorities through the end of 2025, related to Medicaid and Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, site-neutral payments, and more.

Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations for COVID-19 and MMRV Vaccines Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations Susan Kansagra, Andy Baker-White, Meredith Allen, Kimberly Martin, Ericka McGowan Learn about the downstream effects of CDC adopting ACIP recommendations for COVID-19 and MMRV vaccines, as states examine how their policies and laws intersect. On Oct. 6, CDC adopted the recommendations that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made in September — specifically, individual-based decision-making for COVID-19 vaccine and separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and the varicella vaccine in toddlers. The adoption of these recommendations now sets in motion a cascade of other processes that influence access to vaccines. In addition, several states have begun to examine how their state level policy and laws intersect with ACIP recommendations given the delay in adoption and the uncertainty of the process going forward. COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendation CDC adopted the recommendation for shared clinical decision-making for the COVID-19 vaccine for those six months and older. The adoption of this ACIP recommendation has a ripple effect on coverage and access: It enables states to begin ordering COVID-19 vaccine under the Vaccines for Children program. It allows state Medicaid programs that link coverage to ACIP recommendations to cover the cost of the vaccine. It enables pharmacists to provide the COVID-19 vaccine under the federal PREP act declaration — as opposed to or in addition to state law, which varies by state. Many state health departments issued standing orders and executive orders to enable pharmacists to administer in the meantime. It requires health insurers to cover the cost of the vaccine, as the Affordable Care Act ties insurance coverage requirements to ACIP recommendations. Though, prior to the meeting, health insurers indicated they would do so anyway this year. MMRV Recommendation The CDC also adopted the recommendation for separate varicella (V) and measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccines rather than the MMRV vaccine (combined measles, mumps, rubella, varicella) for children under four years. As background, current guidance allows either MMRV or MMR + V to be administered to children 12-47 months. However, because of a small but higher risk of febrile seizures for dose one, they are recommended to be administered separately (MMR + V), unless families express a preference for MMRV. Only about 15% of children currently receive MMRV for the first dose, and the general consensus is that this decision will result in some changes but not significantly impact access to vaccines: The adoption of this recommendation means that VFC will no longer cover MMRV for children under four, but it continues to cover separate MMR and V vaccines. Since many state Medicaid plans tie vaccine coverage to ACIP recommendations, coverage of MMRV by state Medicaid will vary depending on this language, though separate MMR and V vaccines would continue to be covered. Private insurers can choose to cover MMRV and will likely continue to in the short term but are not required to. They are required to cover separate MMR and V vaccines. How States Are Preparing for the Future As it stands now, ACIP recommendations, particularly for respiratory viral season, are not that different than prior years – with influenza, RSV, and the COVID-19 vaccine recommended (the latter with shared clinical decision making). However, the delayed and unpredictable process has led many states to examine how closely they are tied to ACIP in law, regulation, or practice. Over 600 statutes across U.S. states and territories reference ACIP — whether for pharmacist vaccine authority, school entry, health care worker or other requirements. States have considered a variety of actions to ensure they maintain access to vaccinations for their jurisdictions including: Passing or introducing legislation that allows the state health department to use ACIP guidance from previous years or recommendations from other bodies (e.g., medical provider organizations) in state law, as it relates to school entry, pharmacist authority, and others. Issuing standing orders and executive orders to enable pharmacists to administer vaccines in the absence of ACIP recommendations. Examining Medicaid state plan language to determine how to interpret requirements when ACIP is referenced and considering updates to that language (e.g., North Carolina). Issuing state requirements for insurers on vaccine coverage (e.g., Oregon, California, Hawaii). Examining use of state funds to purchase vaccines. Supplemental Resources Tracking State Actions on Vaccine Policy and Access by KFF Vaccine Resources by the Common Health Coalition States Take Action to “Immunize” Vaccine Access by Mandy Cohen, Julian Polaris, and Liz Dervan Vaccine Integrity Project — Fall Immunization Information by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Special Thanks - Blog - Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations Padding Block - Large Related Content - Blog - Downstream Effects of CDC Adopting ACIP Recommendations article yes

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

Learn about public health strategies for preventing chronic disease that intersect with themes in MAHA report including nutrition and physical activity.

Federal funding that supports public healthy emergency preparedness is critical. Read the latest on PAHPA and more in the Health Policy Update.

Learn how to use strategic public health messaging to effectively gain support from decision-makers and drive change.

Learn about four Congressional hearings focused on challenges affecting older adults, including inflation and opioids.

State and territorial health officials gathered on Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and discuss public health priorities—learn more about Hill Day in this blog post.

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.

Cases of sepsis and septic shock can be prevented with strong health policies as shown in New York. Several states have taken action to enact mandatory early detection and treatment protocols.

Read ASTHO's latest on how appropriations bills and budget cuts could affect the Debt Ceiling and the U.S. economy.

Learn about chairs of key committees in the 119th Congress, their priorities, and what may be in store for public health funding in this federal health policy update.

Explore how states are enacting legislation to help justice-involved people avoid overdose illness and death and foster a smooth transition after release.

Learn about the importance of immunization information systems to public health in this Health Policy Update.