Displaying 20 results for

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

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

Ripple Effect: What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law Andy Baker-White This Health Policy Update highlights how U.S. states and territories are using policy to codify important public health recommendations. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a volunteer panel of national experts that issues evidence-based letter-grade recommendations on clinical preventive services. Under the Affordable Care Act, services with an A or B grade must be covered by most private health insurance plans without cost-sharing, with similar requirements for Medicaid enrollees and Medicare beneficiaries. An estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that in 2020, these services reached approximately 264 million Americans. States and territories implement these recommendations through statutes and rules. ASTHO identified over 200 state and territorial laws referencing the USPSTF, including in insurance statutes, Medicaid rules, disease-specific laws, and state employee health plan requirements. Over the past year, the stability of USPSTF recommendations has come into question. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood confirmed the HHS Secretary’s authority to block USPSTF recommendations and remove task force members. News reports in July 2025 indicated that HHS Secretary Kennedy intended to remove all USPSTF members, and in May 2026 fired the chair and vice-chair of the task force. Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories. In addition, if the USPSTF fails to convene in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services. To meet these challenges, states and territories are taking steps to ensure the continued scientific basis for preventive health services within their own law. Dynamic References to USPSTF Recommendations States and territories often use dynamic references to USPSTF recommendations in regulating health plan coverage of preventive services. This allows the jurisdiction to automatically require coverage for the most current USPSTF recommendations. Laws in West Virginia (state employee health plans), Oregon (regulated health plans), Hawaii (health director standing orders), and Alaska (adult Medicaid enrollees) use this approach. While dynamic references allow jurisdictions to stay up to date with the recommendations, if the task force withdraws any guidance, then those preventive services would no longer require no-cost coverage without additional action from those jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions address this by specifying that certain USPSTF guidance changes will not apply. For example, Guam’s law requires continued no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings and authorizes the health director to adjust diabetes screening recommendations if USPSTF recommendations cease. Illinois specifies that the 2009 USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening and mammography are not to be considered current because national medical bodies created differing recommendations for screening. Another way jurisdictions avoid the unpredictability of using dynamic references is locking in the date of the USPSTF recommendations that are used for coverage requirements. For example, Massachusetts requires its state employee health plan to cover USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect by July 1, 2023. Using a version of USPSTF recommendations from a specific date maintains a base level of coverage regardless of future changes, though adopting new recommendations or removing outdated recommendations would require separate action. During this year’s legislative sessions, several states enacted or proposed legislation to remove dynamic USPSTF references. For example, Maryland passed legislation (HB 637 and SB 385) to lock in the USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect on December 31, 2024. Washington enacted HB 2242 requiring coverage of USPSTF A and B recommendations in effect on June 30, 2025, as well as recommendations adopted by the state insurance commissioner. A bill passed in Delaware, HB 338, would require the use of the USPSTF recommendations from January 1, 2025. Overall, however, neither dynamic nor fixed references to USPSTF recommendations address how jurisdictions can keep up with new scientific data and advances in preventive services in the absence of ongoing USPSTF review and recommendations. To fill this need, some states have enacted legislation that creates processes for reviewing data and establishing recommendations. For example, the new Maryland law mentioned above also authorizes the state’s health secretary to adopt preventive service recommendations that have not been recommended by or that differ from USPSTF. The new process requires notice and a 30-day comment period, an analysis by the Maryland Health Care Commission, and citations to the authoritative medical body upon which the recommendation is based. Disease-Specific Statutes: USPSTF Grades as Care Standards and Thresholds Many states also use USPSTF grades as thresholds for specific preventive services, establishing the standard of care, or issuing standing orders. For example, Arkansas law defines "follow-up colonoscopy" by reference to a colorectal screening assigned an A or B grade by the USPSTF, while Nevada’s law directs primary care providers to use criteria set out in USPSTF recommendations to screen adult women for BRCA mutations. In Hawaii, the state health director is authorized to issue public health standing orders for current USPSTF A and B recommended services, and in Idaho the law uses USPSTF guidance for applying ocular antibiotic prophylaxis to newborns as the standard for medical practice in the state. Some states are considering legislation to distance preventive service coverage requirements from USPSTF recommendations. For example, while New Jersey's current law requires no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings in accordance with the method and frequency recommended by the USPSTF, introduced legislation (A4916 and S4254) would remove the reference to USPSTF recommendations and instead authorize one screening per year for persons aged 33 or older. More broadly, Hawaii considered legislation (HB 1898 and SB 3133) that would have authorized the state’s health department to “make recommendations relating to clinical preventive service recommendations of the [USPSTF] Force that have been assigned a grade of A or B as of July 1, 2025” and require no-cost coverage for the department’s recommendations. However, this legislation did not pass. State Employee Benefit Plans USPSTF recommendations may also be used to establish preventive health services covered by state employee health plans. A West Virginia statute requires the state’s employee health plans to cover mammograms consistent with "current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force," while the health plan document further states that preventive services are "subject to change as USPSTF…recommendations are updated.” In Ohio, a regulation requires state employee health benefits include all USPSTF-recommended tobacco cessation services and authorizes the state health director to update covered services if USPSTF guidance changes. Missouri law requires full coverage of USPSTF graded A and B recommended prescription and prescribed over-the-counter drugs for state plan members. The Path Forward USPSTF recommendations have helped millions of Americans receive critical health services at no cost, and states and territories have built practices, programs, and standards on that foundation. From adopting fixed-date references to establishing state-level recommendation authority to creating new state review bodies, legislative activity this year reflects a broad effort to address ripple effects from potential future changes to or lack of USPSTF guidance. Health officials may be asked to assess their jurisdiction’s laws and their use of USPSTF recommendations, and coordinate with insurance commissioners, Medicaid directors, and employee benefits administrators to confirm consistent agency interpretation and identify where action is needed. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policies as they develop. article yes

One in three individuals who contract COVID-19 will experience lasting mental health impacts, according to a recent study. This startling discovery underscores the reality facing our nation: the challenges of this last year—the public health and economic ramifications of COVID-19, coupled with the longstanding racial and ethnic inequities that it highlighted—will be felt for years, if not decades, to come.

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.

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.

Federal and state legislation can play a role in promoting positive infant mental health by providing funding and policies that support early intervention, caregiver assistance, and the creation of nurturing environments conducive to their emotional well-being.

Public health officials from all levels of government are working to respond to the existing outbreak of monkeypox, while preparing for the potential of more widespread transmission.

This week might have marked the beginning of summer, but many policymakers and health officials have their eye on the upcoming school year and what that might mean in terms of getting students vaccinated against COVID-19. According to a recent MMWR, COVID-19 related hospitalizations among adolescents increased in March and April 2021, potentially related to increased circulation of new COVID-19 variants, changes in physical distancing, and a larger number of children returning to school or other in-person indoor activities. This increase indicates an urgent need for vaccination against COVID-19, which is currently authorized for use in youth as young as 12.

As the number of COVID-19 vaccinations grows, some states are looking at their vaccination rates to determine when to loosen measures that mitigate the spread of COVID-19, such as venue capacity limits, business closure times, and masking requirements. As vaccinations allow businesses to reopen and customers to return, questions have arisen about whether venues or services—especially those that bring people in close contact for long periods of times—such as retail stores, concert venues, entertainment venues, air travel, cruise ships, etc., can require patrons or customers to verify that they received a COVID-19 vaccine. So far, state policy makers have had mixed views on the issue.

A pressing public health issue before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the need for public health interventions to reduce tobacco use is heightened with a strong association between tobacco use, in all forms, with severe COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., claiming approximately 480,000 deaths each year. Evidence-based policies to reduce tobacco use like raising the age of sale to 21, increasing tobacco pricing, and prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products are common public health strategies enacted through state legislation. As anticipated in ASTHO’s 2021 Legislative Prospectus on E-Cigarettes, states are considering many of these evidenced-based tobacco reduction strategies during the 2021 legislative sessions.

Policymakers seek to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by focusing on non-congregate sheltering and alternative housing for unhoused populations.

This Health Policy Update is an overview of policy strategies that states have taken at the executive and legislative levels to increase the healthcare workforce to more effectively and efficiently respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving a State’s Process for Disclosing Data for Public Health Purposes to Tribal Public Health Organizations

States Stay Prepared by Supporting the Public Health Workforce Margaret Nilz, Christina Severin Learn how states use policy to support emergency preparedness and bolster the public health workforce. Public health — particularly public health preparedness — continues to experience workforce shortages, driven by longstanding systemic challenges such as chronic underfunding, high turnover, limited recruitment, and an aging workforce. While some jurisdictions report increased capacity to hire and train public health staff in recent years, they often rely on short-term or temporary funding streams, which limit long-term sustainability. State, local, tribal, and territorial health agencies have varying capacities to respond to public health emergencies, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Because a limited workforce can inhibit emergency preparedness efforts, jurisdictions recognize the importance of cultivating a resilient public health preparedness workforce to respond to future emergencies. In recent years, jurisdictions have pursued several policy interventions to bolster the public health preparedness workforce such as legislation supporting front-line clinical staff and first responders, and rulemaking and other executive powers to provide structural and financial support to critical personnel. Legislative Efforts Legislative efforts to increase benefits and support for health care and public health workers can help address the root causes of workforce challenges and lay the groundwork for sustainable, long-term investment in public health preparedness. Laws that establish standards and expectations for the preparedness workforce, including expansions of benefits or additional training, support workforce growth and retention. Since 2024, several jurisdictions expanded mental health benefits and related support for first responders and other preparedness personnel. Both Alaska (SB 103) and California (AB 2859) enacted legislation that allows peer support programs for emergency service personnel. In Alaska, the bill creates programs for entities such as law enforcement agencies, firefighters, and emergency dispatchers, while California’s bill creates programs to serve a variety of health care providers involved in emergency medical care, including physicians, nurses, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Utah enacted HB 378, which requires the Department of Public Safety to annually distribute information about its critical incident stress management program to first responder agencies. The bill also requires first responder agencies to annually notify employees about the availability of mental health resources, including periodic screenings for employees and continued support for retired or separated first responders and their spouses. On a broader scale, Hawaii SB 3279 recently established a well-being project tasked with mental health trainings and support for several community organizations, including first responders, hospitals, and medical staff. In Washington, HB 2311 directs the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission to develop resources for first responder wellness, including a peer support network for active and retired first responders and their families. States have also enacted legislation expanding traditional employment-related benefits, including Colorado (HB 24-1219), which expanded certain health benefits for firefighters to include part-time and volunteer firefighters, and Idaho HB 55, which allows retired public employees to volunteer with public employers without it being considered reemployment. In addition, Georgia HB 451 requires state and local entities to provide disability benefits for first responders who experience occupational or volunteer-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Finally, several jurisdictions enacted legislation to support education and training for their public health and health care workforce. For example, Kentucky HB 484 established an emergency medical service education grant program that provides tuition support for students pursuing paramedic certification, wage reimbursement to ambulance providers whose employees pursue certification, and funding for institutions planning to offer EMT, advanced EMT, and paramedic programs. Oklahoma HB 1696 expands eligibility for the Oklahoma Medical Loan Repayment program to include certified nurse practitioners. Two new laws in Puerto Rico require police officers with the Puerto Rico Police Bureau to be certified in first aid or immediate rescue (PC 0859) and adds seminars on sign language, suicide prevention, and conflict mediation to the Bureau’s continuing education training (PC 0543). Other Policy Levers: Beyond the Legislature Jurisdictions can also use non-legislative policy tools to enhance workforce capacity in public health preparedness. This includes rulemaking, where executive agencies use existing legal authority to adopt or amend regulations. Regulations have the force of law and can help support the public health workforce by establishing licensure standards, training requirements, and operational protocols. Wisconsin, following the enactment of AB 576 in 2024, is developing rules to establish a program for peer support and critical stress management teams in the state. And Utah recently adopted rules for its first responder mental health services grant, which helps these professionals pursue a degree or certification as a mental health provider. Government agencies can also leverage grants and contracts to fund and otherwise direct workforce development initiatives, support training programs, and expand capacity in targeted areas. Jurisdictions can strategically direct funds to address skill gaps and assist local, state, tribal, and territorial agencies build a more resilient workforce. One example of this is in Michigan, where in 2024 the state health agency issued a request for grant proposals to award up to $9 million in EMS workforce grants, building on similar awards to address EMS shortages in 2023. Executive orders are another policy option for jurisdictions to consider as they explore different pathways to workforce sustainability. Executive orders are issued by a jurisdiction’s chief executive (often the governor) and direct certain policy actions or activities. Generally, the power to issue an executive order comes from existing law or a jurisdiction’s constitution and, in most cases, does not require legislative approval or review. Several states have leveraged executive orders to advance the public health workforce and support preparedness activities more specifically. For example, Vermont and New Jersey have recently used executive orders to create or extend advisory councils on issues pertinent to public health preparedness. In 2024, Virginia’s governor issued an executive order formalizing the Office of First Responder Wellness, which provides training, counseling, and other resources to first responders in Virginia. In 2023, the governor of Maryland issued an executive order establishing a State of Preparedness directive if there is a risk of public emergency, and the actions state agencies must undertake to promote improved coordination and hazard planning. Key Takeaways Addressing public health emergency preparedness workforce challenges demands strategic, long-term policy solutions, but several implementation options are available. Health agencies can pursue a variety of policy interventions to support and prepare their public health workforce for future emergencies. ASTHO will continue to monitor this important issue and provide updates as appropriate. article yes

This blog post discusses mitigating risks of AI use in government agencies, emphasizing privacy, transparency, and ethical concerns.

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

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

State issued documents, such as birth certificates, are often required to navigate daily life. Vital records policy is a complex and evolving issue with many of the processes and procedures left to jurisdictional policy-makers.

ASTHO staff identified a range of evidence-supported policies considered by state legislatures that could prevent ACEs. This report synthesizes these research and policy proposals and is intended for public health practitioners and policymakers who are considering adopting similar policies.