Displaying 1-20 of 271 results for

ASTHO’s federal and state government experts provide our members with guidance and education on public health policy development and legislation.

Explore the mapping center, which tracks state and territorial legislation promoting suicide prevention efforts.

The State Health Policy portfolio includes an annual legislative prospectus series. These briefs summarize upcoming legislation proposals that impact public health across the states and territories.

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

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Previewing 2025 state legislative actions on data modernization and privacy.

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

Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding and Administration in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Public Health Funding in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping public health funding and administration in 2026, including increased funding for behavioral health and other areas. Decades of underinvestment in the nation’s public health system have impacted agencies’ ability to respond to health challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of a chronically under-resourced sector tasked with responding to a global emergency. While public health has received influxes of funding through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan Act over the last five years, both were temporary injections of funding in response to COVID-19. There have been efforts to provide longer term funding for public health improvements through the Public Health Infrastructure Grant and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, but this funding faces an uncertain future: There have been multiple reductions in federal funding to the Prevention and Public Health Fund since its creation in 2010. Moreover, state public health agencies are preparing for the possibility of federal funding being reduced or cancelled. This, coupled with balanced budget requirements, is driving states to explore ways to improve their public health investments while bolstering infrastructure — focusing on health departments’ core services, and ensuring access to quality public health programs at the state and local levels. Increased Funding for Public Health In 2025, 47 states enacted or will enact budget bills. While overall nationwide funding for public health in FY26 was roughly equivalent to FY25, at least half of the state health departments had some form of increased funding (e.g., Medicaid, provider reimbursement rates, and specific public health initiatives and programs). For example: Behavioral Health: Colorado SB 25-206 included a $1.6 million increase in funding to provide behavioral health services in primary care settings. Certification: Illinois SB 2510 includes a $6 million increase to support licensing, inspecting, and certifying health care facilities for compliance with state and federal regulations. Maternal and Child Health: Georgia HB 68 provided a nearly $3 million increase in funding to expand a pilot program that provides home visits in at-risk and underserved communities during pregnancy and early childhood. Rural Health: Arizona’s budget bills include $4 million to expand access to health care through the development of rural medical residency programs. School-Based Health Centers: Delaware HB 225 appropriates funding to develop school-based health centers in elementary schools with more than 90% of students classified as low-income, multilingual learners, or underrepresented minorities. Leg Prospectus-2026 - Funding - Rural Health Improved Public Health Administration Several states passed legislation restructuring their public health systems. Nevada enacted SB 494, dividing the previous Department of Health and Human Services into two separate agencies. The bill gives the new health agency, called the Nevada Health Authority, the authority to oversee health programs (e.g., Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), manage health care compliance and consumer health services, and develop policy that improves health care access and cost efficiency. Hawaii’s HB 1120 formally gives the Department of Health the authority to prevent, address, and abate any issues that pose a threat to public health and/or environmental health, such as toxic materials, vector-borne diseases, and climate change. More than half of U.S. state health agencies are decentralized or largely decentralized, meaning many public health services are provided by city, county, or regional health departments that are separate from the state health agency. In 2025, at least two states enacted legislation enhancing local health departments’ abilities to provide core public health services: Utah SB 172 requires the Department of Environmental Quality to enter into cooperative agreements with local health departments to prevent and respond to potential health and safety threats from the environment. It also establishes a governance committee of state and local health department personnel to evaluate proposed policy changes affecting local health departments and ensure allocated resources meet the minimum performance standard. Washington HB 1946 modifies the membership requirements for local health boards, allowing federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands in the board’s jurisdiction to have members on the board. It also allows urban Indian organizations recognized by the Indian Health Service that provide services within that jurisdiction to have members. Looking Ahead ASTHO anticipates states and territories will continue considering and adopting legislation to provide state funding for public health and improve public health infrastructure, including those that: Create contingency plans or rainy-day funds in the event of reduced federal funding. Establish partnerships with neighboring states to share health data. Promote sharing services and resources within local health departments. Leverage regionalization as a tool to consolidate and share scarce public health resources. Adapt the funding and management of public health grants to ensure efficiency. Improve public health data systems to promote greater efficiency. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

ASTHO Legislative Prospectus | Prevention 2025 state legislative action on infectious disease control and prevention.

2023 Legislative Prospectus Series As part of our comprehensive State Health Policy portfolio, ASTHO provides an annual legislative prospectus—a series of briefs summarizing upcoming legislation proposals that impact public health from across the states and territories. The legislative prospectus series anticipates trends in public health law for the next year and provides a short review for public health professionals and legislators alike to help bring them up to speed in time for upcoming legislative sessions. This page contains an archive of the 2023 Legislative Prospectus entries. website no

The State Health Policy portfolio includes an annual legislative prospectus series. These briefs summarize upcoming legislation proposals that impact public health across the states and territories.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authority has been used to require the use of face masks and encourage social distancing, and other measures. In several states these legal authorities have been challenged and, in many jurisdictions, limited or eliminated by the legislature. Maintaining the legal authority to prevent and control the spread of infectious disease is crucial to preparing for and addressing disease outbreaks.

ASTHO’s legislative prospectus on Immunization Information Systems, Health Information Exchanges, and balancing data privacy with sharing

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

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

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

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.

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