Displaying 1-20 of 31 results for

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

States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes

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

Learn about legislation in island areas from the past year to strengthen infrastructure, prevention strategies, health care oversight, and more.

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

Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots Legislative Snapshot: Suicide Prevention Infrastructure and AI Chatbots JoAnne Deehr Suicides continue to be a critical public health issue — learn how states are leveraging policy to improve suicide prevention. Suicide remains a persistent public health challenge, affecting people of all ages, racial and ethnic groups, geographic regions, and income levels in the United States. Despite ongoing prevention efforts, more than 49,300 Americans died by suicide in 2023. National suicide rates steadily rose from 2003 until 2018 and have remained high since then, reflecting an enduring and widespread impact. While all communities are affected by suicide, certain demographics face higher risks. Disproportionately higher rates of suicide are seen among elderly Americans, Veterans, individuals with lower income, less education, and those living in rural areas. People in certain industries, such as mining, construction, and public safety, are also at elevated risk. At the same time, emerging technologies like chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have raised new considerations related to safety, oversight, and appropriate use in mental health settings, underscoring the need for thoughtful state approaches to suicide prevention. Policymakers are responding to these challenges in multiple ways, including establishing state suicide prevention infrastructure and regulating AI chatbot use in mental health. Suicide Prevention Infrastructure Legislation Suicide prevention efforts are most effective when states and territories have dedicated infrastructure — such as suicide prevention offices, coordinators, commissions, and fatality review processes — to support coordination, surveillance, and implementation of evidence-based strategies. These structures enable state and territorial health agencies to identify populations and communities at increased risk, align partners across public health, health care, and public safety, and pursue sustainable funding for suicide prevention and crisis system improvements. ASTHO’s Suicide Prevention Offices and Committees Legal Map highlights the varied policy approaches states have taken to establish this infrastructure and identifies which states had statutory suicide prevention structures in place as of January 1, 2025. During the 2025 legislative session, states considered at least 30 bills related to establishing suicide prevention offices, coordinators, advisory bodies, and suicide fatality reviews. Five of these bills were enacted, including Delaware’s HB 54 which establishes the state’s Office of Suicide Prevention. Delaware also enacted HB 87, expanding membership in the state’s Suicide Prevention Coalition to include someone who has experienced suicidal ideation or survived a suicide attempt and someone who has lost a loved one to suicide. Conversely, Oklahoma enacted SB 676, repealing the section of the state’s Suicide Prevention Act that established the Oklahoma Suicide Prevention Council, which was slated to sunset in 2020. The council was originally tasked with identifying issues and promoting strategies to prevent suicide, and providing technical assistance on best practices for identifying people at risk of suicide. The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services still serves as the leading agency for implementing the remainder of tasks outlined in the Act. Illinois and Texas enacted legislation establishing advisory bodies focused on suicide prevention among first responders. In Texas, HB 1593 creates a committee to study suicide prevention and peer support programs within fire departments and requires a report with recommendations by September 2026. In Illinois, HB 2551 reconstitutes the First Responders Suicide Prevention Task Force, and increases membership in the task force to include a member from an organization that provides mental health training and support to first responders and two members who represent organizations that advocate on behalf of public safety telecommunicators, such as 911 operators and dispatchers. The bill also charges the task force with developing a final report by December 2026. Both bodies are scheduled to sunset in January 2027. Currently, Wisconsin has several types of fatality review teams operating through voluntary efforts with no law formally establishing or governing these teams. Wisconsin is considering SB 192, which would formally establish processes for reviewing fatalities, including deaths by suicide. It would also direct the Department of Health Services to establish a fatality review program comprised of established local teams and authorize the department to establish state fatality review teams. AI Chatbots While states continue to strengthen suicide prevention infrastructure, policymakers are beginning to turn their attention to emerging mental health considerations related to AI. Since emerging in the 1950s, AI has evolved from rule-based systems to today's machine learning and natural language processing applications, powering everything from data analysis to interactive chatbots. Recent AI advances enable chatbots to simulate human conversation so convincingly that users may forget they are interacting with a machine. However, these systems lack genuine empathy and cannot substitute for professional mental health treatment. Their tendency to be excessively agreeable creates particular dangers for people experiencing suicidal ideation, leading some states to explore regulations governing AI chatbot use in mental health and suicide prevention contexts. At least 19 states considered legislation regulating the use of AI for mental health related reasons to promote user safety. At least five bills were enacted, including California SB 243, which requires chatbot platform operators to disclose that users are interacting with AI if confusion could occur, develop protocols to prevent and respond to suicidal ideation or self-harm, and report annually on safety measures to the state Office of Suicide Prevention. The California legislature also passed AB 1064, which the Governor subsequently vetoed due to concerns that its broad restrictions on AI companion chatbots for minors could limit access to potentially beneficial tools. Illinois and Nevada passed legislation that largely prohibits AI from providing behavioral health services. Illinois HB 1806 restricts the use of AI for therapy or psychotherapy unless delivered by a licensed professional who is required to inform the patient, or their legal representative, in writing and receive consent. The law also prohibits licensed professionals from allowing AI to make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly with clients and allows the use of AI only for administrative or supplemental tasks under professional oversight. Nevada AB 406 similarly prohibits AI systems from providing or representing themselves as offering professional mental or behavioral health care, prohibits AI from performing the functions of a school counselor, psychologist, or social worker in public schools, and allows licensed professionals to use AI only for administrative or supportive purposes, with oversight to ensure accuracy and safety. New York and Utah passed laws requiring mental health chatbots to clearly disclose that they are not human. As part of their annual budget, New York S 3008 mandates that AI companion systems capable of simulating human-like interactions detect suicidal ideation or self-harm, provide crisis referrals, and regularly disclose that users are interacting with AI rather than a person. Utah HB 452 requires AI-driven mental health chatbots to provide clear disclosures and limits advertising and data practices. At the federal level, on December 11, 2025, the White House issued an executive order seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence and create a “minimally burdensome” federal approach. The order also directs the Department of Justice to form an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws deemed in conflict with this federal policy, and the Department of Commerce to limit eligibility for certain federal funds for states that take a non-preferred approach. The scope and criteria of these federal actions, including their impact on state laws aimed at suicide prevention, have not been clearly defined. Advancing suicide prevention will require states and territories to take comprehensive approaches that address both systemic gaps within state infrastructure and emerging technologies. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policy developments and provide relevant updates. Reviewed by - Baker-White, Maffey article yes

Policy Options to Improve Data Sharing Between State and Local Health Departments Organizational policies on data sharing between state and local public health agencies. This report explores organizational policies related to data sharing between state and local public health departments. ASTHO, in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and the Network for Public Health Law developed this report, which aims to serve as a guide for state and local public health leaders as they consider organizational policy options to improve state and local data-sharing efforts. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

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

As the Delta variant spreads across the country and increases the number of COVID-19 cases, the strain it is placing on the nation’s health system continues to grow. The surge of COVID-19 patients is contributing to a shortage of the medications and equipment used to treat the disease. As these limitations grow, decisions will need to be made as to which patients receive resources and care and which patients don’t. To guide these decisions, policies called crisis standards of care are often established to maximize resource benefit and ensure they are distributed equitably.

With data showing the number of the opioid overdose deaths escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic, access to naloxone, a medication that can reverse an opioid overdose, continues to be an important topic for policy makers. The number of laws and policies to increase access to naloxone have grown over the past several years. Policy makers across the country have expanded access to naloxone by allowing third-party prescriptions for friends, family, and other people who may encounter those at risk of an opioid overdose.

In the November 2020 election, voters in several states cast their ballots on proposals related to the use of legal and illicit drugs. These ballot proposals influence key public health issues such as tobacco control, substance use prevention and treatment, and mental health—many of them implemented by state health agencies. This post contains a brief summary of the proposals on ballots around the country.

Conditioning school attendance on student vaccinations is an evidence-based way of maintaining and increasing vaccine coverage. State law establishes school vaccination requirements which apply not only to public schools but often to private schools and childcare facilities as well. All states allow an exemption for those where a vaccine poses a medical risk. Several states also allow non-medical exemptions, often based on an asserted religious, philosophical, or personal belief of the parents or child opposing vaccinations. However, a few states have recently abolished all non-medical exemptions.

More than 100 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and an additional 25% are at high risk of closure, and COVID-19 has magnified the existing stressors on rural healthcare. As a result, states are using a variety of measures to address and prevent more rural hospital closures.

Several states and territories, as well as many local governments, are going beyond recommendations and requiring individuals to wear face coverings when they are in public settings and spaces (i.e. grocery stores, retail stores, restaurants, public and private transportation services, parks, etc.). Ongoing research and evidence suggests the relationship between mandatory face coverings and declines in daily COVID-19 growth rates is statistically significant.

With many of the state and territorial legislatures reconvening over the next few weeks, we can look forward to new (and not-so-new) legislation start to crop up that will impact public health. To help navigate the new legislative sessions, ASTHO’s "2021 Legislative Prospectus" series highlights eight priority policy areas jurisdictions will address during this year. Each prospectus in the series provides a brief overview of the issue, the issue’s impact on health, and recent legislative trends aimed at addressing the issue. This year, ASTHO developed prospectuses on COVID-19, e-cigarettes, HIV, influenza, maternal mortality and morbidity, neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and rural health.

Each year, ASTHO tracks and analyzes key legislation that impacts public health, and highlights the emerging trends for our members. While the bulk of the tracked legislation arises in state legislatures, ASTHO also follows legislation from the territories and Freely Associated States, jurisdictions collectively referred to as the insular areas. The insular areas often face different challenges than the states, while also sharing many common concerns. This post contains a brief look at some of the public health related legislation introduced in the insular areas during their current legislative sessions.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: data privacy and modernization, reproductive health, health equity, strengthening public health agencies, and immunization.

States and territories have broad powers to protect public health and safety, including powers to prevent and control the spread of communicable disease typically exercised by state and territorial health departments. This authority is an essential tool in the fight to keep the public safe and healthy.

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century, as well as some of the most powerful and cost-effective tools to prevent disease, disparities, disability, and death among children and adults. The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented development and distribution of the vaccines against the novel coronavirus have generated much focus on state laws related to vaccinations. As state and territorial legislatures prepare to convene in the coming weeks, we can already identify several topics within vaccine law that policymakers across the country will consider.