Displaying 1-20 of 66 results for

Learn about how five jurisdictions approached self-measured blood pressure monitoring programs to reduce hypertension and uncover systemic barriers to care.

Supporting policies that reduce HIV stigma and promote health equity is an important public health issue.

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted youth mental health, particularly as a result of school closures, social isolation, family economic hardship, fear of family loss or illness, and reduced access to healthcare. However, states have many strategies to choose from to improve youth mental health and reduce suicide.

As the weather warms, state and territorial health agencies prepare to address a rise in public health risks associated with recreational water activities, such as water-related injury, drowning, waterborne disease outbreaks, and exposure to harmful algae or cyanobacteria.

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.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated barriers to care and treatment for individuals experiencing opioid use disorder. Experts estimate a record-setting 90,000 people died of a drug overdose in 2020. Additionally, as the pandemic continues, it has understandably diverted attention, funds, and personnel usually focused on the opioid crisis. State and local public health departments are experiencing an all-time low in staffing, especially among Maternal and Child Health programs.

Reconciling the tension between public health and civil liberties is one of the most significant challenges of public health law and ethics. The Supreme Court of the United States historically upheld state authority to enact and enforce public health laws that temporarily limit a person’s civil liberties, such as quarantine and isolation powers that restrict a person’s freedom of assembly in order to prevent the spread of contagious disease. There have been many legal challenges to the public health orders issued to slow the spread of COVID-19—many of the claims asserting violations of First Amendment rights of assembly, association, and expression—but they’ve largely been rejected by the courts. However, courts have treated claims asserting violations of the free exercise of religion more favorably, which may indicate an impending shift in how courts analyze the impact state and territorial actions may have on religious organizations.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, temporarily expanding the use of telehealth technologies by removing various requirements and waiving certain restrictions. Many states also expanded telehealth access through changes to state Medicaid laws. These temporary policy changes created an uptick of telehealth use that improved access to care for millions of Americans—but questions remain about which policy changes will stick around beyond the pandemic. Currently, states are making decisions about what temporary policies to permanently implement and which policies to end without disrupting the delivery of care and further exacerbating health disparities.

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: tobacco, HIV, mental health, PFAS, and opioids.

Health agencies play a key role in preparing for and responding to hurricanes and other severe weather events.

Three ways policymakers are addressing access to care are through telehealth, safety net and emergency services, and adjusted reimbursement rates to Medicaid-enrolled providers.

State Policy Trends in Cybersecurity and Public Health Preparedness Maggie Nilz Learn how states are including cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness work in this Health Policy Update. Cybersecurity is an increasingly important component of public health preparedness as state cybersecurity policy intersects with public health agency responsibilities. Public health agencies rely on interconnected digital systems and critical infrastructure for disease surveillance, laboratory reporting, emergency communications, and health data management, making cybersecurity critical to maintaining these functions. Beyond compromising sensitive data and potentially harming patients, cyber incidents can disrupt essential public health services, including emergency response operations. Health care data breaches have steadily increased over the last 15 years, highlighting growing risks for government and health systems. A recent report showed that more than 7,000 health care data breaches were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services since 2009, and reported HIPAA data breaches in 2023 were nearly double the number recorded in 2018. Meanwhile, preparedness capacity has lagged: as of 2022, only 13% of local health departments reported being prepared for cyber-related disruptions, and recent scans show cybersecurity is rarely included in emergency preparedness planning. In response at the federal level, HHS recently announced it is undoing a 2024 reorganization by returning department-wide technology responsibilities to the Office of the Chief Information Officer while refocusing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on improving nationwide health IT interoperability and data sharing. In recent years, state and territorial legislatures have begun to address these gaps by incorporating cybersecurity into preparedness, health care oversight, and statewide governance structures. These legislative trends signal a need to integrate cybersecurity into emergency operations plans, strengthen cross-sector coordination, and safeguard the continuity of public health services. Some of the most recent policies considered and enacted by legislatures treat cyber incidents as emergencies, expand reporting requirements, and strengthen cyber governance. Cyber Incidents Are Being Built into Emergency Preparedness Frameworks In response to these growing threats, jurisdictions have begun incorporating cyber response into emergency plans and strategies, reinforcing cybersecurity as essential to preparedness. These developments highlight growing awareness that cyber incidents can disrupt critical services, much like natural disasters. In 2025, New York enacted S 7672, which requires municipal entities and public authorities report cybersecurity incidents and demands for ransom to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. In addition, it directs the Director of the Office of Information Services to establish cybersecurity training and protection standards for state systems as well as require cybersecurity training for state and local government employees. Virginia is currently considering HB 83, which would establish a volunteer Cyber Civilian Corps within the state IT agency to provide rapid assistance during cybersecurity incidents affecting municipalities, nonprofits, education, and critical infrastructure. Preparedness efforts also extend beyond legislation to executive action. In February 2026, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz authorized $1.2 million in state disaster assistance to support response efforts and restore critical systems in response to a cyber incident that disrupted digital services in Saint Paul on July 29, 2025. Additionally, the National Governors Association has included cybersecurity as a primary consideration for planning and preparedness in their latest edition of the Public Health Emergency Playbook. Health care and Public Health Critical Sectors Are Facing New Cyber Requirements Beyond emergency response frameworks, jurisdictions are also adopting cybersecurity reporting and planning requirements for health care and public health organizations. Companion bills in Tennessee (HB 511/SB 555) would require health care providers and facilities to notify their contracted health insurers of cybersecurity incidents. In Maine, LD 2103 would require hospitals to adopt cybersecurity plans to protect patient data and maintain operations, and must include cybersecurity training for employees and board members. New Jersey is looking to adopt and implement a more comprehensive cybersecurity plan across all sectors. This session, legislators have introduced at least two cyber security bills: A 3231 would require “sensitive businesses” (defined as those engaged in financial, essential infrastructure, or health care industries) to report cybersecurity incidents to the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) when they are aware of their occurrence and would require NJCCIC to conduct a cybersecurity audit within 30 days of notification. A 3283 would require the same “sensitive businesses” to implement cybersecurity programs in accordance with standards adopted by NJCCIC and certify compliance annually. As states expand reporting and cybersecurity requirements, these obligations may intersect with public health reporting and continuity planning. States Are Strengthening Government Cyber Governance and Coordination In addition to sector-specific requirements, jurisdictions are also strengthening the governance structures responsible for coordinating cybersecurity, improving their ability to respond to large-scale incidents affecting public systems. Legislation enacted recently in Texas and California aim to improve coordination among state government by establishing a state agency centralizing cybersecurity incident prevention and response (Texas HB 150) and mandating the development of a cybersecurity playbook to strengthen information sharing (California AB 979). A 2024 bill enacted in Puerto Rico (PC 1530) requires commonwealth agencies to develop and implement a cybersecurity program, which must include a yearly risk assessment as well as vulnerability assessment. At least three jurisdictions are currently considering bills strengthening established cybersecurity programs, with two states recently passing legislation. Utah recently enacted a bill authorizing the Utah Cyber Center to conduct voluntary cybersecurity risk assessments for critical infrastructure and coordinate with government entities on infrastructure safety (HB 165). Utah also enacted legislation creating a specific funding stream for the Center to use for various activities, including implementing a statewide cybersecurity plan and conducting assessments for governmental entities (SB 123). Kansas enacted HB 2574, which would require chief information security officers for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to adopt cybersecurity programs based on a nationally recognized standard for governmental entities. Finally, Florida recently passed SB 7024, which would expand the state’s public record exemption to include risk assessments, information related to cybersecurity breaches, and information related to data protection, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive cybersecurity information held by state agencies; the bill is with the governor for final consideration. Key Takeaways for Preparedness Leaders Cybersecurity is critical for preparedness across multiple policy areas, and requires new planning, coordination, and oversight responsibilities. By including cyber incidents into disaster frameworks, standards for health care organizations, and governance, preparedness leaders may find themselves more directly engaged in integrating cybersecurity into emergency operations, exercises, and cross-sector partnerships. For state and territorial health agencies beginning to incorporate cybersecurity into their preparedness plans, agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provide jurisdictional support and resources to guide this work. article yes

Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development in Florida Florida Academic Health Partnership Prioritizes Workforce Development Mayela Arana Learn how an Academic Health Partnership in Florida focuses on workforce development and get inspired. In Hillsborough County, the Florida Department of Health (DOH-Hillsborough) and the University of South Florida (USF) have a long history of working together. Their partnership took on a new level of structure and purpose in 2022 when they formalized an Academic Health Department (AHD) partnership agreement, focused largely on workforce development. This collaboration, supported by the Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG), creates opportunities for DOH-Hillsborough staff to enhance their skills through USF’s public health programs. By providing structured training and education, the partnership is helping to build a stronger, more prepared public health workforce to serve the county’s 1.5 million residents. A Longstanding Partnership Embraces a New Opportunity When CDC released a notice of funding opportunity for PHIG in 2022, the DOH-Hillsborough health officer and the dean of USF’s College of Public Health (COPH) worked together to co-write a successful proposal. One of the resulting contracts formalized their partnership in the name of strengthening the public health workforce through recruitment, training, and retention. Like many public health agencies, many of DOH-Hillsborough’s employees do not have degrees in public health. The health department is focused on upskilling through coursework and certificate/micro-certificate programs directly related to job tasks. These opportunities are available to every staff member including those categorized as “other personnel services,” non-career services, and certain contracted employees — as DOH-Hillsborough recognizes the importance of extending these educational opportunities to all employees. Initial PHIG funding was critical in establishing the necessary dedicated staffing and infrastructure for workforce development program offerings at the health department. Current funding continues to support infrastructure, new custom program development, and the educational offerings. Infrastructure: USF works with DOH-Hillsborough to conduct staff training needs assessments and has provided training at agency-wide “all-staff” meetings. USF also developed and provides a Certified in Public Health (CPH) exam preparatory course that is open to any health department employee who is eligible to sit for the exam, at no cost to them. Custom program development: Additionally, the university, in collaboration with DOH-Hillsborough and two other local county health departments, developed a custom leadership program that groups emerging health department leaders with community partners of their choice (e.g., Healthy Start, Homegrown Hillsborough) and includes two full days of instruction over a six-month period. Educational offerings: The health department is also using PHIG funds to cover tuition for current staff to take graduate and undergraduate courses at USF’s COPH and across the university. Representatives from DOH-Hillsborough and USF hold virtual information sessions for staff about available educational offerings, the university enrollment and registration process, and completing internal agency requirements for pursuing and participating in the PHIG-funded opportunities. Measuring Impact and Continuous Improvement Given that the bulk of activities in this AHD partnership are currently PHIG-funded, PHIG performance measures provide a clear and valuable opportunity for evaluation. DOH-Hillsborough is focused on three of the PHIG measures that address hiring and retention: Number of PHIG-funded positions filled by job classification and program area. Overall agency staff retention rate. Median number of days to fill a position. Tracking performance of these measures both contributes to the agency’s overall PHIG evaluation and provides the AHD partnership with a clear process for quality improvement. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships Learning from the success of USF and DOH-Hillsborough’s partnership, considerations in developing or expanding AHD partnerships include: Appreciate the unique nature of each organization. For example, while the health department and university may have a common vision, they may also have different funding category restrictions to consider prior to solidifying the partnership. Be mindful that each organization has its own legal considerations. Allow ample time for the proper review of contracts, agreements, and external communication about the joint endeavor. Know that, at times, the collaborative process can be complex and challenging. Take a few steps back. Work together to find solutions, and don’t give up. Be flexible, humble, and willing to pivot, remaining confident that the partnership will have a bigger impact than your organization would alone. Learn more about AHD partnerships or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation (PHF). If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org. Special Thanks - Blog - AHP Prioritizes Workforce Development in FL article yes

This brief examines the ways states can support certification for community health workers.

This ASTHOBrief contains three key recommendations for improving the 2013 CDC/CSTE Cancer Cluster Investigation Guidelines.

The Florida Department of Health created an effective algorithm to automate syphilis laboratory result processing that improves case assignment accuracy and prioritization. This tool outlines key steps and considerations for jurisdictions looking to adopt the algorithm.

This report highlights how a six-state "payers cohort," through the ASTHO/CDC Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Learning Collaborative, convened cross-sector teams which included payer partners, local health agency staff, academic institutions, community health workers, and other state‐ or local‐level stakeholders to support efforts to improve cardiovascular health outcomes, focusing on blood pressure control and reducing healthcare costs.

This report includes two case studies capturing how states are building capacity to address the threat of insecticide resistance. The case studies and analyses in this report may serve as a guide as states respond to similar problems in their jurisdictions.

Looking to the future, states are improving access to care, providing subsidies for tuition costs, expanding hours of licensed facilities, increasing access, and meeting the needs of both parents and children.

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.