Displaying 1-20 of 114 results for

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

Tennessee Partners with Dialysis Facilities to Strengthen Infection Prevention Tennessee and Dialysis Facilities Strengthen Infection Prevention Alex Kurutz, Joshua Key, Connie Harig Learn how Tennessee partners with dialysis facilities to address training needs and, in turn, strengthen infection prevention. More than 800,000 people in the United States are living with end-stage kidney disease, and over half receive life-sustaining treatment through dialysis. Unfortunately, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a leading cause of hospitalization and death for this population. Patients undergoing dialysis, especially hemodialysis, are at increased risk for infections due to frequent vascular access, compromised immune systems, and regular exposure to clinical settings. To support patient safety and reduce the risk of dialysis-related infections, it is critical to ensure that facility staff have access to training on evidence-based protocols such as proper hand hygiene and vascular access care. In Tennessee, the Department of Health works closely with dialysis facilities to identify and address the training needs of their staff and improve infection control practices that advance the safety of patients on dialysis. To gain further insights into this successful partnership, ASTHO spoke with two Tennessee Department of Health personnel — Dialysis Nurse Consultant Joshua Key and Epidemiologist Alex Kurutz — as well as Connie Harig, Nurse Educator from Dialysis Clinic, Inc. in Knoxville, who shared their experiences implementing and participating in this program, shedding light on the process, benefits, and lessons learned from this collaboration. Identifying Training Needs To effectively support training facility staff, the Tennessee Department of Health began by looking at what data could tell them about their state’s needs. In addition to reviewing reports from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), the Department of Health conducted a learning needs assessment in fall 2022 to identify educational and training needs expressed by dialysis providers. All dialysis facilities in Network 8, which encompasses Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, received the assessment, and results revealed that dialysis technicians and nurses desired additional training related to infection prevention practices. In response, Tennessee initiated the Hemodialysis Infection Prevention Educational Program — a day-long, interactive simulation training, inspired by a similar effort in Massachusetts. Joshua Key 1 - Tennessee Partners with Dialysis Facilities to Strengthen Infection Prevention Developing and Implementing the Simulation Training The department hired four part-time educators — two dialysis nurses, one certified hemodialysis technician, and one biomedical technician — to develop the training materials based on CDC guidance. They also developed pre- and post-tests as well as a training evaluation to assess any increase in knowledge and intent to apply the content moving forward. Lastly, they worked with the Georgia Nurses Association to offer continuing education credits for participating providers. A typical simulation training has the capacity for about 40 participants and involves an eight-hour day, beginning with brief presentations on each topic and moving into applied practice in the second half of the day during which participants rotate through stations to apply the skills they learned. Participants also hear from a patient advocate to learn more about the real-life impact of dialysis-related infections, an experience many trainees have described as powerful and important. Despite facing initial challenges connecting with a patient advocate, Tennessee Department of Health emphasized its importance, ultimately leaning on partners such as the National Kidney Foundation and the National Forum of ESRD Networks to identify an available advocate. article yes

Good news and bad news on tobacco use: smoking rates are down but e-cigarette use continuing rapid rise among youth. Read how states are combating the problem.

Explore how community coalitions and public health agencies work together to prevent youth substance use.

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 how public health agencies are improving their financial management strategies and systems.

Learn how to leverage public health assets in Medicaid managed care, with helpful background, life cycle details, and information on key obligations.

Learn how territorial and freely associated state health agencies can support community health workers and their vital work in this brief.

Environmental health and public health preparedness staff work closely together to respond to natural disasters and climate change—learn how in this report.

Opportunities for Public Health Agencies to Advance Sustainable Financing of Community Health Worker Programs Advancing Sustainable Financing of Community Health Workers Explore how health officials can play key roles as funders, administrators, and policy designers to advance sustainable financing of community health workers. Many states face upcoming funding gaps for community health worker (CHW) positions, with COVID-19 related grant funding streams expiring. Concurrently, many states are rapidly beginning to cover CHW services under Medicaid. In addition, Medicare launched a new reimbursement opportunity for CHWs in January 2024. These factors create an opportunity for state and territorial health agencies to develop or contribute to equitable reimbursement and robust implementation. This report details how health officials can play key roles as funders, administrators, and policy design champions to ultimately advance sustainable financing of CHW services. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

This toolkit is designed to support public health leaders in leveraging the policy development process to achieve health equity in their jurisdiction.

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

This brief focuses on how telehealth expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased access to care for pregnant and postpartum women, and made maternal and child health care services like doulas and midwives more accessible.

Learn how health agencies can improve access to critical medications by preparing for drug shortages and working with a diverse set of partners.

Each September marks National Preparedness Month. This year, public health emergency preparedness professionals look back on 20 years since the 9/11 attacks—the event that effectively launched the preparedness field—while actively responding to COVID-19.

State and federal actions to expand the doula workforce and improve maternal health.

May is Mental Health Awareness Month and the importance of continued mental health promotion and suicide prevention efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we address the physical effects of COVID-19 through social distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination, we still need to prioritize mental health and well-being during and after the pandemic. A recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found increases in adults reporting symptoms of anxiety or depression (36.4% to 41.5%) and unmet mental health care need (9.2% to 11.7%) between Aug. 2020 to Feb. 2021.

PHIG Success Story: In Massachusetts, Building Public Health Infrastructure Starts with a Strong Workforce Elise Moore Massachusetts open houses, supported by CDC's Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG), connect the community with public health careers. Open houses are an opportunity for health departments to engage the community, foster trust and transparency, and build pathways for people seeking a career in public health. In late 2023, the Massachusetts Department of Health (DPH) held two virtual open houses—supported by the Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG)—for students and alums of Massachusetts colleges and universities. More than 400 participants connected with state and local public health officials in various panels and networking events. DPH’s Workforce Director Arnaldo Machado shared his insights, lessons learned, and testimonials from staff about the experience with ASTHO. What strategies did DPH employ to engage participants? ARNALDO MACHADO: The "Who's in the room?" activities helped engage the participants and highlight our focus on racial and health equity. We were very clear about the reason for that exercise: ensuring we are reaching the communities we serve. The one-hour themed breakout rooms (15 minutes of staff presentations and 45 minutes of Q&A) were the highlight of both events. They fostered an interactive experience for participants. Lombardo-MA Building PH Infrastructure Starts with Strong Workforce - Block 1 What challenges did you encounter during the open houses and how did you meet them? MACHADO: A significant challenge was overcoming the immediate results mindset, which can sometimes be in conflict with the efforts needed for pathway events such as open houses. Unless that mindset changes, we will forever be working on short-term initiatives. A lot of times, people want to see immediate changes to hiring numbers. However, just as community engagement efforts do not result in enhanced public health outcomes overnight, pathway events yield results over time. After each event, more than 200 prospective candidates for the public health workforce are better informed about career paths, the human side of the department, and how to get more help. We aim to dismantle the large institutional view many people may have of us as an organization in the distance. Hopefully, we took one step further, through transparency, in building a relationship of trust with those present. So, we don't only measure the event's success based on immediate hires. Rather success is in the reach of our events, which will bear fruit for years to come. Beluk-MA Building PH Infrastructure Starts with Strong Workforce - Block 2 What insights have you gained from the post-event evaluation survey? MACHADO: My biggest measures were the levels of participation and overall satisfaction with the event. The participation rate of attendees versus registrants was around 50%, which is the average for DPH during recruitment events. We filled those registrations relatively quickly with minimal promotion to social networks and leveraging our academic health department partnerships. We also saw the satisfaction ratings grow between the first and second events. Participants appreciated the transparency in the hiring process presentations and felt more prepared to apply for DPH jobs. They also loved the opportunity to connect with people who worked in the department. Participants also asked for the opportunity to participate in more than one breakout session—and even though that opportunity was available at the second event, it came at the cost of losing content since all breakout sessions were concurrent. We resourced some of the session, so people won't have to experience repetitive content in the future. Turner-MA Building PH Infrastructure Starts with Strong Workforce - Block 3 Looking ahead, how do you anticipate leveraging PHIG funding to promote public health careers and engage with students and alumni from Massachusetts colleges and universities? MACHADO: With a shift to skills-based hiring in Massachusetts, I am thinking much beyond formal academic institutions for future outreach. We will continue to invest in academic pathways, and our academic health department manager is committed to that. Still, we are also forging partnerships with local career centers and veteran service programs and planning to reach young adults in the K-12 system. Additionally, we are using PHIG funding to implement significant career promotion efforts on our website through workforce highlights and clarification on many roles in the department. For year two of the grant, we have identified employees in nine domains determined by need—measured in long-time-to-hire metrics tracked for PHIG—and by strategic alignment. Contact Department-Blog - In Massachusetts, Building Public Health Infrastructure Starts with a Strong Workforce OE22-2203 PHIG website yes

Braiding and layering funding allows state health departments to leverage diverse fundings sources and amplify their impact. Learn more about this strategy and its importance.

Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes