Displaying 1-20 of 56 results for

State firearm survey data can inform firearm injury prevention strategies—read recommendations for developing state firearm surveys and applying findings.

Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e

After a year and a half of work as embedded disability specialists, 5 program participants share their reflections on important lessons learned and why disability inclusion is critical to the future of emergency preparedness.

In an effort to help meet demand, some states and territories have joined interjurisdictional licensing compacts that allow a mental health care provider licensed in one state to provide care in another state—without needing to gain licensure in multiple states. These agreements also offer guidance on patient privacy for services rendered remotely or from out-of-state.

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.

Under the Tenth Amendment, states have the power to protect the health and welfare of their populations, including the authority to implement isolation and quarantine orders to limit the spread of disease. This post is an examination of state public health authority for isolation and quarantine.

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.

On Dec. 3, International Day of Persons with Disabilities, ASTHO is commemorating nearly 12 months of supporting disability and preparedness specialists in state and territorial health agencies. Throughout 2021, ASTHO embedded 20 full-time disability and preparedness specialists within state and territorial public health agencies to ensure an inclusive approach to emergency preparedness. This is the first of a multi-part series spotlighting these embedded experts.

An increasing body of research finds racism can have a significant impact across one’s lifespan. Research shows that persistent exposure to racial discrimination may result in premature aging, poor health outcomes, and increased prevalence of certain chronic diseases. At every level of government, policymakers are seeking to acknowledge the systemic oppression of people of color that persists and to elevate racism as an urgent public health crisis comparable to other public health emergencies.

Learn about state regulation of hemp, following federal deregulation and public health challenges including adverse effects of hemp products.

Learn how states have increased and/or allocated funding to continue supporting core public health services.

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

DELPH Reflections: A Journey Towards Creating a More Equitable and Just Democracy Fredrick Echols DELPH has helped public health professionals reflect on their purpose, cultivate compassionate leadership, understand system dynamics, and build a community of advocates to create a more equitable and just democracy. As an African-American male living in the United States, I have encountered numerous obstacles in life, particularly in my efforts to reform systems that fail to support marginalized and vulnerable populations. These systems have had devastating effects on myself and other individuals belonging to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities as they restrict access to essential health and social services. As a Black physician and public health professional, I continue to encounter this stark reality that engenders a sense of hopelessness in communities across the United States. These systems obscure their true intentions and deceive individuals into believing that they operate in the best interest of marginalized populations while perpetuating inequitable and disparate health outcomes. In consideration of these personal and professional experiences, the Diverse Executives Leading in Public Health (DELPH) program has played a significant role in shaping my career and purpose: Fostering Critical Reflection: It provided me with a journey that encouraged me to think critically about my future and how I can leverage my platforms and relationships to help propel the public health ecosystem toward a system that embraces the humanity of all individuals and prioritizes uplifting and empowering the most vulnerable and marginalized populations. Important note: That said, the presence of silos, political posturing, and missed opportunities due to inefficient and ineffective operational practices resulting from insufficient fiscal investment continue to plague the public health ecosystem—limiting its ability to make strides toward a system that wholeheartedly supports the pursuit of health equity and social justice. Cultivating Compassionate Leadership: The program also provided access to experts and public health thought leaders who helped my colleagues and I understand the evolution of health and social service delivery in the United States (particularly for indigent populations), increase our capacity to embrace divergent thinking, and engage in constructive dialogue. The availability of such a space provided us with an opportunity to establish a secure and conducive environment, one that upheld the virtues of compassionate leadership and fostered effective relationship building. Our ability to engage with stakeholders, both like-minded and those with differing opinions, was characterized by a spirit of intentional listening that sought to comprehend their perspectives. Through this, we were able to create an atmosphere that supported open dialogue and nurtured mutual understanding. Understanding System Dynamics: The experience has enriched my comprehension of the intricacies that drive the amplification of inequality and the resulting health disparity gaps that are pervasive among communities and individuals across the nation. The knowledge thus obtained is of paramount importance to ensure my competency in identifying and avoiding perpetuating the issues that I aspire to address. This, in turn, will prevent any inadvertent harm to the communities I seek to uplift and empower. Building a Community of Advocates: Moreover, the program has enabled me to connect with individuals who are unwavering in their commitment to upholding justice. Despite our diverse backgrounds, we set aside cultural differences to work toward a common goal: the accessibility of quality healthcare and the delivery of justice for all humanity. The DELPH program's fundamental principles and culturally sensitive support structure have played an instrumental role in shaping my professional growth as a public health expert. As I chart the course for my future professional endeavors, I intend to leverage the lessons learned and the tools provided by DELPH to strengthen the public health ecosystem. My ultimate goal is to foster collaboration across various segments of society to create a more equitable, just democracy. The DELPH program has equipped me with invaluable knowledge and skills that will enable me to make meaningful contributions to society's betterment. For this, I express my profound gratitude to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the Morehouse School of Medicine's Satcher Leadership Institute, and CDC for their unwavering commitment to advancing BIPOC leadership in public health. Their steadfast support for this program has enabled me and countless others to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively lead and drive the transformative change that public health requires. I sincerely appreciate their continued investment in this vital initiative, which has empowered many to become the change agents that public health needs. website yes

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

This organizational strategic planning guide, which details seven phases, can help health agencies create or refine strategic plans that are responsive to evolving needs.

States Amending Policies to Slow Congenital Syphilis Increases States Trying Policies that Increase Syphilis Testing Amelia Poulin State are exploring ways to slow the rapid increase of congenital syphilis cases by strengthening policies to require testing at key points during pregnancy. Syphilis among newborns, or congenital syphilis, is preventable. Yet the latest CDC data show that congenital syphilis cases have more than doubled (106%) from 2019-2023. In 2023 alone, there were nearly 4,000 cases of congenital syphilis resulting in 279 stillbirths and infant deaths. Timely testing and adequate treatment during pregnancy might have prevented up to 80% of these cases. Increases in congenital syphilis often mirror increases in syphilis among reproductive-aged women. From 2022 to 2023, the rate of syphilis (all stages) increased 6.8% among women aged 15–44 years; rates also increased in 39 states and Washington, D.C. CDC recommends testing pregnant women for syphilis at the first prenatal visit, as well as at 28 weeks gestation and delivery if they are at increased risk of infection. Syphilis testing recommendations extend to asymptomatic women who are at increased risk for infection as they may face additional barriers to health care. ASTHO’s policy-level interventions for states and territories suggest universal syphilis testing for pregnant women. Additionally, states have been taking action to increase access to syphilis testing for people, including those who are pregnant. The Syndemic Perspective A history of incarceration, sex work, drug use, and geography can all significantly increase risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and more. Structural barriers, including housing instability, economic insecurity, stigma, and restricted health care access, create conditions that heighten vulnerability to multiple infections. These conditions do not occur in isolation but rather as part of a syndemic, where overlapping epidemics interact with and exacerbate one another. Health agencies may be positioned to address upstream and root cause issues recognizing and addressing the intersections of these disease areas and related structural and social issues (e.g., drug use and poverty). Health agencies carry a wealth of interdisciplinary expertise, with staff leading efforts around data collection and surveillance, policy, community mitigation, and more, all of which support capacity to identify root causes and design an evidence-based, multifaceted response. Policies that prioritize housing stability, harm reduction services, and access to comprehensive health care, including STI screening, can help mitigate these risks and improve health outcomes. Geography can also increase the chances of syphilis transmission. Some regions with limited health care infrastructure, provider shortages, and limited STI prevention program funding and capacity may have higher rates of infection. Rural areas and certain urban settings may lack accessible clinics or specialized services, creating significant barriers to timely testing and treatment. Rural areas and certain urban settings may lack accessible clinics or specialized services, creating significant barriers to timely testing and treatment. Social and economic differences across different geographic locations contribute to varying levels of disease burden. By adopting a syndemic framework, states can move beyond disease-specific interventions and implement comprehensive strategies that address upstream factors contributing to disease transmission. State Actions Several states have introduced or passed legislation to expand syphilis testing access, with a focus on increasing screening opportunities, mandating insurance coverage, and ensuring appropriate prenatal testing protocols. Syphilis Testing In 2024, Colorado enacted HB 24-1456, which gave the state’s Board of Health rulemaking authority over syphilis testing. This flexibility allows the state to adapt its public health response based on emerging epidemiological trends as new data on syphilis transmission and congenital infections become available. The 2025 legislative sessions have highlighted additional approaches to expanding access to syphilis testing. The New York legislature introduced S 2704, which would require health insurance coverage for certain approved STI home test kits. This policy would provide individuals who face barriers to in-person care a convenient and private way to get tested and stay healthy. Oregon is also addressing testing accessibility through HB 2943, which would require hospitals to test people for HIV and syphilis when they have blood tests done in the emergency department (ED). Since EDs often serve populations who do not routinely access preventive health care (e.g., people experiencing homelessness or struggling with substance use disorders), this legislation would strengthen the role of emergency settings in STI prevention and intervention. Perinatal Syphilis Testing Recognizing the importance of perinatal screening, several states have introduced legislation to add requirements for syphilis testing at key points in pregnancy. Tennessee recently enacted SB 1283, which requires that health care providers take a blood sample to screen for syphilis, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C at the first prenatal examination, ten days after the examination, and at delivery. This approach aligns with CDC recommendations and ensures infections are identified and treated in time to prevent congenital transmission. Similarly, Nebraska LB 41 would require testing for syphilis at the first examination, in the third trimester, and at birth (with the mother’s consent), reinforcing a multi-point screening strategy to detect and treat infections that may develop later in pregnancy. Missouri’s SB 178 would take a comprehensive approach to syphilis prevention during pregnancy by requiring an additional test at 28 weeks, a critical point for intervention. The legislation would also require treatment for mothers who test positive for an STI, reducing the risk of congenital infections. Additionally, it would expand Expedited Partner Therapy by allowing any health care professional authorized to prescribe medications to administer Expedited Partner Therapy as well as include other STIs in the treatment, enabling faster treatment for sexual partners who might otherwise go untreated and continue the cycle of transmission. Policy Considerations Expanding both syphilis and perinatal syphilis testing policies demonstrate a growing recognition of the need for proactive, evidence-based strategies to address the increasing rates of syphilis and congenital syphilis. However, the ability of policies to affect public health outcomes may depend on continued resource allocation, workforce training, and public awareness campaigns. State and territorial health agencies can consider additional measures, such as integrating syphilis screening into routine primary care visits and providing funding for community-based outreach. Conclusion These legislative actions represent various approaches states are taking to addressing syphilis. Implementing screening protocols aligned with current evidence may contribute to efforts to address syphilis and congenital syphilis. By leveraging legislative action and evidence-based interventions, states can improve health outcomes and reduce disparities in syphilis and other STIs. A comprehensive approach that includes additional testing, expanded health care access, and targeted interventions for populations at higher risk for infection or severe disease may ensure better health outcomes for parents and infants alike. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on this important public health issue. article yes

Discover how improving public health data infrastructure can create more robust care for people with disabilities in this blog post.

Learn about the work of ASTHO's learning community to prevent ACEs through partnership, data, and messaging.

How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care How New Laws Support Telehealth and Access to Health Care Ashley Cram Learn how federal and state policies are improving access to health care by supporting telehealth. Telehealth strengthens the health system by reducing barriers to access to health care and extending services to underserved communities. Federal and state policies — many born out of the COVID-19 pandemic — have increased the use of telehealth by patients and providers. This includes expanded reimbursement to allow more providers to deliver telehealth services in more locations and through more modalities. This Health Policy Update summarizes recent federal and state laws and policies that impact telehealth delivery and access to care. Federal Laws and Policies Rural Health Transformation Program Enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, the Rural Health Transformation Program appropriates $10 billion per fiscal year for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to award to eligible states looking to improve rural health care. CMS encouraged state applicants to focus on select strategies, including investment in technology platforms that enhance care delivery. This includes tools and resources that support telehealth overall and remote patient monitoring (RPM), which is a way for providers to monitor and support patients through the use of devices that support data collection and transmission. Applicants that participate in interstate licensure compacts are also incentivized throughout the five-year program period by being awarded additional points for participation, which may lead to states pursuing compact legislation in the coming years. Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities Set to Expire During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS issued numerous flexibilities that authorized broader telehealth use to expand access to care. Flexibilities included expansion of certain audio-only services, geographic areas and patient locations, and additional provider types eligible to deliver telehealth services. Current policy authorizes these pandemic-related telehealth flexibilities through January 30, 2026. Without permanent extension of these flexibilities, Medicare coverage for telehealth services beyond January 30, 2026, telehealth will again be limited to patients living in rural areas and to certain services, providers, and facilities. Physician Fee Schedule Changes CMS establishes the annual Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), which sets payment policy for health care services provided by physicians and other professionals to Medicare beneficiaries. The 2026 PFS includes new codes for RPM that allow providers to tailor monitoring frequency and engagement levels to meet patient needs. These codes, and the expansion of RPM, allow providers to effectively monitor health indicators such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose, and respiratory flow rates, to manage health issues. By regularly monitoring a patient’s health status, a provider can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes and emergency department visits. Additionally, the PFS streamlined the process for adding eligible telehealth services for reimbursement by removing distinction between permanent and provisional services and focusing review on whether services can be delivered via telehealth. State Legislation Impacting Telehealth Delivery States are also developing policy solutions to enable broader access to telehealth services, including expansion of audio-only and RPM services. Audio-only telehealth services are the use of communications technology, without a visual component, to deliver synchronous health care services. This modality can ensure continuity of and access to care for patients who live in areas with limited broadband and/or those who lack access to a video-enabled device. In 2025, at least four states enacted laws related to audio-only telehealth services. This includes at least three states that extended coverage that would have otherwise expired. In Hawaii, SB 1281 extended the expiration of the state’s coverage of certain audio-only behavioral health services through 2027, while Minnesota (HF 2) took a similar approach to audio-only telehealth services, including certain behavioral health and substance use disorder services, through July 1, 2027. Similarly, Maryland (SB 372/HB 869) removed the sunset date for coverage of audio-only telehealth services. And more broadly, Missouri (SB 79) clarified the state’s telehealth definition to include audio-only technologies. RPM uses digital devices to monitor a patient’s health by collecting and sharing health information with providers. RPM is particularly effective for management of chronic conditions, allowing providers to engage in shared decision making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes through more regular monitoring. In recent years, several states enacted legislation to expand access to RPM including two bills in Louisiana. Enacted in 2024, HB 896 established the Louisiana RPM program for Medicaid patients with chronic conditions and a history of high-cost services, with the goal of improved care coordination and reduced costs. Then in 2025, SB 70 expanded these criteria to include pregnant and postpartum women and infants following discharge from the NICU. In Maryland, HB 553 specifies that the Medicaid program must cover the equipment and provider oversight of blood pressure monitoring for eligible recipients, including pregnant and postpartum individuals and those with chronic health conditions. Lastly, Virginia enacted SB 843 which directs the state Medicaid agency to develop a plan and cost estimate for expanding Medicaid eligibility for RPM for patients with chronic conditions. State and territorial health agencies can encourage public health programs to incorporate telehealth and propose policy solutions that enable broader utilization of telehealth modalities across the entire jurisdiction. States that are interested in expanding access to telehealth can visit ASTHO’s Telehealth Project Initiation and Scoping Assessment to conduct a review and identify opportunities to expand access to telehealth, particularly related to policy, infrastructure, and funding. UD3OA22890-13-00 article yes

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many challenges for breastfeeding families and state breastfeeding initiatives. This brief discusses these challenges and how states in ASTHO’s Breastfeeding Learning Community are overcoming COVID-19 challenges