Displaying 1-20 of 103 results for

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

While COVID-19 is still present and ever-changing, public health professionals must also grapple with new challenges such as monkeypox, increasing firearm homicide, and widespread heat waves. In the wake of such emergencies, public health preparedness is more critical than ever.

On the 32nd anniversary of the ADA, this blog post explores state legislation around the country that supports people living with disabilities.

National HIV Testing Day is observed each year on June 27, the goal is to encourage people to get tested and know their HIV status. Recent legislation on this topic speaks to its prioritization and importance; themes include: consent for HIV testing, site-specific processes for routine screening, increased access to testing.

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.

The ASTHO State Health Policy team provides brief updates on 5 of the ten state health policy issues to watch in 2022: mental and behavioral health, rural health, e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, HIV and PFAS.

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.

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.

This June marked the 40-year anniversary of the first five cases of what later became known as AIDS reported in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Since then, more than 32 million people have died from the disease worldwide and nearly 38 million currently live with the HIV virus (including 1.2 million people in the United States). Over that period, tremendous strides have been made in HIV testing, prevention strategies, and treatment of individuals living with the virus to ensure that they can lead healthier and longer lives. While these advancements have led to significant progress in reducing HIV/AIDS-related deaths and new infection rates, HIV/AIDS continues to be a persistent problem in the United States. The federal government and state legislatures are taking significant steps toward ending the HIV epidemic, including steps to reduce new infections, combating stigma, and advancing access to care and HIV prevention

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted both the physical and mental health well-being of youth. Disruptions in both their home and school life have put youth at risk for poor mental health outcomes that include increased anxiety, depression, and risk of suicide. This Mental Health Month we examine state and territorial legislation that addresses youth mental health.

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.

The opioid crisis continues to claim the lives of thousands across the United States and has cost the economy billions in health care, mortality, and criminal justice costs. In 2018, it’s estimated that 67,367 people died of overdose, with opioids (prescription opioids, heroin, and other synthetic opioids other than methadone) made up almost 70% of overdose deaths. Provisional data for the twelve-month period ending December 2019 shows that there were 71,130 overdose deaths, with 50,178 overdose deaths attributed to opioids. The COVID-19 pandemic has also exacerbated the drug overdose crisis. Data shows that in the time of continued lockdowns and social distancing that overdose rates have increased, indicating a sustained need to support people with substance use disorder.

Two rising health trends are negatively affecting women’s health across the United States: maternal mortality (death from pregnancy or delivery complications) and severe maternal morbidity (mental and physical health consequences from a pregnancy or delivery.) Maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) are one of the best ways to gather information on why pregnancy-related deaths occur and how to prevent them. Studies show that MMRCs can reduce maternal mortality by 20-50% since they examine the underlying causes of maternal mortality, use data to identify gaps in care, and inform a focused approach to prevent deaths and reduce disparities.

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

Tobacco Control Programs Use Business Process Mapping to Strengthen Workforce tobacco control programs, preventable disease, tobacco industry, diverse workforce, grants management, mapping workshops, technological support, united states, tobacco product, young people, comprehensive tobacco control programs, public health, tobacco company, department of health, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, smokeless tobacco products, health care system, youth and young adults, smoking cessation, reduced smoking, tobacco related disparities, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Amy Ciarlo Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health agencies have experienced significant turnover across leadership and staff throughout various programs, including tobacco control. Between 2021 and 2023, nearly 30% of all state and territorial program managers were experiencing turnover (e.g., in some cases, vacancies lasted months) or were new to this role, having less than two years of experience. This decline in workforce reduces capacity to address tobacco use—the nation’s number one cause of preventable disease, disability, and death. Tobacco control program staff require a level of knowledge that can take time to build, including: Historical context of tobacco industry marketing influence. Policy, systems, and environmental change strategies. Emerging products and changing regulations. The complexity that goes into helping people who use tobacco to quit. Finding qualified applicants that will stay in these roles long term has been challenging across jurisdictions. In response to this need, the Tobacco Control Network, in collaboration with CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, convened a nine-month learning community with three state tobacco control programs (Alaska, Arizona, and New Jersey) to address hiring and onboarding challenges, which concluded in March 2024. Subject matter experts Health Management Associates (HMA) supported by educating participants on business process improvement (BPI) methods, facilitating business process mapping workshops, and consulting on the development of individual state implementation plans to address key challenges identified during the mapping processes. A similar model with specific OD2A grant recipients focused on procurement, contracting, and helping address spend-down of funding. Business Process Mapping and Implementation Planning Each state participated in a two-day, in-person BPI workshop to outline all steps, from filling a vacancy to completing the onboarding of new hires. This was a lengthy exercise, as agencies often have many elaborate processes in place, due to an organizational requirement, an expectation held by leadership, or a past purpose that is no longer relevant. Understanding why the process happens and visualizing the steps in sequential order helped teams identify “waste” or areas for improvement, including overwork (e.g., too many meetings), waiting (e.g., on an approval, for a training to become available), extra processing (e.g., duplicating efforts), and unused talent (e.g., insufficient training and alignment of skillsets). States then drafted implementation plans to address key issues, outlining steps with detailed timelines and tasks assigned to individuals to increase accountability. Each state team finalized their plans as part of the learning community, with some activities in progress or already completed. However, all three varied in their processes, their approaches to solutions, and the activities outlined in their implementation plans: One state’s BPI workshop focused on grantees at the county-level and streamlining onboarding, as counties lacked consistency in their hiring and onboarding approach. Their implementation plan focuses on a team of state health agency staff and local partners establishing a guidance document that assists new local staff in their first three months. Another state’s BPI workshop centered on addressing challenges in building a diverse workforce, with goals to establish a standardized practice for job postings and reduce re-posting of vacancies. The mapping process allowed collaboration across multiple departments and with health agency leadership. During the final state BPI workshop, the team identified excess meetings as a pain point and are reworking them to reduce redundancy and streamline the onboarding process. The implementation plan also prioritizes making training materials more engaging and better understanding training needs among new program staff. Lessons Learned The state teams gathered to share key takeaways from the learning community, as reported by HMA, informing recommendations for other programs looking to address hiring and onboarding challenges. Successes Participation led to team building and a mutual understanding of the process. Participants trusted one another to share with transparency. The mapping activities remained agnostic by highlighting inefficiencies in the process and not the people. Individuals with new perspectives had the opportunity to comment on system improvements. Teams recognized the numerous demands on team members and grantees, how much duplication existed across processes, and the number of approvals or layers in the hiring procedures. Teams created clearly identified roadmaps to improve hiring and onboarding staff. The learning community brought together partners across the state to address challenges that impacted their work but were not part of their everyday tasks. Challenges Staff representatives from HR or Grants Management were not present during the mapping workshops, causing gaps in information during these sessions. Power dynamics created difficulty for all participants to contribute equally. There was a lack of consideration for equity and challenges from new hire perspectives. More structured technical assistance and check-ins following the development of implementation maps were needed to support follow-through. Some participants had a sense of ownership or attachment to the established process and were protective of maintaining the status quo. Recommendations Ensure all participants understand the vision by providing an example of similar work in advance as reference material. Prior to the mapping activities, conduct a series of key informant interviews to ensure the right people are in the room, gain an understanding and awareness of organizational and interpersonal dynamics that may impact the process, and identify opportunities to establish bidirectional communications between state and local staff. Plan for ongoing technical assistance follow-up to ensure understanding of the initiative and support implementation. Ensure logistics can accommodate the process, such as proper room size and technological support. In Conclusion Given the challenges identified in this pilot learning community, states would likely benefit from change management prior to beginning BPI activities. Having intentional conversations up front can prevent these common challenges, as outlined previously. Overall, all state participants agreed that the learning community was valuable to their work, increased their organization’s knowledge and capacity, strengthened their relationships within their agency, and they intend to continue working on their improvement plans. One state team shared, “A major success from this mapping workshop was understanding the significance of engaging and listening to colleagues from diverse departments. The workshop facilitated a clearer understanding of civil service and HR operations, emphasizing the hurdles faced by hiring managers.” While business process mapping and implementation plan development can be laborious, the results are well worth the effort. website yes

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

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

Centering the Community’s Voice in State-Led Health Equity Initiatives health equity, public health departments, health outcomes, michigan public health institute, health disparities, underserved populations, marginalized communities, people of color, indigenous people, premature deaths, minority health, cultural competency, public health, life expectancy, improving health, american indians, health service, african american, native american, social determinants of health, sexual orientation, mortality rate, socioeconomic status, covid-19 pandemic, higher rates, alaska natives, group of people, racial groups, social economic, population health, department of health, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Lana McKinney, Jessica Fepelstein Establishing the community voice in health policy discussions. Over the past two years, ASTHO has worked directly with state public health departments and their communities to build capacity for improving health outcomes. These public health departments are building a culture of health equity through policies, practices, and quality improvement measures. This includes the Strategies to Repair Equity and Transform Community Health (STRETCH) Initiative—a 10-state learning community hosted by ASTHO, the CDC Foundation, and the Michigan Public Health Institute. STRETCH supports states in operationalizing health equity and preventing the constant pressures caused by negative health outcomes on their communities. For example, poverty can create constant pressures just as water pushes against a dam, which can build to the point of breaking and push people into poverty. Additionally, ASTHO supports state and territorial recipients of CDC’s COVID-19 Health Disparities grant to improve the health of high-risk and underserved populations disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Health disparities impact the quality-of-life and financial well-being of communities, with the economic burden of health disparities increasing from $320 billion in 2014 to $451 billion in 2018. This includes associated costs of excess premature deaths, lost labor market productivity, and excess medical care for Americans of color as compared to their white counterparts. Events in recent years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, revealed the pressures that Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and other marginalized communities experience because of health disparities. Aligned with the technical assistance received by public health departments, several states have taken concrete steps to achieve optimal health for all by supporting training of public health staff and increasing engagement of under-represented and underserved communities in the policy process. Promoting Staff Health Equity Training Ensuring that public health staff and other leaders are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to provide culturally competent and equitable care to all patients, regardless of their social background or identity can improve health outcomes. In recent years, states have worked to expand access to cultural competency and humility training for health system workers. Nevada enacted legislation (AB 267) requiring the state Board of Health to establish the frequency for medical facilities and dependent care facilities to conduct cultural competency training for employees who have direct patient contact. It also (1) requires the Office of Minority Health and Equity and Department of Health and Human Services to establish and maintain a public-facing list of approved courses for cultural competency training, and (2) require nurses, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, counselors, social workers, and behavioral analysts to complete a minimum of three hours of cultural competency training to successfully renew their license. At least four other states—Illinois (SB 2427), Massachusetts (S 1413), Virginia (SB 1440), and Vermont (H 512)—considered bills expanding access to cultural competency training for health care professionals. Vermont’s bill would implement the recommendations of the Health Equity Advisory Commission to provide training and continuing education for health care providers to improve cultural competency, cultural humility, and antiracism in Vermont’s health care system. Public health agencies can also promote health equity training by allocating funding and providing training. For example, the Arizona Department of Health Services leveraged funding from CDC’s COVID-19 Health Disparities grant to establish the Advancing Health Equity, Addressing Disparities (AHEAD AZ) program with the University of Arizona Center for Rural Health, which supports the health care and public health workforce, including support for Arizona’s 17 Critical Access Hospitals health equity strategic plans, and implementing a COVID-19 testing program that provided testing to communities most in need regardless of socioeconomic or immigration status, including those living in correctional facilities and unhoused people. Health Equity Commissions Health equity commissions play a critical role in advancing optimal health for all by bringing together experts, stakeholders, and policymakers to draw on evidence-based approaches that address the root causes of health disparities and to develop strategies to prevent them. At least two states proposed legislation related to health equity commissions in 2023. Colorado passed a law (SB 23-151) extending its Health Equity Commission through 2029. New Jersey is considering S 3136, which would establish and require a Commission on Health Equity to, among other things, recommend implicit bias training requirements for health care providers. Empowering Community Members to Engage in the Policy Process Hearing directly from community members, particularly those with lived experience, provides health agencies with unique insights into the community’s needs and daily life, and helps gain support from those most affected by the policy. There can be several barriers to holistic community engagement, particularly for community members who have fewer resources. Policymakers can take steps to lower these barriers by providing access to childcare, supporting transportation costs to a meeting, and/or compensating community members for their time and effort supporting the policy development process. In 2022, Washington enacted SB 5793 to compensate community members with lived experience for their time and expertise when serving on boards, commissions, councils, committees and other similar policymaking groups. The law directed the state’s Office of Equity to develop equity-driven compensation guidelines for all state agencies, which Washington’s Department of Health used to create and implement its Community Compensation Guidelines. These compensation guidelines outline how and when community members can be paid for their time and expenses when engaging in the policy process. Such methods are particularly valuable because the communities facing the most inequity are also the ones most systemically marginalized. Similarly, in 2023 Oregon’s legislature considered SB 694 to create a Task Force and Work Group Stipend Fund. The fund would provide for providing members who do not otherwise receive compensation for their participation to be compensated for their time and travel for task force or workgroup related work. ASTHO will continue to monitor policy developments supporting health equity programs and initiatives, providing relevant updates. Special thanks to Maggie Davis, JD, ASTHO’s director of state health policy, for her contributions to this blog. Additional Resources to Help Public Health Leaders Increase Community Engagement ASTHO’s Programmatic Health Initiatives and Strategies Georgia Health Policy Center’s Guide to Funding Navigation to help communities design and sustain equity-advancing investment. <!-- Strategies to Repair Equity and Transform Community Health (STRETCH) Initiative framework. --> website yes

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