Displaying 1-20 of 91 results for

Public Health and Academic Leaders Unite Through Texas Consortium Mayela Arana Learn how a consortium in Texas strengthens and supports activities between public health practice and academic institutions. In a state as vast as Texas — spanning 254 counties and operating under a decentralized public health system — collaboration is key to strengthening public health efforts. With local and county health departments working independently and the state stepping in where no local health department exists, fostering partnerships across institutions is both a challenge and an opportunity. Recognizing this, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) brought multiple schools of public health together under a unified program: the Academic Health Partnership Initiative. Led by the DSHS Office of Practice and Learning within the Center for Public Health Policy and Practice, this initiative is designed to strengthen, support, and enhance activities between public health practice and academic institutions, in which the Academic Public Health Consortium plays a key strategic, collaborative role. Partnership Purpose and Benefits DSHS believes that forming Academic Health Department (AHD) partnerships creates accountability, clearer collective value, and greater access to funding opportunities. AHD partnerships, which can range from student internships to fully integrated collaborations and shared resources, provide a framework for public health departments and universities to work in lockstep. By taking a statewide approach, DSHS not only enhances public health workforce development but shapes a more resilient and connected public health infrastructure in Texas. In addition, DSHS asserts that strengthening academic public health partnerships… Improves the relevance of education to public health practice. Creates innovative public health practices and research. Strengthens connections, communication, and trust. Shares and replicates evidence-based projects, initiatives, and interventions. Maximizes resources, expertise, and funding. Provides opportunities to meet strategic goals. Helps build and train the public health workforce. Evolution of DSHS Partnerships with Academic Institutions DSHS has always valued its relationships with academia and collaborations have been a long-standing piece of their work. State legislators also acknowledge this powerful connection between public health agencies and universities. In fact, through 1999 legislation, Chapter 121, Subchapter F, Health and Safety Code directed DSHS to establish a “public health consortium” composed of academic partners to conduct activities like developing curricula and trainings, conducting research on improving health status outcomes, and developing competency certification standards for public health workers. DSHS’s partnerships with universities have since grown and evolved — while the agency has historically gravitated toward schools of public health as natural partners, DSHS recognizes that public health is a broad field and it can benefit from having expertise in other disciplines. As such, the Academic Public Health Consortium consists of schools of public health within eight Texas university systems but is open to any school or local health department to contribute and participate. Building a Shared Vision Through Statewide Collaboration The Academic Public Health Consortium held roundtable discussions across the state to collect initial input for its Statewide Strategy. Members undertook the following collaborative steps to co-create their shared strategies and goals. Set up introductory meetings with each school to introduce the concept and get buy-in. Discuss the specifics all parties would like to gain from the partnership (e.g., collaboration on research projects or grants, training for staff, internship placements, consultation on curriculum, support for accreditation, guest lectures, hosting career panels, etc.). Identify work groups or committees with each school and agree on meeting frequency. Draft a sample memorandum of understanding or agreement to answer the following: what is our purpose, what are we going to do, how are we going to do it, why is it important, and how will we both benefit. Conduct inventory of current activities. Review each organization’s strategic priorities, goals, and needs. Conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) or SOAR (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results) analysis. Develop goals and priorities focusing on the mutual needs of each organization and action plans to achieve them, such as: Increasing student placement in applied practice experience opportunities. Increasing the number of real-world scenarios in the classroom. Providing workforce trainings to health department staff. Increasing student exposure to public health careers through panel discussions. Conducting a rural workforce training needs assessment. The resulting roadmap helps monitor and evaluate progress on agreed-upon action areas and show the impact of the partners on achieving the organization’s mission and goals, including: Prepare, educate, and train the public health workforce. Support public health careers. Speed the translation of research to practice, share best practices, and pilot projects in communities. The Consortium plans to develop subcommittees, get more public health practitioners involved across the state, and secure funding to support the Academic Health Partnership Initiative’s activities. Advice for Others Seeking to Establish AHD Partnerships Organizations can structure AHD partnerships in a way that best suits the nature of the relationship and those involved. There is no right or wrong way to operate this type of partnership, and it may evolve over time. One of the broader and bigger goals is to lay a solid foundation of trust, communication, and structure. Create a space where you can get to know each other better; discover each other’s strengths and needs and communicate opportunities and challenges. Like any good and solid relationship, strong partnerships are not created overnight — they require consistency, intentionality, hard work, and grace. Learn more about Academic Health Department Partnerships or explore other workforce development resources from the Public Health Foundation. If your health agency wants more information about planning support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org. Special Thanks - Blog - PH Academic Leaders Unite Texas Consortium article 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

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

This post features input from departments in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas to learn more about their experiences of post-hurricane environmental health issues, as well as advice and best practices for responding to these challenges.

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

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

This brief from ASTHO discusses the results of standing up virtual and hybrid emergency operations centers during the covid-19 pandemic.

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

Implementing Health in All Policies in the Climate Space ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, HiAP lens, Health in all policies, climate change, climate space, flooding and rain, extreme weather, extreme heat, wildfire damage, seven strategies, Texas workgroup, national disaster operational workgroup, Washington state department of health, emergency preparedness and response, hiap implementation, Wisconsin department of health services, new mexico taskforce, interagency climate change taskforce, climate action teams, Climate and Health Capacity Survey, HiAP Task Force; Climate Change Commission, Resilience Initiative Kerry Wyss, Ali Aslam ASTHO | A Health in All Policies approach can help public health agencies better address the impact of climate change on population health and well-being. Each year, we face hurricanes, floods, extreme heat events, destructive wildfires, as well as other natural disasters and homeland security threats that test the resiliency of state, territorial, and freely associated state agencies and the communities they serve. To address the health threats posed by natural disasters and by climate change, more health agencies are integrating a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. This cross-sector approach can make these climate efforts more effective and impactful, and help promote health equity and optimal health. This report outlines strategies for health agencies to apply the HiAP lens and utilize cross-sector collaboration to optimize their climate and health responses. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

Social determinants of healthcare are the conditions in which people are born, live, work, play, worship, and age. Read how these issues affect population health.

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

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

This is a guide to help patients understand what hypertension is, what can be done about it, and how they can manage it from home. The Texas Department of State Health Services Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Section developed this resource.

This is a spanish language guide to help patients understand what hypertension is, what can be done about it, and how they can manage it from home. The Texas Department of State Health Services Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Section developed this resource.

The Texas Department of State Health Services conducted a survey to assess the knowledge and identify training needs of CHWs around hypertension.

This resource, developed by the Texas Heart Disease and Stroke Program, provides patients with information on how to measure and evaluate their blood pressure as well as space to record their measurements and current medications, allowing for self-management. Additionally, there is a spanish version of this resource available on the Tools for Change website.

This is a spanish language resource, there is also an english version on the Tools for Change website. This resource, developed by the Texas Heart Disease and Stroke Program, provides patients with information on how to measure and evaluate their blood pressure as well as space to record their measurements and current medications, allowing for self-management.

This brief outlines some of the barriers that pregnant and postpartum women with opioid use disorder face, as well as examples of state legislation passed to address recovery program implementation, treatment funding and insurance coverage, and provider education.

Supporting Resilience in Rural Areas Through Cross-Sector Partnerships ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, rural health, public health, public health partnerships, health in all policies, government agencies, community organizations, academic institutions, rural populations, infrastructure improvement, healthcare systems, environmental determinants, climate change, sustainable practices, environmental challenges, extreme weather, environmental health risks, protective factors, engaging rural partners, building trust, idaho department of health and welfare, michigan department of health, health equity, austin climate equity plan, healthy start oregon, kansas department of commerce, wisconsin broadband access, chesapeake housing mission Ali Aslam The key to making rural communities more resilient is for public health to partner with community organizations, governmental agencies, and other critical partners. Working across sectors of government agencies, community organizations, businesses, and academic institutions is critical to address public health challenges in rural communities. Using a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach helps public health agencies better address the interconnected social, economic, and environmental determinants of health impacting rural communities and improve community well-being. HiAP brings together a multitude of perspectives to develop holistic strategies that can support infrastructure improvements, sustainable land use practices, diversified economic opportunities, safer and healthier home environments, and robust health care systems in rural communities. Through community leadership and collaboration, this cross-sector approach can enhance the capacity of rural communities to build resilience, adapt to climate change, and foster long-term sustainability to improve public health outcomes. Learn how states are implementing HiAP strategies to improve health in their rural communities in this report. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

This ASTHOReport serves as a primer for state and territorial health agencies seeking to assess the public health impacts of lead exposure in drinking water.