Displaying 20 results for

The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.

In-depth analysis on state health policy surrounding the public health workforce. This is part of ASTHO's annual legislative prospectus series.

Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food and Chronic Disease in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food & Chronic Disease in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping healthy food and chronic disease in 2026, such as regulating ingredients and modifying SNAP. A growing focus on links between nutrition and public health outcomes is driving legislative efforts across the country, with states actively responding to rising rates and the cost of chronic disease. As state legislatures consider ways to combat chronic diseases, they are also implementing policies aimed at addressing the food environment by introducing and enacting bills that regulate ultra-processed foods (UPFs), adjust SNAP benefits, and improve access to healthy food. Regulating Food Ingredients and Ultra-Processed Foods While efforts to define and regulate UPFs are still in development at the federal level, several states have decided to move forward with legislation targeting the use of specific artificial dyes and chemical preservatives in food products. West Virginia enacted HB 2354, prohibiting the sale or manufacturing of any food containing a list of specified dyes and certain preservatives. Similarly, Vermont is considering H 260, and New York is considering companion bills S 1239/A 1556. These bills aim to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food containing a core group of chemicals (e.g., potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3). Meanwhile, North Carolina introduced HB 440, which would prohibit additional color additives and ban the sale of food products containing nine specific dyes and chemicals. Pennsylvania introduced HB 1134, which focused on warning labels and would require foods with dyes Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, or Yellow 6 to include a label that states, “This product contains synthetic colors, which may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Leg Prospectus-2026 - CD - CA Restricting Ingredients in School Meals While previous years have focused on access to school meals, a growing wave of recent state legislation aims to eliminate UPFs, synthetic dyes, and chemical preservatives from children's diets. Several states have enacted or advanced bans on specific chemical additives in school meals: Utah’s HB 402 and Virginia’s HB 1910 prohibit schools from offering food containing common food dyes (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) or certain preservatives like potassium bromate and propylparaben. Similarly, Texas enacted SB 314 prohibiting specific additives in free or reduced-price school meals and SB 25, which mandates warning labels and expands state nutrition curriculum. In addition, other jurisdictions have introduced but not passed numerous bills proposing similar restrictions including South Carolina's HB 4339, which would prohibit certain additives in school meals. Modifying SNAP SNAP is the nation's largest federal food assistance program, providing benefits to low-income households. While the program is federally funded and administered by USDA through its Food and Nutrition Service, individual state agencies operate and manage eligibility and distribution. Since SNAP is governed by federal law, states must obtain a USDA waiver to implement changes that deviate from the federal rules. Several states are exploring waivers to limit the use of SNAP funds for purchasing candy and sweetened beverages or soft drinks, with Arkansas (SB 217), Idaho (HB 109), and Texas (SB 379) having passed legislation. Arkansas's new law requires the Department of Human Services to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks, and reapply annually if denied. This dual ban was also the subject of bills introduced in Wyoming (HB 323) and South Carolina (HB 4061). Indiana (HB 1486) considered broader restrictions on “accessory foods,” aiming to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for items like chips, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soft drinks, and prepared desserts while New Jersey (A 5697/S 4348) introduced a narrower set of proposed restrictions, focused on soft drinks (including soda and sugary/sweetened beverages). Expanding Detection and Coverage for Chronic Diseases In response to high chronic disease rates — including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses — states are enacting and proposing legislation focused on treatment coverage, awareness, and prevention. Several states are directly addressing obesity and pre-diabetes by mandating insurance coverage. Colorado (SB 25-048) enacted legislation requiring large group health plans to cover treatment for obesity and pre-diabetes, including medical nutrition therapy and metabolic/bariatric surgery. In Nevada, AB 555 caps patient cost-sharing for a 30-day supply of insulin for people with state-regulated commercial health plans. To aid early detection of diabetes, New Hampshire (SB 102), Louisiana (SB 26), and Florida (SB 958) enacted new laws requiring the creation of informational materials on Type 1 diabetes risk factors, warning signs, and screening available to students and parents. To reduce financial barriers to necessary cancer screenings, several states have enacted bills to mandate insurance coverage and/or lower the cost of diagnostic breast exams and supplemental testing. Virginia (HB 1828), Florida (SB 158), and Oklahoma (HB 1389) have enacted bills to limit or lower the cost of such breast imaging. Meanwhile, Colorado enacted HB 25-296, clarifying that health insurers cover medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging that goes beyond routine screening. Looking Ahead ASTHO expects state and territories to continue advancing legislative proposals that focus on the prevention of chronic diseases and access to healthy foods in 2026. Future legislative action may include: Establishing policies to address food insecurity and promote access to nutritional foods by targeting food deserts. Exploring policy and leadership options to discourage the consumption of high-sugar drinks. Developing and adopting standards for healthy food procurement policies for state agencies and public institutions to increase the demand for nutritious products. Continuing to enact insurance coverage mandates for comprehensive chronic disease screenings and treatment. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

Accompanying an infusion of federal funding, states are considering several policy changes to strengthen the public health workforce and address challenges within the health care workforce.

States Support Postpartum Health with Medicaid Expansions astho, association of state and territorial health officials, 2023 state legislative session, medicaid expansions, postpartum health, the consolidated appropriations act, national women s health week, postpartum coverage, affordable care act, premium tax credits, affordable care, 12 weeks, united states, extended postpartum coverage, health a priority, medicaid program, national women s health, mother s day, 2023 legislative, vaginal birth, physical activity, women s health week, postpartum care, coverage for 12 months, 60 days, state plan amendment, care act, postpartum depression, health care Sowmya Kuruganti National Women’s Health Week reminds us that postpartum care is critical for the long-term health of the birthing parent and baby. National Women’s Health Week’s 2023 theme—Women’s Health, Whole Health: Prevention, Care and Wellbeing—is a reminder that postpartum care is critical for the long-term health of the birthing parent and baby. The first year after pregnancy can be full of physical, emotional, and mental health challenges that have long-term or even life-threatening health impacts without timely diagnosis and treatment. In September 2022 CDC reported that 23% of pregnancy-related deaths occur from seven to 42 days postpartum, and 30% of deaths occur 43-365 days postpartum. Among all pregnancy-related deaths occurring from 2017 to 2019, approximately 84% were deemed preventable. Black and American Indian and Alaskan Native <!--(AI/AN)--> women have two to three times higher rates of pregnancy-related death compared to white women. These disparities, like others, are driven by social and economic factors that are rooted in structural and systemic racism and discrimination. Health insurance coverage is one such factor that supports positive maternal health outcomes by facilitating access to care before, during, and after pregnancy. In the United States, 40% of births are covered by Medicaid, which is the primary source of health coverage and access to care for those of low income. Organizations like ASTHO and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs support extending Medicaid coverage through one-year postpartum to combat disparities in maternal health outcomes. Federal Legislation for Postpartum Coverage under Medicaid For the majority of states that have adopted Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), all people with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) are eligible for Medicaid. In states without Medicaid expansion, pregnant people can be eligible for coverage during pregnancy and up to 60 days postpartum under federal law. After 60 days postpartum, these people may lose coverage for the rest of the year-long postpartum period based on general state Medicaid eligibility requirements. Prior to 2021, states could extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum people through a section 1115 demonstration waiver or through state funds. The enactment of the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, gave states another option to extend Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum via state plan amendment for five years. So far in 2023, CMS has approved the State Plan Amendments for five states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island) implementing a 12-month postpartum expansion. To date, a total of 33 states have expanded Medicaid coverage to 12 months postpartum via Section 1115 demonstration waiver or state plan amendment. 2023 State Legislative Session Depending on states rules for modifying Medicaid coverage the legislature may need to direct the health department to submit a state plan amendment. So far in 2023, three states enacted legislation related to expanding coverage to 12 months postpartum. In Mississippi, SB 2212 authorizes the state’s Division of Medicaid to provide 12 months continuous postpartum coverage to people who qualify. Utah’s SB 133 extends coverage for 12 months postpartum for women eligible for Medicaid during pregnancy. In Wyoming, HB 4 temporarily extends Medicaid coverage for qualifying pregnant women for 12 months postpartum, ending March 31, 2027. Other states introduced bills to extend postpartum coverage during this session. The Alaska Legislature passed legislation (SB 58) directing the Department of Health to submit a state plan amendment extending postpartum coverage to 12 months, and to raise the household income level for eligibility to 225% of the FPL. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Iowa introduced legislation (SF 57) to enact postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum by Medicaid State Plan Amendment. This would extend the current 60-day postpartum coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. The Missouri legislature passed (SB 45) that would extend MO HealthNet postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months postpartum for women who are either currently receiving or eligible to receive aid to families with dependent children, or eligible to receive benefits via the income eligibility standard. Pregnant women eligible for MO HealthNet and receiving mental health treatment for postpartum depression, related mental health conditions, or substance abuse treatment within sixty days of giving birth would remain eligible for benefits for those services for an additional 12 months. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Nebraska introduced legislation (LB 419) to extend postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum that would extend the current 60 day postpartum coverage. Texas introduced legislation (HB 12) to extend postpartum coverage to 12 months; it has passed in the House and is now pending in the Senate. Its passage would significantly change the current coverage structure, which uses state funds to provide postpartum people a limited package of postpartum services through the Healthy Texas Women program under HB 133, and subsequently submitted 1115 waivers to draw down federal funds for the program and extend coverage to six months postpartum. Wisconsin introduced companion bills (AB 114/SB 110) extending postpartum coverage for 12 months postpartum for women eligible for Medicaid during pregnancy. This action would extend coverage from the current 60 days and amend the previous 90-day Section 1115 Waiver submitted in 2021. Studies have demonstrated numerous benefits of extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum people and, given these positive impacts, ASTHO expects that more states will take action to extend Medicaid to 12 months postpartum. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on this essential maternal public health issue. website yes

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

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

More than 100 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and an additional 25% are at high risk of closure, and COVID-19 has magnified the existing stressors on rural healthcare. As a result, states are using a variety of measures to address and prevent more rural hospital closures.

How to Support Youth Post COVID-19 With More Flexible Policies Caitlin Langhorne Griffith, Victoria Pless, Martha Yeide Over the past few months, COVID-19 has highlighted how current policies and funding do not support an equitable approach to health. However, states and territories have begun to leverage statutory and regulatory flexibilities to improve health outcomes for the disproportionately affected during this pandemic. One of the ways that states and territories can support these groups and maximize these flexibilities during and post-COVID-19 is by deploying a Shared Risk and Protective Factor (SRPF) Framework to address negative health outcomes. Research has demonstrated that addressing both the risk and protective factors across sectors can lead to multiple improved health outcomes, including heart disease, asthma, depression, and substance use. Because youth are at increased risk of exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), and have fewer supportive resources, they are a particularly vulnerable group potentially affected by COVID-19 policies and funding. ACEs are a risk factor shared across numerous health outcomes, such as substance use disorder, chronic disease, and mental health. However, implementing the SRPF Framework can promote protective factors in upstream ways, like reducing and mitigating the impact of ACEs. During the COVID-19 response, some areas where state officials can take advantage of policy flexibilities to better support youth and reduce some ACEs include youth experiencing food insecurity, youth with incarcerated parents, and youth witnessing violence in the home. Ultimately, these examples illustrate the benefits of extending innovative policies to decrease negative outcomes and promote health across the lifespan beyond COVID-19. Youth and Food Insecurity Food insecurity is a public health issue that plagues the United States and has been associated with negative health outcomes including obesity and unhealthy brain development. More than 11 million children in the U.S. live in food insecure homes, with an estimated 11 percent of households reporting food insecurity at least some time during 2018. New data show that food insecurity has increased for youth during the COVID-19 pandemic, with almost one in five of mothers — 17.4 percent —with children ages 12 and younger reporting their children were undereating because they could not afford enough food. When state officials closed schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19, food access was upended for youth who participate in free-or-low-cost school meal programs. States can mitigate this disruption by safeguarding access and expanding these programs to ensure the continued physical and mental development of youth. Jurisdictions have implemented innovative practices allowed under expanded flexibilities to ensure that youth receive regular nutrition during COVID-19. Vermont is conducting telephone appointments for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program due to social distancing, and has also expanded the list of foods available through WIC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-seven states and territories have implemented the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) benefit passed as part of the CARES Act. This allows households to offset the cost of meals that would have been consumed at school by youth. Wyoming has adapted its WIC program services, which includes providing curbside deliveries and conducting phone screenings. Youth with Incarcerated Parents It is estimated that between 1.7-2.7 million youth have incarcerated parents. This leaves them at a higher risk of adverse outcomes, including mental health problems, poor school-based outcomes, and increased antisocial behavior later in life. Parental closeness between incarcerated parents and youth can be an effective strategy to promote resiliency, and jurisdictions are implementing programs focused on connecting the incarcerated individuals with loved ones. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has created a virtual visitation program for all state-run facilities, and all inmates are eligible to participate. In Connecticut, organizations such as Children with Incarcerated Parents have created programs that provide free calls with incarcerated parents each month during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other innovative avenues to connect children with incarcerated parents include the Governor of Illinois issuing an executive order suspending the transfer of some inmates from county jails into the Illinois Department of Corrections during the public health emergency. This approach may increase the likelihood that inmates remain geographically closer to home. Washington executive order 20-47 suspended statutes that limit an individual’s ability to receive post-conviction relief, as well as prosecutors’ and courts’ ability to file and process criminal cases. Washington executive order 20-50 broadened the Governor’s authority to grant clemency to reduce the prison population. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy issued an executive order establishing an Emergency Medical Review Committee, which will review which inmates can be released to home confinement—identified by the Board of Parole—and outlined the process for ensuring those who are released are aware of reentry benefits. Youth Witnessing Violence in the Home Witnessing violence at home also is associated with a higher risk of negative health outcomes, as well as experiencing or perpetrating violence later in life. "Stay at home" or "shelter in place" orders during the COVID-19 response has corresponded with increased risk of family violence and increased calls to domestic violence hotlines, posing another public health crisis as many children have been exposed to violence in their homes. While trends also show a decrease in reports of child neglect and abuse, this decline may be due to restrictions on the child welfare surveillance systems that monitor and intervene in situations of abuse and neglect. State lawmakers have offered help to those experiencing domestic violence, despite restrictions on travel. Massachusetts and Maine ordered all state hotels to only provide rooms for vulnerable populations or essential workers, including those that may be experiencing domestic violence. New Hampshire established the COVID-19 Emergency Domestic and Sexual Violence Services Relief Fund for shelters across the state to aid those who may be experiencing domestic or sexual violence. Nevada developed a process for individuals to file online temporary domestic violence protective orders. The District of Columbia developed a process so individuals can file an extreme risk protection order through an online form and phone call, which can remove firearms from individuals who may be dangerous. Finally, California released a safety planning guide for those who may be experiencing domestic violence. The COVID-19 response has prompted states to provide flexibilities in funding and suspend or modify policies that would have made it more difficult to protect the public’s health — and in turn would have exacerbated negative health outcomes among youth. Through innovative practices these efforts have worked to mitigate the negative impacts of food insecurity, youth with incarcerated parents, and youth experiencing violence in the home. Health officials can be at the forefront of this innovation to ensure that protective factors are leveraged to reduce disparities and impact multiple outcomes with upstream approaches for youth. website

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.

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.

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.

ASTHO notes the top state public health policy issues in an annual Legislative Prospectus series. ASTHO is publishing a prospectus for the top 10 policy issues to watch in 2022. This week we are featuring data modernization and privacy protections.

Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process How state Medicaid agencies can request enhanced federal funding for Medicaid Enterprise Systems and related activities. Why is the Advanced Planning Document process important? Based on information from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Federal Register, the Advanced Planning Document (APD) process is a procedure through which states develop a plan of action for their Medicaid information technology (Medicaid IT) projects. These plans are for designing, implementing, or operating Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) projects. State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) submit completed APDs to CMS—specifically a designated state officer in the Center for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Services (CMCS) Data and Systems Group (DSG)—to request federal financial participation for their activities. The state officer reviews APDs to assess whether states’ requests for federal financial participation for designing, developing, implementing, or maintaining MES activities contribute to the economic and efficient operation of Medicaid and meet specific technical and operational criteria defined in statute, regulation, or sub-regulatory guidance. A state that receives federal financial participation can see increased access to stable federal funding to support MES activities. In addition, APDs are used to monitor a state’s project performance and outcomes. What are the three types of APDs? There are three types of APDs: Planning, Implementation, and Operational (Table 1). Table - Resource - Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process What are the major steps for states in the APD process? To request enhanced federal funding for MES, SMAs must complete the APD template that aligns with where they are in the development of their project (for example, design or maintenance) and submit it to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The APD process contains five major steps and can take many months to complete: Meet with key state contacts and decision-makers. Based on information from the Public Health Informatics Institute’s information and tip sheets, before developing the APD, the SMA should identify and engage key state contacts and decision makers to solicit their input about the proposed project and secure their and their staff’s collaboration to complete and submit the APD to the CMCS DSG state officer. The state health agency (SHA) should work closely with the SMA during this process to ensure that they provide needed support to the SMA. For example, the SHA may gather information for the SMA to include in the APD or advise on how to complete particular sections of the APD. During this process, the SMA and SHA should consult with their respective agency leadership to discuss the type of technological solutions Public Health maintains, Public Health’s relationship with the state Medicaid program, and the opportunity to align systems to reduce overall state costs and improve state efficiency through the APD process. The SMA and SHA should also engage the MES lead, who can offer critical information about current MES components and component certification needed to complete the APD. In addition, GAO recommends states involve their chief information official in overseeing Medicaid IT projects because they can play a critical role in decision making related to IT budgets, management, and oversight. Next, the SMA and SHA should engage the CMCS DSG state officer to develop a strong understanding of how the APD can support the Medicaid program and serve a public health interest. Coordinating with the state project management office can help integrate the diverse parties and processes needed to develop and submit the APD for approval. It can also help ensure that states develop a comprehensive and flexible timeline for the APD process, stay aware of approaching deadlines, and meet ad hoc requirements. Develop the appropriate APD. Next, based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c), the SMA and SHA should identify which of the three types of APDs to submit to the CMCS DSG state officer. Planning APDs are recommended for large and complex projects, such as statewide projects. However, if a state can identify a clear and easy pathway to integrate a public health information technology system with a current MES procurement or development phase, it can forgo developing a Planning APD and directly develop or update an existing Implementation APD. For example, if a state is looking to integrate its counties’ public health data into its MES at once, it should develop a Planning APD as the project is large and affects all counties in the state. However, if a state already has most of its counties’ public health data in its MES but is looking to add a single county’s data to its MES using the same process it previously and successfully used to add the other counties’ data, it may not need to submit a Planning APD. If a state has already successfully integrated its counties’ public health data into its MES and is looking to make major technology upgrades and improvements, it should submit an Operational APD. Regardless of the type of APD the state submits, the SMA and SHA should work together to ensure the request meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding (see separate document Conditions for Enhanced Funding: The Basics). Submit the APD for approval and be available for revisions. Based on information from CMS, GAO, and the Office of Child Support and Enforcement, the state should then submit the APD to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The SMA and SHA should plan to receive questions and revision requests from the CMCS DSG state officer and ensure that the state has staff capacity to answer questions and revise and resubmit. Approval conditions can be found at 45 C.F.R. § 307.15, but approval criteria might vary by Medicaid IT project and other factors. If approved, implement the plan. Next, the state can carry out the plan described in its Planning and Implementation APDs. After the Medicaid IT project has been operating for at least six months, states can request system certification from CMS. According to CMS, certification is required to receive the enhanced 75 percent federal financial participation for operations. The certification process includes states submitting to CMS an intake form, a certification request letter, and supplemental materials with information on its system. CMS may then start its review to assess whether the state’s system meets certification requirements. If approved, monitor and report progress and submit other APDs as needed. Based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c) and 45 C.F.R. § Part 95 Subpart F and information from CMS, CMCS, Office of Child Support and Enforcement, as the state continues with its Medicaid IT project, it should adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements for enhanced federal funding. It also should submit annual APDs as required. If the state wants to make any major changes to the Medicaid IT project in concept, scope, cost allocation approach, timeline, and other key areas, it must develop and submit an as-needed APD. An as-needed APD is due no later than 60 days after the occurrence of the change. State examples: Medicaid Enterprise System projects Based on information from Alvarez & Marsel, state MES projects will vary based on factors such as the maturity of a state’s technology infrastructure, its specific data needs, and its available resources. As such, projects to design, implement, or operate MES can range in size, complexity, and timeline. For example, the Alabama MES Modernization Program, the Wyoming Integrated Next Generation System Project, and the Florida Health Care Connections project all seek to transform their singular Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) into modular, multi-vendor MES, but differ in approach. In addition, Arizonia and Hawaii are collaborating to modernize their shared MES. For more information on state MES projects, see the Medicaid Enterprise System Solution/Module Contract Status Report. This webpage lists states’ MMIS and Eligibility and Enrollment contract information for their MES projects. It also lists contact information for state officers to reach out to learn more about states’ MES projects. website yes

The COVID-19 pandemic has further amplified the need for strong tobacco prevention and cessation policies. Research indicates that tobacco use is associated with increased rate of COVID-19 disease progression and increased likelihood of death among hospitalized patients, and that e-cigarette use is associated with a greatly increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis in youth and young adults.

2026 State Legislative Session Update 2026 State Legislative Session Update Learn about state legislation from FY26 focused on hot public health topics in this Health Policy Update. ASTHO’s 2026 Legislative Prospectus Series announced the top five public health state policy issues to watch this year. With at least 30 states scheduled to conclude their legislative sessions by the end of May, state legislatures focused on many of these public health topics. Expanding Access to Care As expected, a number of states considered legislation to expand access to care, including policies that promote community-based services and rural health care access. Doula birthing support services continue to be a topic for state legislatures with at least a dozen states considering legislation to expand coverage or access. Oregon enacted SB 1568, expanding coverage for birth and postpartum doulas and lactation counselors. Virginia enacted two bills that support access to doulas: HB 328 requires the Bureau of Insurance to select a new essential health benefits benchmark plan that includes doula care coverage starting in 2029, while HB 838 expands Medicaid coverage to include incentive payments for doulas to provide linkage to care visits in the postpartum period. For other licensed health care professionals, interstate compacts allow health care professionals licensed in one member state to practice in another without additional credentials. This year, legislatures have considered more than 100 health care professional compact bills so far, with at least six states enacting legislation: Arizona (HB 2190), North Dakota (HB 1622), and South Dakota (HB 1146) adopted the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact. New Mexico adopted the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (SB 1) and the Social Work Licensure Compact (HB 50). Mississippi (SB 2543) adopted the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact. Washington (HB 2088) adopted the Dietitian Licensure Compact. Finally, at least two states enacted legislation to expand telehealth. Virginia HB 1284 specifies that its Medicaid provider-to-provider consultation provision includes services provided via telehealth, and Kentucky HB 424 eases the requirements for social worker telehealth practice. Behavioral Health Legislatures are also continuing to explore policies that address mental health and substance misuse. This includes legislation that supports people across the care continuum, explores the use of psychoactive substances in mental health treatment, and regulates emerging substances. At least seven states have enacted legislation to establish or enhance the continuity of care for people in a behavioral health crisis. This includes Maine LD 1216, which requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish crisis intervention support services in all counties. Virginia enacted HB 453, which specifically allows amendments to the state’s Marcus Alert plan supporting the state’s comprehensive crisis system and requires state agencies and local partners to align their policies accordingly. States also continue to promote the availability of opioid reversal drugs through legislative action. Virginia SB 257/HB795 requires certain health insurance plans to include at least one opioid antagonist with limited cost-sharing on their drug formularies. Kansas HB 2534 requires schools to stock naloxone and establish polices to support its administration, and Utah SB 87 clarified its immunity provisions for administering opioid antagonists and will allow expired — but still effective — opioid antagonists to be dispensed and administered in certain situations. Another trend this legislative session is the legalization and regulation of use, medical study, and reclassification of certain psychedelic drugs for therapeutic purposes. Several states considered legislation to allow psilocybin for therapeutic purposes, including Oregon HB 4040, which already allows psilocybin service centers and expanded its licensing criteria for psilocybin service facilitators. At least 23 states considered, and five states (Mississippi SB 2056, South Dakota HB 1099, Utah SB 83, Virginia SB 379, and West Virginia SB 906) enacted legislation that would automatically reschedule psilocybin or certain formulations, pending federal approval and/or rescheduling. Finally, at least 10 states considered bills to support access or research into ibogaine, which is being studied in relation to PTSD and substance use disorder. States include Washington (SB 5204), Oregon (HB 4110), Tennessee (SB 2149/HB 2075), Louisiana (SB 43), Oklahoma (HB 3834), and Georgia (HB 1296), with Mississippi enacting HB 314 to allow the state health department to participate in a consortium supporting clinical trials for ibogaine drug development. A number of states are also taking action to address kratom, a plant-based substance with the potential for serious side effects, including substance use disorder and withdrawal symptoms. As of January 2026, 31 jurisdictions regulate kratom, with at least five states enacting legislation this year. New York (A 9472/S 8814), Virginia (HB 360), and West Virginia (SB 985) established or enhanced prohibitions on selling kratom to people under 21, while Nebraska (LB 901) enacted an excise tax on kratom products. Utah enacted two bills (HB 385 and SB 45) that regulate processors and retailers and New York mandated warning labels on certain kratom products (A 9443/S 8780). Healthy Food and Chronic Disease States continue to prioritize chronic disease by advancing policies recognizing the importance of prevention and how food impacts health. In 2026, a number of states considered legislation to address food insecurity, improve school nutrition, and promote chronic disease screening and prevention. At least 10 states considered legislation to limit ultra-processed foods or promote access to healthy foods, with Nebraska LB 940 prohibiting public schools from offering foods that contain certain color additives and Tennessee SB 2423/HB 1853 taking a similar approach but for any artificial food dye. States are also exploring ways to accommodate student dietary preferences. Minnesota (SF 2970), New Jersey (S 1676), New York (A 1834), and Washington (S 5878) introduced legislation that would mandate plant-based options in school cafeterias. Illinois enacted HB 1607, creating a health department task force to review state efforts to eliminate food deserts and requiring a report with recommendations by January 2028. Finally, state legislatures are taking action to support access to early detection and chronic disease management through insurance regulation. Mississippi enacted HB 565 to require Medicaid and other health plans to cover biomarker testing for the diagnosis, treatment, management, or monitoring of patients when supported by medical evidence. Additionally, Oregon enacted SB 1527, which limits out of pocket costs for medically necessary cervical cancer screenings and follow-up examinations. Finally, Alabama (SB 19) will prohibit certain insurance plans from imposing cost-sharing for prostate cancer screening of all men over 50 and younger men at high risk. Infectious Disease Prevention With recent changes to the membership and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a number of state legislatures have considered changes to vaccine policy in 2026. Several states enacted legislation to modify the role of ACIP, including Colorado (SB 26-032), Connecticut (HB 5044), Maine (LD 2146), Maryland (HB 637), New Mexico (HB 156), Oregon (SB 1598), Vermont (H 545), and Washington (HB 2242). Many of these bills address other components of vaccine policy, including: Vaccine Schedule Recommendations: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington substitute or add state health agencies and/or organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians as sources for vaccine recommendations. Insurance Coverage: Connecticut, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington require health insurance plans to cover vaccines recommended by health agencies or other organizations, rather than ACIP alone. Pharmacist Scope of Practice: Maryland and Vermont substitute or remove ACIP recommendations as an authority for pharmacists to administer vaccines, and Colorado allows pharmacists to prescribe vaccines independently. Funding: Colorado, Maine, and Vermont expand vaccine purchasing programs to include vaccines recommended by bodies other than ACIP. Liability Protections: Colorado, Maine, and Vermont include liability protections for certain providers administering vaccines according to state or medical organization recommendations. Public Health Funding Legislatures in thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories will enact budgets for the 2027 fiscal year, while legislatures in three more states will enact biennial budgets for the 2027 and 2028 fiscal years. With reductions in federal funding, states continue to find ways to leverage state funds to invest in public health and public health infrastructure while adhering to balanced budget requirements. Eleven states have enacted FY 2027 budgets and three states enacted biennial budgets for FY 2027-FY 2028, with several states increasing public health funding, including Kansas (HB 2513), New Mexico (HB 2), and Wyoming (SF 0001). Additionally, three states passed FY 2027 supplemental budgets featuring public health provisions: Maine LD 2212 appropriates funding to support access to affordable prescription drugs in rural and underserved areas, Washington SB 6003 increases funding for the state’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and Nebraska LB 1071 shifts funds to children’s health insurance, community-based aging services, and mental health operations. States have also

In 2023 legislative sessions, states considered measures to improve access to care for pregnant people experiencing substance use disorder, increase provider knowledge of screening and treatment practices, coordinate care for conditions co-occurring with SUD, and keeping families together.

Do Cottage Foods Really Come from a Cottage? Beth Giambrone Even if you're not familiar with the term "cottage foods," chances are you have purchased them—think getting a loaf of bread from your weekend farmers market or cookies from a friend's home-based baking business. In some cases, they can also be sold online. So, what exactly are they? Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate at a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods in the jurisdiction where they are created. Cottage foods are exempt from many state food and safety regulations, with supporters of expanding cottage food laws asserting that existing laws burden small business and restrict competition and consumer freedom. Those opposing the expansion of cottage foods argue the need to ensure food safety and to protect consumers from food borne illness. Here's a primer on cottage foods and how they're regulated. What's the difference between a cottage food kitchen and a commercial kitchen? Commercial kitchens (sometimes known as shared use kitchens) are large, industrial spaces where food can be produced in high volumes; they can also be rented out for shared use. While every state subjects commercial kitchens to food safety inspection and regulations, a few states require inspection of microenterprise or home kitchens producing cottage foods. Does the government have a role in regulating cottage foods? While several federal agencies regulate commercial food products—such as USDA for meat processing and FDA for produce—cottage foods are not subject to federal regulation because they are typically only sold within a state and not across state lines. At the state level, cottage food producers are subject to the health and safety laws and regulations of the state in which they are operating. Some states require cottage food producers to register their business or to have training and/or certification in safe food handling. Currently, all 50 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of cottage food law in place. Under most state laws, cottage food producers are exempt from food safety laws that apply to food establishments. These exempt rules are usually based on the type of food product produced, the point of sale, and the labeling requirements associated with the food. Although cottage food producers are exempt from certain requirements, all states allow the Department of Health to investigate complaints related to foodborne illness and fine producers if there are violations. Since the 2020 legislative sessions, at least 17 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) considered bills related to cottage foods, often centering around product sales, food products, and labeling. An overview of the conditions and a snapshot of the laws passed in states are below. What are common cottage food products? Most state laws limit which food products can be produced and sold as cottage foods. And while specific allowable foods vary state to state, some common restrictions on the type of food sold include foods requiring temperature control (e.g., meat and dairy products) and fermented or pickled foods. Foods such as dairy-free baked goods (e.g., breads and biscuits), candies, and jams are popular cottage food products. Over the last few years, states have expanded the types of foods that qualify to be a cottage food. In 2021, Illinois enacted SB 2007, amending the types of foods permissible under the cottage food law from a delineated list of canned foods (e.g. jams and syrups) to a general standard that mirrors the FDA definition of "low-acid canned food." The New Jersey legislature passed A 3991 in 2022 to exempt raw, unprocessed honey from the state's cottage food regulations. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Oklahoma enacted its "Homemade Food Freedom Act" (HB 1032) in 2021. This new law allows any packaged food or beverage (excluding alcoholic beverages, unpasteurized milk, or cannabis products) to be considered a cottage food rather than only baked goods made without meat or fresh fruits. Additionally, the law allows beekeepers who produce less than 500 gallons of honey per year to qualify for the state's food freedom exemptions if the honey is produced from hives located in the state and sold directly to the consumer. Similarly, the 2022 "Tennessee Food Freedom Act" (HB 813/SB 693) broadly expands the types of homemade foods eligible for sale under the cottage food law to include any non-time/temperature-controlled food item or non-alcoholic beverage. What limitations do states place on cottage food sales? Most states limit cottage food producers to direct-to-consumer sales, such as at a farmers market or roadside stand. More than half of states allow online and direct-to-consumer sales as long as they are to in-state consumers only. While the producer is usually required to deliver the products, at least five states allow delivery by a third party. Several states have considered allowing the sale of cottage food in retail settings. In 2020, Wyoming enacted HB 84, which increased the gross sales cap for producers and allowed producers of non-temperature controlled foods (e.g., jams, vegetables, dried soup mixes) to use third-party vendors like a retail shop rather than solely relying on gross sales. Furthermore, the Wyoming legislature expanded the use of third-party vendors to include the sale of eggs in 2021 by enacting HB 118. A 2021 Arkansas law (HB 248) also allows for the sale of cottage food products at retail stores. Additionally, many states define cottage foods based on the number of items sold or the annual gross sales. The gross sales cap limits vary greatly across states, ranging from $3,000 to $250,000. At least twenty states have no gross sales limit. At least one state (Ohio) places a limit on meals sold per week from home kitchens. What are common labeling requirements for cottage foods? Most states require cottage food producers label their goods. While specific labeling requirements vary state to state, producers generally must provide the name of the product, a list of ingredients, known allergens (e.g., nuts), contact information of the producer, and a statement declaring the product was made in a kitchen exempt from licensing and inspection regulations. In some states, cottage food producers are allowed to use an identification number in place of contact information on product labels. Maryland enacted HB 1017 in 2020, which allows cottage food producers to use a unique identification number issued by the Department of Health in lieu of the business name and address. Arkansas HB 248 (referenced above) also allows producers to use an identification number. What's next? State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving, with more foodstuffs exempt from state food and safety regulations increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks necessitating a public health response. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes

People exposed to adverse childhood experiences are at risk for negative physical and/or mental health outcomes, substance use disorders, and unfavorable social outcomes in adulthood. One known risk factor for ACEs is caregiver stress, including economic hardship. State legislatures have considered several policies in recent years that can improve the overall health of caregivers and reduce ACEs. Read more in this week's Health Policy Update.