Displaying 1-20 of 70 results for

This guide is designed to help leaders prepare for and structure discussions on strategies to mitigate challenges to healthcare capacity during the 2023 fall and winter respiratory illness season.

HHS Budget Hearings Chart New Direction for Public Health Budget Hearings Chart New Direction for Public Health Catherine Jones Learn about the key policy/funding themes that emerged from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s testimony during the May 2025 budget hearings. In May 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee to discuss the Trump Administration's proposed FY26 HHS budget. On May 2, President Trump released his “Skinny Budget,” which formed the basis of much of the questioning Sec. Kennedy received from members of both parties. These hearings illuminated a sweeping reorganization of HHS and other federal agencies, signaling a dramatic shift in public health priorities and funding. Seven key themes emerged from the testimony, highlighting how these priorities are being advanced through the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative and the newly proposed Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). The President’s Budget Appendix, released in late May, reaffirms these policy and funding proposals. Reorganizing HHS and CDC The blueprint for HHS calls for consolidating various agencies under the new AHA, including HRSA, SAMHSA, and parts of CDC. In the hearings, Republicans broadly supported MAHA and AHA initiatives, mentioning the need to disrupt bureaucratic inefficiencies, reduce regulatory hurdles, and improve health care delivery. Democrats expressed concerns about program disruptions, layoffs, and FY25 appropriated funds that remain undisbursed. A handful of Democrats pressed Sec. Kennedy on whether he would spend FY26 funds, as appropriated by Congress; he responded affirmatively. When asked who authorized the staff layoffs, Sec. Kennedy gave inconsistent responses claiming ownership in one hearing and later attributing decisions to the Department of Government Efficiency. Public Health Preparedness and Prevention Preparedness and prevention were central topics, especially in the HELP Committee hearing. The proposed elimination of the Hospital Preparedness Program and cuts to the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program would result in a net loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support. HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) voiced concerns about the implications for under-resourced and rural states. Sec. Kennedy emphasized CDC’s legal responsibility for national pandemic response and called for reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. In the House hearing, he also addressed topics such as supply chain independence from China for critical medicines, and adequate funding for the Strategic National Stockpile and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Vaccines Sec. Kennedy's past vaccine skepticism drew bipartisan scrutiny. Lawmakers pressed him to affirm support for routine immunizations, particularly amid a measles resurgence. When asked about pediatric vaccinations in the House hearing, Sec. Kennedy demurred wanting to refrain from giving medical advice. In the HELP hearing, he confirmed that funding appropriated for vaccines would be used accordingly and stated that vaccine recommendations would continue to be made by CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). However, on May 27, he contradicted that assurance by directing CDC to remove COVID-19 as a recommended vaccine for pregnant women and children — reportedly without ACIP input. It should be noted that on June 9, a directive from Sec. Kennedy offered formal notice of the immediate termination of the current 17 ACIP voting board members. Injury and Violence Prevention Substance use, suicide, and overdose prevention were major topics around injury and violence. The FY26 budget proposes transferring CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to AHA but still eliminates a majority of its programs. These programs have driven progress on opioid surveillance and community-based interventions, and reduced rates of overdose. When asked about preserving the SAMHSA State Opioid Response Grant, Sec. Kennedy said he supported harm reduction tools such as naloxone and community care programs but needed to review the specific grant. He acknowledged overdose as a public health crisis and stated that HHS will maintain 500 addiction treatment centers nationwide. He mentioned his commitment to addiction programs and the administration’s keen attention on preventing fentanyl from entering the United States. Additional questions were raised about high alcoholism rates on reservations, general funding for Indian Health Services, and elimination of LGBTQ+ services in the suicide prevention hotline; Sec. Kennedy promised to follow up on these topics. Chronic Disease, Cancer, and Food Safety Throughout the hearings, Sec. Kennedy underscored his steadfast commitment to reducing rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancers, Alzheimer’s and dementia, and other chronic conditions. He also wants to focus on the challenges of rural health care and rural hospital closures, as well as improved access to care for vulnerable populations, such as older Americans, veterans, and people with disabilities. In his testimony, Sec. Kennedy repeated his commitment to address nutrition and physical activity and to prioritize healthy eating in the Head Start program. He is working closely with FDA to phase out harmful dyes. FDA has fast-tracked approval for vegetable substitute dyes for the food industry. Sec. Kennedy is also focused on combating ultra-processed foods stating that “nutrition reform will address the root causes of diseases,” such as cancer. CDC’s Center for Chronic Disease Prevention is proposed for elimination in the budget, and the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcome Study is paused. Children’s and Women’s Health Lawmakers from both parties voiced concern over misinformation leading to declining vaccination rates and a growing measles threat. Youth mental health and social media harms were emphasized. Senators also raised bipartisan objections to the proposed elimination of CDC’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, which is being revisited. He expressed interest in researching environmental causes of autism and not solely focusing on genetics. In the House hearing, he acknowledged racial disparities in maternal care. Despite proposed cuts to programs like the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, Sec. Kennedy voiced support for women’s health research. He also said he supports dental care, though he offered limited assurance on fluoride access. The budget proposes to close CDC’s Division of Oral Health. Tobacco Control In the House hearing, Ranking Member DeLauro (D-CT) criticized the proposed elimination of CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health. Senators in the HELP hearing emphasized tobacco’s status as the leading preventable cause of death and warned that staffing cuts would undermine decades of progress. Sec. Kennedy acknowledged the concerns but said he needed to review the specifics. He was also asked about FDA’s inaction on regulating illicit Chinese-made vapes targeting U.S. youth. While Sec. Kennedy presented the FY26 budget as a framework for streamlining government and cutting costs, critics argued that it undermines core public health capacities. As Congress enters markup season and prepares to negotiate final programs and funding levels, the outcome of this year’s budget debate will have long-term implications for the U.S. public health system. article yes

This toolkit details structure and outcomes of ASTHO’s Vaccine Equity Project to help jurisdictions in their pursuit of vaccine equity.

According to the federal government, a homebased individual is someone who requires the help of another person or supportive device to leave the home, someone who is advised against leaving the home by a physician, and/or someone for whom it is extremely taxing to leave the home. Compared to non-homebased adults, homebased people are more likely to be older, have lower income, and belong to racial minority groups—as well as live with disabilities, chronic health conditions, and comorbidities. Individuals who are homebased therefore tend to be at increased risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

For many individuals living with disabilities, inaccessible vaccination websites have been a significant barrier to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Recent studies have found that many vaccination websites do not reliably meet accessibility standards. This brief discusses how several disability rights laws apply to COVID-19 vaccine registration websites and offers considerations for state and territorial health agencies as they work to improve website accessibility for people living with disabilities.

ASTHO, in collaboration with CDC, provided full-time disability and preparedness specialists to 17 jurisdictions to better meet the needs of people with disabilities. In this brief, specialists share their thoughts on why people living with disabilities may be hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine and some approaches public health officials can take to address vaccine hesitancy in people living with disabilities.

Impact of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommendations on State Law Impact of the ACIP Recommendations on State Law Learn about the impact of ACIP recommendations on state law related to immunizations, insurance coverage, vaccine administration, and more. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was formed in 1964 to “provide ongoing expert advice to the [HHS] Secretary on federal immunization policy.” Today, ACIP makes recommendations to CDC about vaccines with a focus on the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. ACIP recommendations help inform clinical and public health practice and include: “(1) the age and other population groups (e.g., by sex, occupation) recommended to receive that vaccine; (2) the recommended age or frequency to receive each dose and the interval between doses (for multidose vaccines); and (3) any precautions and contraindications.” The CDC director reviews ACIP’s recommendations and decides whether they should be formally adopted. While ACIP recommendations are just that, recommendations and not requirements, they have a far-reaching impact on vaccine policy with nearly 600 statutes and regulations across 49 states, three territories, and Washington, D.C., referencing ACIP. These laws often direct the use or consideration of ACIP recommendations in developing or implementing state or territorial vaccine policy. If the ACIP recommendations change, then any state or territorial policy that depends on them will be altered as well. References to ACIP recommendations appear in several different areas of vaccine policy including state and territorial laws related to: School immunizations. Mandatory insurance coverage. Provider scope of practice to dispense or administer vaccines. Required vaccine information. Mandatory and voluntary immunizations for health care workers and patients. Standing orders and protocols for dispensing or administering vaccines. Notifications for recommended or overdue immunizations. Vaccine purchasing determinations. Immunization Requirements for School Enrollment and Attendance State and territorial law, through statute or rule, may direct the use of or allow the consideration of ACIP recommendations when determining the jurisdiction’s vaccine requirements for school enrollment and attendance. This means any changes or deletions to the ACIP recommendations could automatically impact the jurisdiction’s school immunization laws. Some states give deference only to ACIP recommendations when determining school immunization requirements while other states include the recommendations of ACIP and other national organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the American College of Physicians (ACP). The degree of adherence to ACIP recommendations also varies, with some jurisdictions requiring strict adherence to the recommendations and others taking ACIP recommendations into consideration for their vaccine policy decision making. In Hawaii, for example, the health department “may adopt, amend, or repeal as rules, the immunization recommendations of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” Missouri’s statute permits school enrollment when a child “has been adequately immunized against vaccine-preventable childhood illnesses specified by the department of health and senior services in accordance with recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices” while Alabama’s law provides that “vaccine doses should be administered according to the most recent version” of ACIP’s recommendations. New Mexico’s law states that “[t]he immunizations required and the manner and frequency of their administration shall conform to recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices of the United States department of health and human services and the American academy of pediatrics.” Jurisdictions can identify their statutes, rules, and other policies that are tied to ACIP recommendations and assess the impact any changes to the recommendations would have on current public health practices and activities. Earlier this year, Colorado enacted HB 1027, a bill relating to school immunizations. The bill changes the source for the health department’s list of recommended school immunizations from ACIP to the state board of health and directs the board to consider ACIP recommendations as well as recommendations by AAP, AAFP, ACOG, and ACP when establishing required school immunizations, their manner, and frequency. The new law also allows the state health department to use the guidelines from AAP, AAFP, ACOG, and ACP along with ACIP when conducting its annual evaluation of immunization practices. Required Coverage by Insurance Providers ACIP-recommended vaccines are often required by states to be covered by Medicaid managed care organizations or private insurers. Changes to ACIP recommendations could impact the vaccines covered by these insurers. In Delaware, a “health carrier shall provide coverage for […] immunizations for routine use in children, adolescents and adults that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” Colorado enacted SB 196 giving the state insurance commissioner the ability to maintain current ACIP recommendations. The revised law states that if the ACIP recommendations “are repealed, modified, or otherwise no longer in effect, the commissioner may adopt rules to require compliance with the guidelines or recommendations that were in effect in January 2025, or that comply with the recommendations of the Nurse-Physician Advisory Task Force for Colorado Healthcare.” Scope of Practice to Administer or Dispense Immunizations State law may give pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and other health care providers the legal authority to dispense or administer vaccines. The vaccines allowed under this authority are often tied to ACIP recommendations so that altering the recommendations could result in these providers no longer able to dispense or administer certain vaccines. Maine law permits pharmacists to “administer vaccines licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration that are recommended by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or successor organization, for administration to a person 18 years of age or older.” In Vermont, pharmacy technicians can “only administer immunizations […] pursuant to the schedules and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendations for the administration of immunizations, as those recommendations may be updated from time to time.” Dentists in Minnesota are permitted to give vaccinations if they “comply with guidelines established by the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices relating to vaccines and immunizations.” Requirements to Provide Information About Vaccines In Alabama, information about the influenza vaccine that schools provide parents or guardians must include “related recommendations issued by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Illinois law directs the state’s department of public health to develop an informational brochure relating to meningococcal disease that includes “the latest scientific information on meningococcal disease immunization and its effectiveness, including information on all meningococcal vaccines receiving a Category A or B recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” In Tennessee, hospitals are directed to provide parents of newborns with educational information about pertussis and the availability of a vaccine for pertussis “in accordance with the latest recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-110. Oregon law requires post-secondary schools that provide housing to inform incoming students of vaccine-preventable diseases known to occur in young adults and ACIP recommendations for vaccines related to those diseases. Vaccination of Healthcare Workforce and Patients Some states instruct hospitals or long-term facilities to offer or require their employees and/or patients and residents certain vaccinations in adherence to ACIP recommendations. In New Mexico, every fall and winter hospitals are required to offer older patients vaccines for influenza and pneumococcal “in accordance with the latest recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices.” In Missouri, first responders who may be deployed for a bioterrorism event may be offered vaccinations for smallpox, anthrax, “and other vaccinations when recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” New Jersey law requires health care facilities to “establish and implement an annual influenza vaccination program in accordance with the current recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” Regulations in Texas direct nursing homes “to offer immunizations in accordance with the most recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.” Standing Orders and Protocols Indiana law authorizes the state health commissioner to issue a statewide standing order for pharmacists to administer or dispense “[a]n immunization that is recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for individuals who are not less than eleven (11) years of age.” In California, the medical director at a skilled nursing facility can issue a standing order influenza and pneumococcal immunizations when the standing orders “meet the

Data modernization improves public health response to emerging health threats and can help address health inequities in the U.S.

Partnering with Birthing Hospitals to Protect Babies Against RSV Partnering to Protect Babies Against RSV Susan Kansagra, Michelle Fiscus, Kim Martin Learn how immunization programs partnered with birthing hospitals to expand participation in Vaccines for Children and better protect babies against RSV. In 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants, a major milestone in newborn immunization. Unlike vaccines, which stimulate the body’s immune system to produce its own protection over time, mAbs work right away by giving the body ready-made protection against infection. This is especially important for newborns who do not have the protection of maternal RSV vaccination, which causes them to face a higher risk of severe RSV illness and need protection as early as possible. In response to the 2023 ACIP recommendation, state and territorial immunization programs acted quickly to ensure these new protections reached the babies who needed them most. One of the most effective strategies was partnering with birthing hospitals to expand participation in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, a federally funded initiative that provides vaccines to children at no cost to their families who might otherwise be unable to afford them. This program enabled the delivery of RSV mAbs — such as nirsevimab and now clesrovimab — to VFC-eligible newborns without any financial burden on their families. High Stakes, Strong Results The stakes were high, as RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the United States. It was previously responsible for an estimated 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations and up to 300 deaths in children under age five each year. Data on RSV mAbs showed significant results, reducing RSV-related emergency department visits by 63% and hospitalizations by as much as 80%. Administering RSV mAbs in the first few days after birth, during RSV season, ensures that infants are protected before their first exposure — a critical step in reducing illness and health care burden. Strategies for Success Health departments played a leading role in bringing birthing hospitals into the VFC program. Many hospitals were not previously enrolled, often due to limited awareness, logistical barriers, or concerns about administrative burdens. Immunization programs responded by 1) launching targeted outreach, 2) offering tailored technical assistance, 3) simplifying enrollment processes, and 4) providing guidance on proper storage, eligibility screening, and documentation. The Impact of Stronger Partnerships These efforts have generated measurable results: The number of birthing hospitals enrolled in the VFC program increased from 292 in the 2023 season to 1,012 in 2025, boosting coverage from 10% to 36% of all U.S. birthing hospitals. This clearly demonstrates that these partnerships are effective and make a real difference in protecting infants’ health. State data further highlights this success and shows that collaboration across states, hospitals, and public health partners is crucial for achieving measurable impact: Virginia nearly doubled the number of birthing hospitals enrolled in the VFC program, increasing from six to 11 within one year. The state’s immunization program implemented an innovative Replacement Model to simplify requirements and collaborate closely with hospital teams to overcome barriers. Similarly, California provided resources, developed an enrollment checklist, and communicated the benefits of enrollment to birthing hospitals. Finally, across six states, 33 hospitals, and 400 clinics over two RSV seasons, Intermountain Health coordinated a system-wide approach that developed educational tools, enrolled hospitals in VFC, and addressed supply shortages. It also piloted a Replacement Model where mAb product was purchased by the hospital and doses administered to VFC-eligible babies were replaced with VFC-funded stock. These efforts also strengthened relationships between public health programs and birthing institutions. Trust and communication improved, and hospitals became more engaged in broader immunization goals (e.g., access to other birth-dose vaccines like hepatitis B). This expanded partnership not only protected newborns during RSV season but reinforced the capacity of immunization programs to mobilize quickly, implement new recommendations, and ultimately improve health outcomes. Compared to prior seasons, RSV-associated hospitalization rates were 28%-43% lower in 2024-2025, which was the first season with widespread availability of mAbs and maternal RSV vaccine. Future Opportunities Health departments have used a number of strategies to increase VFC enrollment by hospitals and mAbs coverage as a whole, including: Using birth volume data to prioritize outreach to additional hospitals for enrollment in the VFC program. Ensuring linkage to Immunization Information Systems to determine maternal RSV vaccination status and quickly identify eligible infants. Working with health systems on standing orders and protocols to help providers administer mAbs rapidly to eligible infants. Bringing hospitals and payers together to provide financial models that support universal coverage. While bundled payments for labor and delivery stays have been a barrier for private payer coverage, the high ROI for preventing future RSV-related health care utilization may provide additional opportunities for payers to consider alternative coverage models. Sharing promising practices through a Learning Collaborative webinar series developed by the Association of Immunization Managers, in coordination with CDC. The rapid rollout of RSV mAbs through the VFC program is a model of success. It shows that when public health agencies and health care partners work together, we can deliver lifesaving interventions, even in complex, high-volume settings like birthing hospitals. As new immunization tools emerge in the years ahead, the infrastructure, lessons and relationships built through this effort will continue to support the goal of protecting all children from the very start. article yes

Read about deference to ACIP vaccine recommendations in state and territorial vaccine policy, following recent changes to the committee.

Forming Partnerships to Increase Rural Immunization Rates ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, national immunization awareness month, farmworker communities, vaccine equity project, increase rural immunization, immunization rates, healthcare access, community action agencies, barriers to vaccine uptake, community partnerships, underlying medical conditions, back-to-school vaccinations, national community action partnership, vaccination strategies, vaccination importance, farmworker communities, challenges to healthcare access, vaccination rates, national center for farmworker health, rural immunization, preventable disease Shalini Nair, Heather Tomlinson ASTHO | Learn how public health partners with community organizations to bring vaccines to rural communities that otherwise would have difficulty accessing care in this blog. Rural communities face many challenges in accessing health care, like limited provider availability, gaps in insurance coverage, transportation issues, language barriers, and limited internet access. Additionally, rural populations are more likely to have underlying medical conditions, less likely to have insurance, and live farther from medical facilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, overall routine vaccination coverage remained stable; however, there was a notable 4–5% drop in vaccination rates among young children living below the federal poverty level and in rural areas. In response, CDC developed the Let’s Rise initiative and a back-to-school campaign to provide actionable strategies and resources for getting Americans back on schedule with their routine vaccines. This month is National Immunization Awareness Month, highlighting the importance of vaccination for people of all ages. Boosting vaccine access and confidence is crucial to limit the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. Barriers to Vaccine Uptake While they only account for 14% of Americans, rural communities represent nearly two-thirds of primary health care shortage areas. Due to the lack of providers, rural Americans often live over 10 miles from their closest health care facility and do not always have access to reliable transportation. Additionally, rural communities also have a larger proportion of people who are uninsured and underinsured. Studies have shown that primary care visits and strong provider recommendations can greatly enhance utilization of preventative health measures, such as vaccination, while limited access to these aspects can reduce health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this disparity as many rural hospitals closed and the country faced national workforce shortages. Rural communities were significantly impacted, with 76% of rural adults knowing someone who had COVID-19 and 38% contracting COVID-19 themselves. Despite this impact, the majority of those polled reported this did not change their intent to get vaccinated. Furthermore, the gap in COVID-19 vaccination coverage between urban and rural areas more than doubled between April 2021 and January 2022, despite rural communities having disproportionately higher COVID-19 disease incidence and mortality. The digital divide also limits access to accurate information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. States and community groups have taken various actions to address these barriers. Successful Strategies to Address Low Vaccination Rates in Rural Communities With support from CDC, ASTHO is working with the National Community Action Partnership and five community action agencies (CAAs) on the Partnering for Vaccine Equity project. A recent blog showcases some of the work the CAAs have implemented to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake and to customize evidence-based strategies to their own communities and neighborhoods. Two project partners, Pickens County Community Action and Enrichment Services Program, are working to build trust and increase vaccine uptake in rural Alabama by leveraging existing networks and taking a whole-health approach to outreach efforts. In Russell County, Enrichment Services deployed a highly successful paper- and social media-based messaging campaign centered around messages that emphasized three points: Vaccines are Safe, Vaccines Save Lives, and Vaccines Save Money. By reaching out to local churches, Enrichment Services was able to greatly expand the reach of their health promotion messages. In addition, to increase the number of available access points for vaccination, Enrichment Services co-located outreach at schools and engaged local EMT representatives from the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians for their first-hand knowledge of the community. Sample graphics from Enrichment Services' vaccine equity messaging campaign. In Pickens County, Pickens Community Action relied on existing partnerships with over 30 community organizations to kickstart their vaccine equity efforts. To address access-related barriers, Pickens sponsored rides to and from their vaccine clinics and partnered with local physicians to provide personalized counseling to individuals receiving vaccinations. Notably, they established both a faith-based and a disability services advisory committee to further assist their outreach efforts. Some of their existing partners in the community include the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Black Belt Community Foundation, Whatley Health System, Hill Hospital of Sumter County, The University of Alabama, and elected officials. Left: A food table being set up for Pickens’ Community Health Fair at the Tom Bevill Lock and Dam in Pickensville, AL. Right: A mobile outreach van from partner the University of Alabama rolls in to assist at Pickens’ Community Health Fair. For both agencies, offering services that address the social determinants of health greatly increased engagement. Both sites found success in offering incentives—such as food or gas gift cards and free food giveaways—but their greatest success has been from co-locating vaccine events with service offerings that address essential needs such as housing, utility assistance, or education. This model has proven highly successful not only for COVID-19 vaccines, but also as a sustainable strategy for general vaccine outreach. Increasing Vaccination Rates in Farmworker Communities Numerous successful strategies have been implemented in rural communities largely comprised of immigrants—with a special focus on migrant farmworkers, who labored throughout the pandemic due to the critical nature of their work. In addition to facing barriers related to transportation, health insurance, and language access, many farmworkers are not able to visit a clinic or pharmacy due to their long working hours. The National Center for Farmworker Health, in collaboration with CDC and over 40 different organizations, worked to diffuse funding, trainings, and tools for building capacity to act during the public health emergency. This network generated over 1.3 million COVID-19 related educational interactions with farmworkers and supported the distribution of over 108,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses during 2020 and 2021. The network also documented effective practices undertaken by community-based organizations and agricultural employers to distribute vaccines, dispel myths, and build vaccine confidence. Photos courtesy of the Guatemalan-Maya Center (left) and National Center for Farmworker Health (right). State Considerations for Implementation Collaboration with trusted community groups can amplify state efforts to vaccinate communities, particularly in those with low vaccination rates. Working with CAAs and organizations that understand their communities and utilize innovative outreach strategies can help states expand the reach of their messaging. Communications should be tailored to include multilingual messaging and images that resonate with targeted communities. The National Governors Association developed a guide that provides valuable strategies for states to increase vaccine uptake in their rural communities. To help address the digital divide in their communities, several states have made investments in their digital infrastructure. Partnering with local pharmacies, federally qualified health centers, and emergency medical services to offer alternative vaccination sites in communities has been integral in improving awareness and access. Holding mobile vaccine clinics with after-hours availability or offering transportation to and from vaccine clinics can help address transportation issues and make vaccines accessible in communities with limited health care facilities. Addressing immunizationinequities in rural communities requires understanding the community and implementing innovative strategies tailored to these populations. Partnering with community-based organizations can help states reach critical audiences and ensure that vaccine efforts are addressing relevant barriers. article yes

In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election in November, the Republican and Democratic National Committees released their platforms. These platforms provide an overview of values, policies, positions, and principles on various domestic and foreign issues deemed most important to the two political parties. For the upcoming 2020 elections, delegates of the Republican National Committee approved a resolution that renewed support for the platform adopted in 2016 and the Democratic National Committee approved a 2020 platform. Although both platforms touch on a diverse list of issues, there are several that are of interest to health and public health.

With many of the state and territorial legislatures reconvening over the next few weeks, we can look forward to new (and not-so-new) legislation start to crop up that will impact public health. To help navigate the new legislative sessions, ASTHO’s "2021 Legislative Prospectus" series highlights eight priority policy areas jurisdictions will address during this year. Each prospectus in the series provides a brief overview of the issue, the issue’s impact on health, and recent legislative trends aimed at addressing the issue. This year, ASTHO developed prospectuses on COVID-19, e-cigarettes, HIV, influenza, maternal mortality and morbidity, neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and rural health.

Many pharmaceutical companies urgently began developing a COVID-19 vaccine earlier this year to reduce the spread of the virus as the threat of a pandemic loomed. Fast forward several months and millions of COVID-19 cases later, states and territories are preparing to distribute a potential vaccine with preliminary plans for distributing a COVID-19 vaccine due to the CDC in October.

Every year, ASTHO performs an annual environmental scan to identify these policy and programmatic priorities. The most recent scan occurred from June 2019 to May 2020. Through ongoing collection of data from a variety of sources—including state and territorial health improvement plans and strategic plans, documentation of discussion topics from ASTHO’s weekly calls with state and territorial health officials, requests for technical assistance, and subject matter expert input on trends and issues emerging in the field. These priorities will be ASTHO’s “2021 resolutions” as we enter a new year.

The 2019-2020 flu season had approximately 5 million fewer illnesses than the previous year. Thanks to COVID-19 mitigation efforts like social distancing and increased handwashing—coupled with a higher rate of flu vaccinations among the public this year—this all likely led to a milder end to the 2019-2020 flu season and start of the 2020-2021 flu season.

Anticipating a rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines as they are authorized, the CDC developed COVID-19 Vaccination Program Operational Guidance in collaboration with state and local jurisdictions to outline how each jurisdiction will make an authorized vaccine widely available. In addition to the operational plans, there is a legal framework of federal and state laws supporting the distribution and administration of the FDA-authorized vaccines.

Each year the U.S. battles seasonal influenza, leaving millions of people sick, hospitalized, or worse. As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, it is crucial for all eligible individuals to receive a flu vaccine to help reduce the likelihood of contracting both flu and COVID-19.

As public health officials lead the pandemic response, clear direction-setting in every state and territories is vital to assure our planning and implementation is fair and focused on those most at need. These are not entirely unprecedented times—1918 pandemic flu killed almost 700,000 Americans. Even then, despite increasing understanding of respiratory disease transmission, many leaders—including public health leaders—downplayed the pandemic and refused to take effective steps to limit large gatherings and encourage mask wearing. Changing behavior, or introducing new social norms, was as difficult then as it is now. We have to learn from history if we are to effectively respond to our present reality.

If there is any word to describe 2020 it is “unprecedented,” with the work of health agencies front and center since COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. But as we approach Public Health Thank You Day and the Thanksgiving season, ASTHO wants to send a special appreciation to our entire state and territorial public health workforce. We have been so impressed by your tireless work to address COVID-19 in your jurisdictions and you have wowed us all with your dedication and commitment to the work of health protection and improvement. Thank you all for all you do to keep your communities healthy!