Displaying 1-20 of 72 results for

ASTHO Files Amicus Brief in Michigan Case, Argues Against Criminally Charging Health Officials During Major Public Health Crises ARLINGTON, VA—Last week, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) filed an amicus brief with the Genesee District Court in Michigan asserting that criminal prosecutions of health officials based on their professional judgment and decisions will weaken governmental public health’s ability to respond during health emergencies and present additional risks to the public. The court case is the first of its kind where a standing health official has been criminally charged for an alleged failure to notify the public regarding an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease in Genesee County in 2014 and 2015. The outcome of this case is of great interest to ASTHO and its members who are concerned that the threat of criminal sanctions based on a health official’s professional, discretionary decisions will endanger public health. “We are very alarmed by this case, and the fact that a health official can be criminally charged to this extent for doing his job, especially during a public health crisis, is not right,” says John Wiesman, president of ASTHO and secretary of health at the Washington State Department of Health. “ASTHO’s board has carefully considered the allegations in the case. As public health officials, our decisionmaking does not fit within a one-size-fits-all model, but rather includes a thoughtful approach to limiting widespread panic, translating meaningful communication about public health risks and proper efforts to address the crisis at hand, especially when information is subject to change or incomplete.” “The outcome of this case could have an immediate chilling impact on the entire public health profession and a cascading effect on critical life and death decisions public health officials face every day,” says Michael Fraser, CEO of ASTHO. “The public must trust our public health officials to make the right decision at the right time and the fear of criminal prosecution will stymie their efforts.” The amicus brief also notes that “the basis for responsible public health communication is scientific knowledge and consensus,” and “[p]ractitioners have a responsibility to examine the quality of the available scientific information prior to performing any communication activity.” ASTHO Press Release Boilerplate website yes

Explore the mapping center, which tracks state and territorial legislation promoting suicide prevention efforts.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authority has been used to require the use of face masks and encourage social distancing, and other measures. In several states these legal authorities have been challenged and, in many jurisdictions, limited or eliminated by the legislature. Maintaining the legal authority to prevent and control the spread of infectious disease is crucial to preparing for and addressing disease outbreaks.

States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes

Ripple Effect: What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law Andy Baker-White This Health Policy Update highlights how U.S. states and territories are using policy to codify important public health recommendations. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a volunteer panel of national experts that issues evidence-based letter-grade recommendations on clinical preventive services. Under the Affordable Care Act, services with an A or B grade must be covered by most private health insurance plans without cost-sharing, with similar requirements for Medicaid enrollees and Medicare beneficiaries. An estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that in 2020, these services reached approximately 264 million Americans. States and territories implement these recommendations through statutes and rules. ASTHO identified over 200 state and territorial laws referencing the USPSTF, including in insurance statutes, Medicaid rules, disease-specific laws, and state employee health plan requirements. Over the past year, the stability of USPSTF recommendations has come into question. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood confirmed the HHS Secretary’s authority to block USPSTF recommendations and remove task force members. News reports in July 2025 indicated that HHS Secretary Kennedy intended to remove all USPSTF members, and in May 2026 fired the chair and vice-chair of the task force. Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories. In addition, if the USPSTF fails to convene in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services. To meet these challenges, states and territories are taking steps to ensure the continued scientific basis for preventive health services within their own law. Dynamic References to USPSTF Recommendations States and territories often use dynamic references to USPSTF recommendations in regulating health plan coverage of preventive services. This allows the jurisdiction to automatically require coverage for the most current USPSTF recommendations. Laws in West Virginia (state employee health plans), Oregon (regulated health plans), Hawaii (health director standing orders), and Alaska (adult Medicaid enrollees) use this approach. While dynamic references allow jurisdictions to stay up to date with the recommendations, if the task force withdraws any guidance, then those preventive services would no longer require no-cost coverage without additional action from those jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions address this by specifying that certain USPSTF guidance changes will not apply. For example, Guam’s law requires continued no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings and authorizes the health director to adjust diabetes screening recommendations if USPSTF recommendations cease. Illinois specifies that the 2009 USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening and mammography are not to be considered current because national medical bodies created differing recommendations for screening. Another way jurisdictions avoid the unpredictability of using dynamic references is locking in the date of the USPSTF recommendations that are used for coverage requirements. For example, Massachusetts requires its state employee health plan to cover USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect by July 1, 2023. Using a version of USPSTF recommendations from a specific date maintains a base level of coverage regardless of future changes, though adopting new recommendations or removing outdated recommendations would require separate action. During this year’s legislative sessions, several states enacted or proposed legislation to remove dynamic USPSTF references. For example, Maryland passed legislation (HB 637 and SB 385) to lock in the USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect on December 31, 2024. Washington enacted HB 2242 requiring coverage of USPSTF A and B recommendations in effect on June 30, 2025, as well as recommendations adopted by the state insurance commissioner. A bill passed in Delaware, HB 338, would require the use of the USPSTF recommendations from January 1, 2025. Overall, however, neither dynamic nor fixed references to USPSTF recommendations address how jurisdictions can keep up with new scientific data and advances in preventive services in the absence of ongoing USPSTF review and recommendations. To fill this need, some states have enacted legislation that creates processes for reviewing data and establishing recommendations. For example, the new Maryland law mentioned above also authorizes the state’s health secretary to adopt preventive service recommendations that have not been recommended by or that differ from USPSTF. The new process requires notice and a 30-day comment period, an analysis by the Maryland Health Care Commission, and citations to the authoritative medical body upon which the recommendation is based. Disease-Specific Statutes: USPSTF Grades as Care Standards and Thresholds Many states also use USPSTF grades as thresholds for specific preventive services, establishing the standard of care, or issuing standing orders. For example, Arkansas law defines "follow-up colonoscopy" by reference to a colorectal screening assigned an A or B grade by the USPSTF, while Nevada’s law directs primary care providers to use criteria set out in USPSTF recommendations to screen adult women for BRCA mutations. In Hawaii, the state health director is authorized to issue public health standing orders for current USPSTF A and B recommended services, and in Idaho the law uses USPSTF guidance for applying ocular antibiotic prophylaxis to newborns as the standard for medical practice in the state. Some states are considering legislation to distance preventive service coverage requirements from USPSTF recommendations. For example, while New Jersey's current law requires no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings in accordance with the method and frequency recommended by the USPSTF, introduced legislation (A4916 and S4254) would remove the reference to USPSTF recommendations and instead authorize one screening per year for persons aged 33 or older. More broadly, Hawaii considered legislation (HB 1898 and SB 3133) that would have authorized the state’s health department to “make recommendations relating to clinical preventive service recommendations of the [USPSTF] Force that have been assigned a grade of A or B as of July 1, 2025” and require no-cost coverage for the department’s recommendations. However, this legislation did not pass. State Employee Benefit Plans USPSTF recommendations may also be used to establish preventive health services covered by state employee health plans. A West Virginia statute requires the state’s employee health plans to cover mammograms consistent with "current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force," while the health plan document further states that preventive services are "subject to change as USPSTF…recommendations are updated.” In Ohio, a regulation requires state employee health benefits include all USPSTF-recommended tobacco cessation services and authorizes the state health director to update covered services if USPSTF guidance changes. Missouri law requires full coverage of USPSTF graded A and B recommended prescription and prescribed over-the-counter drugs for state plan members. The Path Forward USPSTF recommendations have helped millions of Americans receive critical health services at no cost, and states and territories have built practices, programs, and standards on that foundation. From adopting fixed-date references to establishing state-level recommendation authority to creating new state review bodies, legislative activity this year reflects a broad effort to address ripple effects from potential future changes to or lack of USPSTF guidance. Health officials may be asked to assess their jurisdiction’s laws and their use of USPSTF recommendations, and coordinate with insurance commissioners, Medicaid directors, and employee benefits administrators to confirm consistent agency interpretation and identify where action is needed. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policies as they develop. article yes

Learn about legislation in island areas from the past year to strengthen infrastructure, prevention strategies, health care oversight, and more.

Learn how the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act impacts public health emergency readiness and proposed changes to this legislation.

Responding to Disruptions in Access to Controlled Substance Medications: A Guide for State Health Departments and Their Partners Responding to Disruptions in Access to Controlled Substance Medications astho, association of state and territorial health officials, public health official, state health, territorial health, island areas, island jurisdictions, opioid prescriptions, access to opioid prescriptions, opioid rapid response program, opioid therapy, withdrawal symptom, rapid response, opioid crisis, opioid overdose, mental health, prescription monitoring, united states, discontinuation of opioid, opioid withdrawal, symptoms of withdrawal, opioid use disorder, type of drug, opioid medications, department of health, stop drinking, drinking alcohol, prescription drugs, opioid prescribing, drug withdrawal, opioid pain, physical dependence ASTHO | A guide on responding to disruptions in access to opioid prescription. Responding to Disruptions in Access to Controlled Substance Medications: A Guide for State Health Departments and Their Partners (2025) provides important updates to the 2022 edition and ASTHO’s 2020 document Responding to Pain Clinic Closures: A Guide for State Health Departments. This guidebook reflects the current state and federal landscape regarding disruptions, shares updated recommendations on strategies states might use to mitigate risks to patients affected by a disruption, and includes additional state examples. These updates are informed by the CDC’s Opioid Rapid Response Program (ORRP) and states’ coordinated responses to ORRP notifications since the program was formally established in late 2020, as well as tabletop preparedness exercises ASTHO has conducted with states. Get the Report (PDF) Content Updated - Report - Responding to Disruptions in Access to Controlled Substance Medications website yes

Learn how state health agencies can support brain health and caregiving through policy and innovation.

Policy Options to Improve Data Sharing Between State and Local Health Departments Organizational policies on data sharing between state and local public health agencies. This report explores organizational policies related to data sharing between state and local public health departments. ASTHO, in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and the Network for Public Health Law developed this report, which aims to serve as a guide for state and local public health leaders as they consider organizational policy options to improve state and local data-sharing efforts. Get the Report (PDF) website yes

This report identifies and breaks down seven core value areas that emerge from taking a health in all policies approach to policymaking and programming.

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

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

ASTHO engaged Oklahoma public health officials, members of the Oklahoma Harm Reduction Alliance, Health Minds Policy Initiative, and representatives of the Southern Plains Tribal Health Board, and others in a Boundary Spanning Leadership workshop.

Each September marks National Preparedness Month. This year, public health emergency preparedness professionals look back on 20 years since the 9/11 attacks—the event that effectively launched the preparedness field—while actively responding to COVID-19.

As the Delta variant spreads across the country and increases the number of COVID-19 cases, the strain it is placing on the nation’s health system continues to grow. The surge of COVID-19 patients is contributing to a shortage of the medications and equipment used to treat the disease. As these limitations grow, decisions will need to be made as to which patients receive resources and care and which patients don’t. To guide these decisions, policies called crisis standards of care are often established to maximize resource benefit and ensure they are distributed equitably.

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

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

Building More Equitable Communities Through Public Health Law Dawn Hunter Every week, my husband and I place a grocery order. We shop at an employee-owned supermarket chain known for its workplace culture. Sometimes we order online and pick it up, sometimes we have it delivered, and sometimes we do the shopping ourselves. In any case, we often purchase our groceries without much thinking—if we order online, we are prompted to “buy it again” and even in person we tend to buy the same staples. Prices are higher online than in store. In addition, we live in a community where plastic bags are still an option, but we used to live in a community where plastic bags are banned. Why am I sharing all of this? Nearly every aspect of our weekly grocery trip is shaped by the law. Laws impact: Food placement, packaging, expiration dates, and prices. Employee wages and benefits. Store location, hours, and accessibility. Availability of rideshare drivers for delivery orders. Whether to choose paper or plastic. Law impacts the way we experience our everyday lives by establishing the framework in which we operate. The grocery store is just one example of how law can shape our decisions and, more importantly, our choices. Because it shapes the resources and opportunities available to us, law is an important determinant of health. Exploring the Landscape of Public Health Law What we think of as “law” can take many forms. It includes statutes, regulations, case law, organizational policy, and budgets, and how they are interpreted and enforced. The law can be a set of requirements or prohibitions, establishing norms and expectations for our behavior as individuals, organizations, and systems. The law can also be the processes and procedures associated with creating laws, making decisions, and interpreting existing laws. Public health law, specifically, is important as a field because it includes the laws that are designed to protect and promote the public’s health and that define the power of the government to act on our behalf. In fact, law is behind every public health success of the 20th century. A 1999 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report listed vaccinations, motor vehicle safety, safer workplaces, healthier moms and babies, and recognition of tobacco as a health hazard among those successes. These achievements would not be possible without the law, including: School vaccination laws. Helmet and seatbelt laws. Speed limits. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Food fortification. School lunch programs. The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Newborn screening. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Clean indoor air laws. At the same time, these laws have not benefited everyone equally. In fact, they have often operated as a tool of racism and other forms of structural discrimination. The lesson here is that the law can create the conditions that lead to differences in health outcomes, but it can also create the conditions for equity. The Civil Rights Movement and Advances in Health Equity One must look only to the civil rights movement to see the potential. As just one example, today’s robust network of Community Health Centers was born from the activism of the Black Panther Party, which established free health clinics in response to continuing discrimination in the health care system, as well as the work of H. Jack Geiger and Count D. Gibson Jr., who established the first community health centers in 1965. The success of these efforts led to funding for additional community health centers through President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity as part of his War on Poverty. In fact, key legislation enacted during the civil rights movement led to significant, even if insufficient, improvements in health outcomes for Black Americans. For example, there is evidence that women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act all led to improvements in premature mortality and infant mortality, among other benefits. The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the resulting adoption of Medicaid expansion saw similar success. There is ample evidence of the Medicaid expansion impact on health outcomes and financial well-being, both at the individual and population level. Addressing the Training Gaps in Public Health Law for More Equitable Public Health Practice The fact that law shapes how we experience our lives on a day-to-day basis is perhaps the most important reason that public health professionals should understand the relationship between the law and health outcomes and how to use the law to achieve more equitable, thriving communities. However, knowledge of public health law continues to be one of the biggest training gaps in the public health workforce. The 2021 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey, conducted by the de Beaumont Foundation and ASTHO, found that strategic and systems thinking was one of the top training needs as well as an increased interest in policy engagement and topics related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (visit the 2021 Dashboard). Another report in 2021, “Challenges and Opportunities for Strengthening the US Public Health Infrastructure: Findings From the Scan of the Literature” by the National Network of Public Health Institutes, found a need for increased awareness among the public health workforce of the legal basis for public health authority and identified both how to influence law and policy development and how to understand the effects of law and policy on health among the top training needs. These findings align with public health accreditation standards. Whether or not you work for an accredited health department, the Public Health Accreditation Board Standards and Measures serve as a guidepost for the practice of public health. There are two specific domains where this is relevant: domains 4 and 5, as detailed in Table 1. Padding Block - Medium(10) Table 1. Public Health Accreditation Board Guidance for Equity Domain Measure Examples Domain 4: Strengthen, support, and mobilize communities and partnerships to improve health. Measure 4.1.3 A: Engage with community members to address public health issues and promote health. Making the decision-making structure inclusive and transparent to empower community members or developing mechanisms for shared ownership in the process. Enhancing residents’ capacity to understand levers of power or influence in policy change. Domain 5: Create, champion, and implement policies, plans, and laws that impact health. Measure 5.1.2 A: Examine and contribute to improving policies and laws. Assessment of the impacts of the policy or law on equity. Input gathered from stakeholders or strategic partners. Padding Block - Large(2) Lessons Learned: Involving and Empowering Communities The inclusion of community members in assessment, decision-making, and capacity-building efforts to understand levers of power or influence reinforce key lessons learned in the past three years, spurred by COVID-19 and the racial justice movement of the summer of 2020: The first lesson is the need to recognize and rectify historical injustices. It is important that we understand the historical legal context behind current health inequities. We must know and name the problem to solve it. The second is the need to rectify current inequities by analyzing and assessing the ways in which our current system of laws is creating and reinforcing inequities. The third is the need to engage impacted people in identifying, designing, and implementing solutions. One of the lessons learned from the work of Geiger and Gibson was that there is a difference between what the health system thinks people need and what communities think they need. It seems we are still trying to learn this lesson today. Leveraging Law to Drive Equity and Make Public Health More Trustworthy Law is the only way to truly change the game for inequities. It can give a voice to historically marginalized people by creating pathways to ensure inclusion and representation in the political process. It can also change systems and institutions by changing the way they operate and the way that people within those systems operate. Additionally, it can serve as a tool to enforce conditions that will lead to more equitable outcomes and to hold people in positions of power accountable. We have often heard in the past few years about the need to rebuild trust in public health. I’d like to reframe that to think about how we make public health as a field more trustworthy. It starts by increasing our understanding of the authority of public health to promote the public’s health and to use that authority to create systems in which we all can thrive. article yes

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