Fact Sheet

Equipping people who use drugs, as well as their friends and family members, with the overdose reversal medication naloxone can significantly reduce the number of opioid overdose deaths. This fact sheet discusses laws in California that protect those who respond at the scene of an overdose emergency, including by administering naloxone to a person experiencing an overdose. These laws show a clear intention by the state to encourage laypersons to respond to overdose and increase access to and use of naloxone to reduce preventable overdose death and disability.

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the 2023 Consolidation Appropriations Act (“the Act”) into law.1 Among many other provisions, the Act included substantial regulatory changes to remove barriers and promote access to evidence-based treatment of substance use disorders (“SUD”). In particular, the Act removed legal barriers to the prescription of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (“OUD”). It also requires almost all prescribers to obtain training in the identification and treatment of SUD. Although it will add a small educational burden to most providers who prescribe controlled substances, these changes should make it easier for all prescribers to provide buprenorphine treatment to individuals with OUD and significantly expand the base of prescribers who receive at least some training in identifying and treating individuals with SUD.

This Fact Sheet summarizes the key proposed provisions, identifies those which provide greater alignment with the HIPAA Rules, and calls out some areas on which HHS is specifically soliciting comments (due January 31, 2023). Of particular interest to the public health community, the Fact Sheet also presents the proposed changes to the data de-identification standard for disclosures of Part 2 data made to public health authorities.

In light of the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, 2022, this Memo examines current state-based abortion protections via (1) state statutory and constitutional language, (2) state Supreme Court decisions, (3) state constitutional amendment proposals, and (4) litigation addressing state-based constitutional abortion rights.

Housing and health are directly correlated––a stable, quality home is a basis for a healthy life. Housing quality includes the physical condition of the home, as well as the social and physical environment that surrounds it.1 Various aspects of housing quality can affect an individual’s health including air quality, home safety, space, and the presence of mold, asbestos, or lead.2 Poor quality housing is correlated with health problems, such as chronic diseases, injuries, and poor mental health.3 Unhealthy housing conditions are more common among renters. Although tenants have a right to live in a home that is suitable for human habitation, tenants often remain in substandard housing because they are unaware of their legal rights or how to enforce them.

This issue brief highlights select ways in which race and ethnicity are historically or currently used as public health decision-making or allocation factors in programs, research, funding, or workforce issues in the U.S. through (I) federal laws, (II) federal programs and agencies, and (III) select state laws in California and Florida.

Marijuana, which is still considered an illicit drug at the federal level, is legal in 11 states for adults over the age of 21 for recreational use, and legal for medical use in 33 states. As more states contemplate marijuana legalization, understanding the broad spectrum of public health and policy issues related to cannabis regulation is critical. This collection of resources surveys states’ laws regarding home cultivation and consumption site regulation; zoning restrictions; potency and product regulation; labeling and packaging regulation; youth access regulations and enforcement; and adult-use advertising restrictions.

This fact sheet explains these two district court decisions and other litigation, including ongoing appeals, assessing CDC’s Mask Mandate.

Following the Court’s decision in Dobbs, some states have sought to provide greater or enhanced protections for abortion access. Other states, however, have initiated a series of measures to greatly limit or inhibit abortions. These actions include (a) implementation of pre-existing “trigger” laws banning procedures the moment abortion was no longer a federal constitutional right; (b) enforcement of decades-old laws banning abortion that were never repealed (following the Supreme Court’s initial decision affirming a right to abortion in Roe); and (c) passage of new statutes restricting abortions. This memo provides an illustrative discussion of key emerging themes from litigation challenging state-based anti-abortions laws or policies.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, 2022, the federal government has taken specific actions designed to preserve and promote access to abortions and promote reproductive health. This fact sheet examines key responses from the Biden administration that attempt to protect legal abortion access through specific actions by the (1) White House, (2) Department of Health & Human Services (HHS); (3) Department of Justice (DOJ); and (4) other federal entities.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 24, 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) overturning Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey has resulted in severe limitations to abortion access among select states nationally. In the aftermath of the elimination of the fundamental constitutional right to abortion, identifying legal options to abortion access is critical to ensure the health and safety of individuals across the nation. This fact sheet illustrates select legal avenues to access abortion services in the post-Dobbs United States under core specific categories.

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) that the fully overturned Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey), cases which upheld constitutional rights to abortion. In the aftermath, legal authorities to regulate and even ban abortion have shifted back largely to state (or local) governments. Profound national reactions and public health repercussions may necessitate extraordinary responses, including the potential use of federal emergency response powers. This Memo briefly outlays federal emergency declarations and powers focused on this outcome.