Debate over how to stock epinephrine in schools centers on funding, feasibility

Speakers testified on competing bills to ensure emergency epinephrine (for anaphylaxis) is available in schools, with most witnesses supporting the public‑health goal but differing on the best way to fund and implement a statewide supply.

Student and medical witnesses described cases where stock epinephrine saved lives and urged adoption of a cost‑effective, sustainable approach. Lily Carter, a college student, said many unused injectors expire and that centralized purchasing and a small surcharge on private payers could be cost‑neutral. “If the state makes sure that the necessary 25% of injectors are there at the end of the summer, all the injectors will be good for the entire year,” she said.

Funding dispute: Pediatrician David Chung supported the idea of stock epinephrine but opposed a bill (H611) that he said amounted to an unfunded mandate; he preferred H590’s state purchase and reimbursement approach and said H611’s reliance on manufacturer donations or federal grants left districts without stable funding.

Operational notes: Witnesses emphasized non‑aerosol formulations and parental permission protocols; speakers also asked for clear rules on how stock doses are assigned, maintained, and replaced to avoid waste and ensure availability during field trips and events.

Outcome: Committee heard the competing proposals; advocates urged lawmakers to choose a funding design that ensures availability without imposing unfunded mandates on districts.