Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Health Epinephrine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear bill to require epinephrine supply and reporting in public schools
Summary
Representative Mike Drago and supporters told the Senate committee HB 677 would require public schools to maintain supplies of epinephrine (auto‑injectors or approved nasal sprays), name trained assistive personnel, and report inventories for possible reimbursement; proponents cited programs that donate replacement doses.
Representative Jaygo (Senator Sullivan introduced HB 677 on behalf of its sponsor) summarized House Bill 677 as a measure to require public schools to maintain epinephrine supplies and to name at least one trained assistive employee to cover school hours for administration and to report inventory for reimbursement.
Representative Mike Drago, the bill sponsor, said the bill would move from the existing permissive authority (allowing schools to maintain a supply) to a requirement that schools carry epinephrine. Drago cited research from other states that for every 100,000 pupils "anywhere between 9 and 22 students need to use epinephrine during the school year," and he said 17–27 percent of students needing epinephrine may have no prior known allergy.
Drago emphasized that he designed the bill to avoid an unfunded mandate on local towns and noted two vendor programs that provide two free doses to schools and replace used doses. He said the bill would ask schools to pursue the free programs first and only request state funds if donation programs were unavailable.
Committee members questioned liability and coverage hours. Senator Aultchilla and others asked whether designating assistive personnel for "as many hours as possible" could create liability exposure; Drago said he left the phrase intentionally flexible to allow local nurses to identify personnel who can cover early drop‑off, after‑school activities and other hours, and he expressed willingness to accept language adjustments to reduce liability risk. Suggestions included a non‑lapsing fund to accept gifts and grants as a fallback funding mechanism.
Senators also asked about Good Samaritan legal protections and whether administering under job descriptions affects coverage; participants said they would check the statute and consider language clarifications.
Ending: The committee heard the bill and several senators asked technical and liability questions; no vote is recorded in the transcript.
