Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immunization Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates shifting immunization rulemaking from DHHS to the legislature in HB 357
Summary
House Bill 357 would withdraw the Health and Human Services commissioner’s authority to adopt immunization requirements by administrative rule and would allow several DHHS vaccination rules to sunset in 2026.
Representative Jim Kofalt introduced House Bill 357, which would remove the commissioner of Health and Human Services’ authority to add immunizations by administrative rule and would cause the department’s existing rules that added varicella, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) to expire in June 2026.
Nut graf: Proponents said the legislature should set requirements for medical interventions with broad social consequences. Opponents, including DHHS and multiple professional associations, said the current rulemaking process brings medical experts, public input and timely responsiveness that would be lost if decisions were moved to the Legislative Branch.
DHHS officials including Colleen Smith and Jenny O’Higgins explained that the existing process is deliberate and involves vaccine selection committees, public hearings, and JELCAR (Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules) oversight. They said the department has used the authority rarely and would not add influenza or COVID‑19 vaccines as mandates, but argued that the ability to update rules is necessary to respond to emerging health threats in a timely way. The Department of Health and Human Services also said that removing rulemaking authority and sunsetting current rules could make New Hampshire one of very few states without certain childcare and school immunization requirements — a change DHHS said could jeopardize federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) support.
Medical societies, pediatricians, nurses and pharmacists testified against HB 357, urging the committee to preserve the current process. Supporters of the bill and several parents argued that elected legislators should set policy and that the legislature would have the opportunity to hear from experts, but opponents pointed to the technical character of immunization policy and the benefits of the administrative process, which includes expert review and public comment.
Ending: The committee completed a lengthy hearing with testimony on both sides; no final vote was taken.
