A legislative committee met to continue initial markup of a draft immunization bill and spent the session clarifying the commissioner’s authority, liability protections for providers, and pharmacy roles.

The chair opened the session and emphasized the bill’s language frames the commissioner’s actions as recommendations based on advisory-panel advice rather than unilateral mandates. "These are only recommendations," the chair said, stressing the draft is not changing any statute that would make immunizations mandatory.

Why it matters: The bill would create a formal process for recommending immunizations, define who may administer them, and seek to improve access and affordability. Committee members repeatedly stressed that statutory wording should reflect the advisory nature of the commissioner's role and tie recommendations to the advisory council and federal guidance where appropriate.

Department of Health counsel Lauren Layman told the committee the draft’s immunity provision aims to protect providers who act in accordance with state recommendations while preserving federal avenues for compensation. "This provision specifically insulates the health care provider as long as they're not being negligent," Layman said, explaining the proposal is analogous to but not identical with federal vaccine protections and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Pharmacy scope and professional regulation were prominent topics. The Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) language inserted into the draft would allow pharmacists, under state-approved protocols, to prescribe, order or administer immunizations after consultation with the director of professional regulation and the relevant board; the committee scheduled OPR and the pharmacy board to testify on the matter. Committee members questioned why some immunizations were called out by name in the OPR text and suggested using the draft’s definition of "recommended immunizations" to avoid duplicative or inconsistent language.

The draft also includes proposed limits for pharmacy technicians. The OPR text read during the session would permit pharmacy technicians to administer immunizations only to patients 18 and older, while related state protocol language could authorize administration to younger patients under specific protocols; the committee flagged these age thresholds for clarification.

Members also discussed the advisory council’s composition and operations. Suggestions included adding a seat described generically as a "health care professional" to ensure APRNs and similar practitioners are represented and adding the executive officers or designees from the board of nursing and the board of pharmacy. The committee debated exact seat counts and quorum implications and agreed to tidy the numbering and membership language in the redraft.

Public notice and consumer access were also emphasized. Members recommended explicit statutory language directing the Department of Health to post recommended immunization schedules and any departures from federal guidance prominently on the department website and to identify points of service and outreach methods so consumers and providers can find current information.

Next steps: The committee scheduled further testimony from the Office of Professional Regulation, the Department of Financial Regulation, and health insurers (including Blue Cross Blue Shield and MVP) at upcoming meetings; OPR and pharmacy-board representatives were asked to explain specific choices in their draft language. The committee expects to continue markup next week and did not take formal votes at this session.

The committee concluded by reminding members of additional bills and hearings on the schedule, including a joint hearing related to Act 119 of 2024 on reimagining the Agency of Human Services, and adjourned.