Montpelier — The House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 15 heard testimony on a bill referred to in the record as H.545 (transcript variants: H 5.5 / H 5 45) that would authorize the Vermont commissioner of health to issue the state immunization schedule and shield health-care professionals from civil and administrative liability when they prescribe, dispense or administer immunizations in accordance with those recommendations, unless the provider’s conduct amounts to gross negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct.

Katie McNeese, legislative counsel, told the committee the measure ties statutory language to the commissioner’s recommendations rather than to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and contains a sunset provision dated 07/01/2031. McNeese read the bill’s subsection that would grant immunity, noting the protection applies only when a provider follows the commissioner’s recommendations and would not apply if a provider acted outside that guidance.

Lauren Layman, general counsel for the Vermont Department of Health, described why the bill seeks to mirror elements of the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Layman said the VICP was created to move certain vaccine-injury claims out of ordinary tort litigation, that it has a narrow table of covered injuries and timeframes, and that H.545 aims to replicate what the state can of that system to preserve liability protection that facilitates provider participation and vaccine access. “We cannot replicate the entire VICP,” Layman said, but the draft seeks to take a portion of that framework that the state can lawfully implement.

Members asked whether the proposal would create a new shield for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Witnesses and counsel responded that the bill is narrowly written to protect Vermont providers who follow the commissioner’s recommendations; federal law, Layman and McNeese said, currently limits state tort claims for federally covered vaccines and is the primary source of manufacturer-level preemption. Committee members also asked where injured parties could seek compensation if a vaccine was not covered federally; counsel acknowledged that if a vaccine falls outside federal coverage, injured parties may pursue tort claims, and that the bill preserves remedies where gross negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct can be shown.

Stephanie Winters, deputy director of the Vermont Medical Society and executive director of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Vermont chapter, testified in support, saying the bill would reduce administrative burdens, preserve universal no-cost access to recommended immunizations, and give clinicians clearer, state-based guidance as federal recommendations evolve. “When we saw some changes in vaccine guidance last fall, patients were coming to their practitioners and saying, ‘I want this vaccine,’ and practitioners were like, ‘we don’t know what we’re supposed to do,’” Winters said, arguing the measure would provide stable, evidence-based guidance.

Committee members also probed operational issues: whether commissioner recommendations would amount to mandates (witnesses said they would remain recommendations and informed consent is intact), whether pharmacists’ authority to vaccinate very young children would change (it would not under this bill), and how adverse events are reported (practitioners can report to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS; state reporting pathways were discussed but not detailed).

No formal vote was taken; the chair said the committee planned to hold a straw poll the following morning and would consider additional testimony if members requested it. The record notes a pending community witness whose prior testimony is available to members and that three medical-malpractice attorneys had expressed neutrality to staff outreach.