Judiciary panel considers immunity in H.545 to protect vaccine access; debate centers on gross negligence and informed consent

The Vermont Judiciary Committee on Thursday heard testimony on H.545, a bill that would give health-care providers limited immunity for administering vaccines consistent with state recommendations, with debate focused on whether the immunity should require proof of gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence and how informed consent would be handled.

"For us, again, the concern is access," said Lauren Lehman, general counsel for the Vermont Department of Health, stressing the department's goal of ensuring providers do not stop offering vaccines because of the risk of costly, lengthy lawsuits. Lehman said vaccine injuries and adverse events are rare, but litigation can deter providers and reduce patient access.

Supporters of the bill's gross-negligence threshold — including Jessa Barnard of the Vermont Medical Society — argued the higher standard protects clinicians against suits for inadvertent mistakes while preserving remedies for deliberate indifference. "Gross negligence involves some sort of knowledge of what you are doing, awareness that you are, an indifference to the fact that you may be causing harm to somebody," Barnard said, distinguishing that from ordinary negligence, which she described as an unintentional error.

Lehman and Barnard both said informed consent is already covered under existing malpractice standards in Vermont and by federal vaccine information requirements. Lehman cited what she identified in the hearing as "12 VSA 19 o 9" as the state's malpractice standard and said the Department would not favor a separate vaccine-specific informed-consent statute because it could hinder access and would struggle to keep pace with evolving medical practice. Barnard noted that federal law already requires providers give a plain-language vaccine information sheet explaining risks and benefits.

Committee members asked whether the immunity would protect providers if state recommendations diverged from federal guidance. Lehman said the intent is similar to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: to maintain access even when guidance differs and to reduce the deterrent effect of litigation. She told members that recent federal changes sometimes have not included publicly shared scientific studies, prompting states and universities to consult local experts directly.

The hearing also covered patient-safety safeguards such as the Vermont Immunization Registry (IMR). Lehman said providers enter administered vaccines into the confidential IMR and that knowingly administering a duplicate or off-schedule dose against registry records could be considered a departure from the standard of care and potentially gross negligence.

Several members sought clarification that H.545 would not create blanket vaccine mandates. Witnesses and members agreed the bill addresses liability tied to following clinical recommendations, not new universal mandates; existing requirements for contexts like school entry were not being changed by the bill.

The committee did not take a final vote Thursday. The chair said the committee will vote on H.545 the next morning after the floor session. No formal vote tally or motion language was recorded at the hearing.

The committee also noted that witnesses — including the family of a victim involved in a separate law-enforcement incident and, at a later date, an ACLU representative — are scheduled to appear in upcoming sessions.