Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vaccination Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Clair advisory board presses clinicians on MICR opt-out and debates student vaccine mandates
Summary
After MDHHS updated its Vaccine Information Statement guidance, the advisory board debated whether county clinicians are required to hand parents a MICR opt-out form at vaccination and discussed requests to relax clinical-staff mandates at SC4. Members split on whether the county should act as a 'vaccine choice' sanctuary; no formal policy change was adopted.
The advisory board reviewed recent changes to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) web pages and discussed how those changes affect the Michigan Immunization Registry (MICR) opt-out process.
Medical Director Dr. Remington Nevin pointed the board to captures of the state VIS webpage he included in the packet (a page dated 04/01/2025 and an updated capture dated 12/09/2025) and said the state appears to have moved away from requiring a Michigan-specific VIS to requiring the federal VIS versions available on CDC.gov. "This is a victory," he said, adding that the change has consequences because Michigan law requires that parents be offered a MICR opt-out form at the time of pediatric vaccination (meeting materials referenced MCL 333.9206 paragraph 2).
Dr. Nevin proposed sending an advisory to county clinicians — a "fax alert" or letter — reminding them of the statutory requirement to hand parents the MICR opt-out form at the time of vaccination and to use the most current federal VIS versions available from the CDC.
The board then debated a related request from an external correspondent, Professor Gura, about clinical-site requirements at SC4 (a clinical training site referenced in meeting materials). Dr. Nevin argued compulsory flu and coronavirus vaccination for clinical students lacks the third-party transmission justification that underpins long-standing mandatory vaccines and suggested the county could consider declaring itself a "vaccine choice sanctuary county" to restrict clinical sites' ability to require those shots for students. Other members pushed back, noting student clinical attendance requirements (missed clinical days can cause students to fail) and the operational consequences for hospitals, programs, and students if mandates were blocked at the county level.
Board members also discussed practical next steps. Several supported issuing a reminder to local clinicians and pharmacies about the statutory distribution of the MICR opt-out form and the need to physically hand parents the completed form only if they choose to fill it. No formal regulatory change was adopted; the board discussed revisiting the issue in the new year.
Provenance: The VIS/MICR discussion and the clinician-notice proposal appear in the meeting materials and were discussed at length beginning in SEG 612 and through SEG 820; the SC4 mandate debate occupies SEG 821–SEG 1326.
Ending: The board signaled support for drafting a clinician advisory in the new year and deferred further formal policy action while members weigh legal and programmatic implications.
