Health officials warn amendment to limit 'advertising' could hamper vaccine outreach
Loading...
Summary
A non-germane amendment to SB 572 that would limit what the Department of Health and Human Services can "advertise, promote or recommend" drew unified opposition from public-health witnesses, who said vague terms could block routine immunization education, outbreak guidance and risk $3.5 million in federal grant funding for vaccine programs.
Lawmakers revisited a non-germane amendment to SB 572 that would place new limits on what state health agencies may "advertise" or "promote" regarding immunizations. Multiple witnesses—including public-health professionals, nonprofit advocates and citizens—testified that the amendment's undefined terms could curtail routine education and outbreak response.
Representative Lucy Weber told the committee she agreed with the amendment’s stated objective of preventing taxpayer-funded advertising for private pharmaceutical marketing but questioned the amendment’s broad language and practical effects on DHHS communications. Kate Frey of New Futures warned the provision could restrict routine public-education work and hamper response during outbreaks.
Megan Hetty, chief of the Bureau of Infectious Disease Control at DHHS, said the department interpreted the amendment to potentially prohibit virtually any immunization communication, including materials required by federal grants. "This would likely prohibit health care organizations that have contracts with the department from communicating immunization recommendations, and that could risk their funding from the state," she testified, noting the department believes an unclear definition of "advertise" and "educational materials" is the central problem.
Epidemiologist Dr. Benjamin Chan added that seasonal guidance—such as routine flu-vaccine recommendations—could fall under the prohibition, which would limit the department’s ability to prevent vaccine-preventable outbreaks. DHHS witnesses said the department faces potential loss of roughly $3,500,000 in federal funding tied to education obligations if the amendment were implemented as drafted.
What happens next: DHHS and public-health advocates urged substantial redrafting to clarify definitions and avoid unintended effects on outbreak response and federally required educational programs. The committee closed the hearing after extensive testimony; no committee vote was taken during the session.
