Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pandemic Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears opposing views on repeal of pandemic-era healthcare immunity (HB1071)
Summary
Supporters of HB1071 seek to repeal limited immunity granted to facilities during the COVID-19 emergency; nursing-home and county officials warned repeal would expose facilities and local taxpayers to litigation for actions taken under evolving emergency directives. No vote was taken.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee took testimony on House Bill 1071, which would repeal statutory immunity previously granted to entities that followed emergency directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Representative Tom Manning, the bill sponsor, said the statute should not contain an immunity that could be toggled on in future emergencies and described the repeal as removing obsolete language. “This bill just simply removes that immunity, which I think is important because going forward, we don't want anything in RSA that could potentially be toggled on and off by an emergency related to this pandemic in the future,” Manning said.
Opponents included Representative Lucy Weber and county nursing-home officials. Weber argued the statutory immunity recognized extraordinary, rapidly changing conditions and protected facilities implementing infection-control measures under official guidance. David Ross, administrator of the Hillsboro County Nursing Home and representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties, told the committee county nursing homes relied in good faith on binding state and federal directives and that repeal would increase litigation risk and financial exposure for counties. “Removing this protection would unfairly subject county nursing homes to litigation risk for following the very rules that they were legally required to implement,” Ross said.
Committee members asked clarifying questions; no recommendation was recorded and the hearing was closed. The record shows both the sponsor’s policy rationale and the concerns from health-care administrators about retroactive or prospective liability for actions taken during the emergency.
What happens next: The committee closed the hearing without taking a vote. Lawmakers may request additional legal analysis on RSA 21-P:42-a and consult county administrators before scheduling further action.
