Organ donation; condition of donation or receipt on vaccine status prohibited, Attorney General authorized to enforce
Summary
HB519, known as The Adaline Deal Act, would prohibit hospitals, transplant hospitals, organ procurement organizations, health insurance providers, physicians, and other health care providers from making organ donation or receipt contingent on a person’s vaccine status. The bill applies both to the donor and the recipient, meaning neither side of an anatomical gift transaction could be screened or excluded based on whether they have received one or more vaccines.
The bill defines “vaccine” broadly to include biologic products, DNA-based products, immunizations, gene-editing technology, mRNA-based products, and injectable drugs used to prevent or treat infectious or communicable disease. It also defines “vaccine status” as whether an individual has received one or more vaccines. The measure would take effect on October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB519 would add a new state-law restriction on organ donation and transplant-related decision-making by limiting when vaccine status may be considered. It would affect hospitals, transplant centers, procurement organizations, insurers, physicians, and other health care providers involved in anatomical gifts and organ transplantation. The bill also grants enforcement authority to the Attorney General, including the ability to seek injunctive relief and impose a $50,000 fine for violations, creating a direct state enforcement mechanism over compliance.
Sentiment
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House Health Committee, but no committee transcript or vote record is available. As a result, there is no documented floor debate or recorded vote sentiment in the provided materials. The bill’s framing suggests a policy goal of preventing vaccine-based discrimination in organ donation and transplant access.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether vaccine status should be allowed as a factor in organ donation or transplant eligibility decisions. Supporters would view the bill as protecting access to life-saving procedures and preventing discrimination, while opponents may argue that medical providers should retain discretion to consider vaccine-related health risks in transplant settings. The broad definition of “vaccine” and the $50,000 penalty, enforced by the Attorney General, may also be areas of concern for health care providers and transplant systems.