Michigan House Bill HB5051

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/24/25
• Refer: 9/24/25
• Report Pass: 11/5/25
• Engrossed: 12/17/25
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

Health: pharmaceuticals; administration of epinephrine; modify. Amends title & secs. 1, 2 & 3 of 2020 PA 312 (MCL 28.821 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5054'25, HB 5049'25, HB 5050'25, HB 5052'25, HB 5053'25

Summary

HB 5051 amends Michigan’s existing law on law enforcement and firefighter access to epinephrine to broaden and clarify who may possess and administer epinephrine in emergency situations. The bill allows eligible law enforcement agencies and organized fire departments that are prescribed an epinephrine delivery system to purchase and possess it, then distribute it to trained officers or firefighters in their employ. It also authorizes those trained personnel to administer the medication to a person they reasonably believe is experiencing anaphylaxis, even if the person does not have a prescription or prior allergy diagnosis. The bill expands the definition of an “epinephrine delivery system” to include not only auto-injectors, but also inhalers and nasal spray formulations. It requires training before administration and provides liability protections for agencies and responders acting within the act’s scope. The measure also specifies that covered entities and individuals are not subject to criminal prosecution for purchasing, possessing, distributing, administering, or failing to administer epinephrine under the act, while preserving other available immunities and defenses. The bill is tie-barred to several related bills, meaning it does not take effect unless the companion legislation is also enacted.

Impact

HB 5051 would amend 2020 PA 312, codified at MCL 28.821 through 28.823, by updating the title, definitions, authorization provisions, and immunity language for epinephrine access by law enforcement and fire departments. It would expand state law to expressly cover multiple epinephrine delivery formats and to permit trained officers and firefighters to respond to suspected anaphylaxis using epinephrine prescribed to their agency. The bill also strengthens statutory civil and criminal liability protections for eligible entities and responders, subject to existing standards for gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan or at least broad support for the bill. It was reported from committee without amendment on an 11-0 vote and later passed the House on third reading by a 103-0 vote with immediate effect. No committee transcript is available here, but the unanimous votes indicate little visible opposition in the recorded legislative process.

Contention

No major contention is evident in the provided record. The main policy questions implied by the text are whether law enforcement officers and firefighters should be authorized to administer epinephrine beyond traditional auto-injectors, how much training should be required, and how broad the immunity protections should be for agencies and individual responders. The bill’s tie-bar to several companion bills also suggests it is part of a larger package, but no specific disagreement is reflected in the votes or available discussion.