Relative to the department of health and human services' rulemaking authority regarding immunization requirements.
Summary
HB 357 narrows the scope of childhood immunization requirements in New Hampshire law. Under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services commissioner may adopt rules requiring immunizations for diseases beyond those specifically listed in statute. This bill removes that rulemaking authority and limits mandatory childhood vaccinations to the diseases named in RSA 141-C:20-a: diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, and tetanus.
The bill also preserves, for a limited period, existing administrative rules requiring varicella, Hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccinations, allowing them to remain in effect until their regular expiration date of June 30, 2026. It repeals the statutory provision authorizing rulemaking for additional communicable diseases and takes effect 60 days after passage.
Impact
HB 357 would amend RSA 141-C:20-a and repeal RSA 141-C:6, XIII, thereby reducing the Department of Health and Human Services’ authority to expand childhood vaccine requirements by rule. The practical effect is to make the list of required childhood immunizations more fixed in statute, while temporarily grandfathering in existing rules for varicella, Hepatitis B, and Hib until June 30, 2026. The bill affects parents and legal guardians, school-age children subject to immunization requirements, and the state health agency responsible for public health rulemaking.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also substantial opposition. It received an OTP vote in the House by a relatively narrow margin of 195 to 174, indicating a closely divided chamber. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment appears to be mixed and politically contentious, likely reflecting broader disagreement over vaccine policy and the proper balance between legislative control and administrative public health authority.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the Department of Health and Human Services should retain discretion to add immunization requirements for additional diseases through rulemaking, or whether those decisions should be limited to diseases expressly listed in statute. Supporters likely favor tighter legislative control and limiting agency authority, while opponents likely view the bill as restricting public health flexibility and the ability to respond to changing disease risks. The temporary continuation of existing varicella, Hepatitis B, and Hib rules suggests an effort to soften the transition, but the core issue remains the same: agency rulemaking power versus fixed statutory vaccine mandates.