Relative to the possession and use of epinephrine at recreation camps, schools, and institutions of higher education.
HB 677 revises New Hampshire law governing epinephrine use in recreation camps, schools, and postsecondary institutions. It broadens existing authority so that authorized entities may possess and administer epinephrine for anaphylaxis, removes the statute’s specific focus on auto-injectors in favor of the broader term epinephrine, and updates terminology from “physician” to “health care provider” in several places. The bill also clarifies that epinephrine prescribed for one individual at a school or camp may be used in an emergency for another person experiencing anaphylaxis.
For K-12 schools, the bill requires districts that employ or contract with a school nurse to maintain a supply of epinephrine, creates an epinephrine fund to help finance procurement and distribution, and requires annual reporting on supply and use. It also preserves and expands training, storage, and immunity provisions for school personnel and camp staff. For postsecondary institutions and independent schools, the bill updates the campus epinephrine framework by allowing trained designees to administer epinephrine under policy, clarifying storage and prescription rules, and maintaining civil-liability protections. The bill also makes conforming changes to prescription-drug, optometry, and authorized-entity statutes, and takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill amends multiple chapters of New Hampshire law, including RSA 170-E, RSA 200, RSA 200-N, RSA 329, RSA 318, and RSA 6, to expand and standardize epinephrine access and administration across camps, schools, colleges, and other authorized entities. It creates a dedicated epinephrine fund in the state treasury and adds that fund’s receipts to the list of nonlapsing dedicated revenues. The bill also shifts school policy from permissive to mandatory for districts with a nurse, requiring them to maintain epinephrine supplies and report annually to the Department of Education. A fiscal note indicates no direct state funding is provided, while local school district costs may increase.
The bill appears generally supportive of public health and emergency preparedness, with its focus on preventing deaths from anaphylaxis in schools and camps. The available materials do not show recorded opposition, committee debate, or roll-call votes, but the fiscal note suggests the main practical concern is the cost to school districts of purchasing medication and training staff. Overall, the measure is framed as a safety and access bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The principal point of contention is likely the mandate and associated cost burden on school districts, since the bill requires districts with nurses to maintain epinephrine supplies and submit annual reports, while the fiscal note estimates local expenditures of roughly $100,000 to $500,000 annually statewide depending on purchasing and training assumptions. Another possible issue is the expansion of who may administer epinephrine and under what authority, including trained designees, camp personnel, and campus medical professionals, though the bill addresses liability concerns by preserving broad immunity except in cases of willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct. The bill also broadens the statute beyond auto-injectors to epinephrine generally, which may raise implementation questions about devices, training, and procurement.