Provides for the use of airway clearance devices in schools; provides for training for school employees.
Summary
This bill would add a new section to the Education Law governing airway clearance devices in schools. It defines an airway clearance device as a portable medical device used to create suction to clear an airway obstruction during a choking emergency, and it applies to devices that are FDA-registered as Class II acute upper airway obstruction devices.
If a school has one of these devices on its premises, whether purchased or donated, the school would be required to adopt policies for its use by school nurses and school employees. Those policies must designate nurses or employees to receive training in airway management and in using the device to remove an obstruction from the airway. The bill also allows school boards to reimburse the cost of that training when necessary.
Impact
The bill would amend the Education Law by creating a new school safety and emergency response requirement for schools that possess airway clearance devices. It would not require every school to acquire such a device, but it would regulate schools that do have one by mandating policies, training, and designated personnel. It also provides liability protection for schools that purchase, operate, or make available the device, shielding them from damages arising from its use by unpaid volunteers rendering emergency treatment, subject to existing Public Health Law provisions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a child-safety and emergency preparedness bill with a generally supportive policy posture. The sponsors from both parties suggest a bipartisan interest in improving school response to choking emergencies. No formal opposition or recorded controversy is included in the available context.
Contention
The main policy questions raised by the bill are practical rather than ideological: whether schools should be responsible for developing device-use policies, who should be trained, and whether training costs should be reimbursable at the school board’s discretion. Another possible point of concern is the liability provision, which limits damages for use of the device by volunteers; this may be viewed as necessary protection to encourage emergency response, but it could also prompt questions about accountability and the scope of immunity. No specific opponents or disputed amendments are identified in the provided record.
Relating to the availability and use of airway clearance devices at public school campuses and to contracts for medication for respiratory distress and training at public schools.