In epinephrine auto-injector entities, further providing for scope of chapter, for definitions and for epinephrine auto-injectors for authorized entities; and making an editorial change.
HB1044 updates Pennsylvania’s existing law on “epinephrine auto-injector entities” by renaming the chapter to cover “epinephrine delivery system entities” and broadening the statutory language to include FDA-approved epinephrine delivery systems, not just auto-injectors. The bill revises definitions, including replacing the definition of “epinephrine auto-injector” with a broader definition of “epinephrine delivery system,” meaning a device approved by the FDA that contains a premeasured dose of epinephrine for treating life-threatening allergic reactions.
The bill also updates the rules for authorized entities that stock and use these devices. It allows health care practitioners to prescribe, and pharmacists or practitioners to dispense, epinephrine delivery systems in the name of an authorized entity. Those entities may stock the devices, designate trained personnel to oversee them, and allow trained employees or agents to provide or administer them to people believed in good faith to be experiencing anaphylaxis, even if the person does not have a prescription or prior allergy diagnosis. The bill retains and updates training, storage, and emergency follow-up requirements, and preserves Good Samaritan-style liability protections for entities, prescribers, dispensers, trainers, and users, except in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
HB1044 would amend Title 35 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by modernizing Chapter 55 to reflect broader FDA-approved epinephrine delivery technologies and by extending the legal framework that permits authorized entities to obtain, store, and use these devices in emergencies. It affects health care practitioners, pharmacists, authorized entities such as schools or other organizations covered by the chapter, and trained employees or agents who may respond to suspected anaphylaxis. The bill also preserves and clarifies civil immunity provisions tied to prescribing, dispensing, training, and emergency use of epinephrine devices.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be a technical and public-safety update intended to align state law with current epinephrine device terminology and emergency allergy response practices. The sponsor list suggests broad bipartisan interest, but no formal sentiment can be inferred beyond the bill’s apparent focus on expanding access and clarifying liability protections.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of policy interest, based on the text alone, could include the expansion from auto-injectors to broader delivery systems, the scope of who may administer epinephrine in an emergency, training standards for laypersons, and the breadth of immunity protections for authorized entities and medical professionals. However, the record supplied does not show any stated objections or amendments.