An Act providing for vaccination schedule for pediatric patients and for coverage, compensation and reimbursement for vaccinations; and imposing penalties.
Summary
HB695, titled the "Immunization Freedom Act," would require health care practitioners to continue providing pediatric care to a child even when the parent or legal guardian chooses a vaccination schedule that differs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) schedule, so long as the child receives at least one vaccination each calendar year. The bill also allows practitioners to meet with families to discuss an alternate schedule, and it prohibits billing the patient, parent, guardian, or insurer for that meeting.
The bill further permits practitioners to create a secure waiting room for patients on non-CDC vaccination schedules and to issue standing orders to staff to carry out an agreed-upon schedule. It also bars insurers from refusing coverage, compensation, or reimbursement for vaccinations given on a non-CDC schedule, and prohibits insurers from using financial incentives tied to per-member vaccination practices beyond payment for the vaccine and its administration. A practitioner who violates the bill’s pediatric-care requirements would be subject to administrative penalties for unprofessional conduct by the relevant licensing board or agency.
Impact
HB695 would amend Pennsylvania law by creating new duties for pediatric health care practitioners and new limits on insurer practices related to vaccination coverage and reimbursement. It would affect licensed practitioners, health care facilities, insurers, and state licensing boards by establishing enforceable standards for continuing care, billing, and administrative discipline. The bill would take effect immediately if enacted.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context suggests the measure is framed as a patient-choice or parental-choice vaccination bill rather than a public-health mandate. Its title and provisions indicate support for accommodating non-CDC vaccination schedules, but there is no recorded legislative debate in the provided materials to show broader agreement or opposition. The bill appears likely to generate mixed reactions because it touches on pediatric vaccination policy, insurer reimbursement, and professional standards.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of non-CDC vaccination schedules for children. Supporters would likely view it as protecting parental discretion and ensuring continued access to pediatric care, while opponents may argue it could undermine evidence-based immunization guidance and complicate public-health efforts. Additional friction may arise from the insurer provisions, which restrict how coverage and incentives can be structured, and from the penalty section, which subjects practitioners to discipline if they do not comply with the act’s requirements.
Providing for patient election for donation and use of autologous blood; providing for disclosure of vaccination status in blood transfusions and requiring informed consent; and imposing duties on the Department of Health.
A bill for an act relating to protections for medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payors including those related to the exercise of conscience, whistleblower activities, and free speech, and providing penalties.
A bill for an act relating to protections for medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payors including those related to the exercise of conscience, whistleblower activities, and free speech, and providing penalties.(See HF 571.)