In epinephrine auto-injector entities, further providing for definitions and for epinephrine auto-injectors for authorized entities; and making an editorial change.
HB 928 revises Pennsylvania’s law governing epinephrine access for “authorized entities” and day-care facilities by replacing the term “epinephrine auto-injector” with “epinephrine delivery system” and updating related definitions throughout Chapter 55 of Title 35. The bill defines an epinephrine delivery system as an FDA-approved device containing a premeasured, weight-based dose of epinephrine for treating life-threatening allergic reactions, and it broadens the chapter’s terminology to reflect that change. It also renames the chapter heading to “Epinephrine Delivery System” and makes conforming editorial changes throughout the statute.
Substantively, the bill allows health care practitioners to prescribe, and pharmacists or practitioners to dispense, epinephrine delivery systems in the name of authorized entities or day-care facilities. Authorized entities may stock these devices, and day-care facilities are specifically authorized to do so, subject to funding being designated to the department. The bill requires storage in a readily accessible location, mandates designated trained staff to oversee the devices, and permits trained employees or agents to provide or administer epinephrine to a person believed in good faith to be experiencing anaphylaxis, even if that person has no known allergy or prescription. It also requires anaphylaxis training, multilingual informational materials for day-care facilities and parents/guardians, and retains Good Samaritan-style immunity protections for entities, prescribers, dispensers, trainers, and users except in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize and expand Pennsylvania’s emergency allergy-response framework, especially for child care settings, by aligning statutory language with current FDA terminology and by explicitly including day-care facilities in the stocking and use provisions. It amends Title 35, Chapter 55, and also updates the chapter heading and definitions to reflect a broader “delivery system” model rather than a device-specific “auto-injector” model. The measure also creates new informational-materials duties for the Department of Health, in consultation with the Department of Human Services, and imposes implementation requirements that take effect 180 days after enactment.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive. The bill advanced through committee and the House with large bipartisan margins, including unanimous committee votes on amendment/reporting steps and a 197-6 final passage vote in the House. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill improves emergency preparedness for allergic reactions, particularly in settings involving children and other public-facing institutions.
The main point of contention appears to be limited and procedural rather than ideological. The bill’s use of “subject to funding being specifically designated to the department” for day-care facilities may reflect concern about implementation costs or administrative feasibility, and the shift from “auto-injector” to “delivery system” may have required technical clarification. However, the recorded votes show little overt opposition, indicating that any concerns were not enough to generate substantial resistance in the House.
HB 928 amends Title 35, Chapter 55 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by updating terminology from “epinephrine auto-injector” to “epinephrine delivery system,” revising definitions, and expanding the statutory framework to expressly include day-care facilities. It authorizes prescribing, dispensing, stocking, storage, training, and emergency use of epinephrine delivery systems for authorized entities and day-care facilities, while preserving liability protections and adding multilingual informational-material requirements and departmental guidance duties.
The bill appears to have broad, bipartisan support. Committee actions were unanimous where recorded, and the House passed the final version overwhelmingly, 197-6. The discussion history provided does not show significant opposition, suggesting the measure was viewed as a practical public-health and child-safety update rather than a controversial policy change.
Any disagreement appears to center on implementation details rather than the bill’s core purpose. The most notable issue is the requirement that day-care facilities may stock epinephrine delivery systems only subject to funding being specifically designated to the department, which suggests concern about fiscal or administrative support. The technical change in terminology from “auto-injector” to “delivery system” and the added training/materials obligations may also have required clarification, but the vote history indicates these issues did not produce major opposition.