An Act amending the act of November 3, 2022 (P.L.2158, No.158), known as the Overdose Mapping Act, further providing for definitions and for establishment and design; and providing for entry requireme . . .nts for EMS providers.
Summary
SB 89 amends Pennsylvania’s Overdose Mapping Act, which was enacted in 2022, by revising definitions and the requirements for how the overdose mapping system is established and designed. The bill also adds new entry requirements for EMS providers, indicating that emergency medical service agencies will have specific obligations related to reporting or accessing overdose-related information in the state’s mapping framework.
Because the bill text was not available in the provided materials, the precise statutory changes are not fully visible here, but the caption and legislative history show that SB 89 is a targeted update to the state’s overdose surveillance and response infrastructure. It appears intended to improve the completeness and usability of overdose data by clarifying who must enter information and how the system operates, likely affecting public health agencies, EMS providers, and other entities involved in overdose tracking and response.
Impact
The bill modifies the Overdose Mapping Act, a public health law governing Pennsylvania’s overdose mapping system, by changing statutory definitions, system design provisions, and EMS provider entry requirements. In practical terms, it likely imposes new or clarified reporting or data-entry duties on EMS providers and may affect how state and local agencies collect, maintain, and use overdose incident data for prevention and response efforts.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the legislature with strong bipartisan approval. It was reported out of committee and passed both chambers with overwhelmingly favorable votes, including several unanimous or near-unanimous actions. The absence of recorded opposition in the final stages suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or public-safety-oriented update rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record. The only notable floor-level division was an earlier Senate vote on a separate amendment, which was tabled, indicating some procedural or substantive disagreement at that stage. However, the underlying bill itself ultimately advanced with broad support, and the final passage votes in both chambers were unanimous or nearly so, suggesting that any disagreements were limited and resolved before enactment.