Richard Cheatum — Representative Furman questioned how the bill would be implemented, noting that it relies on federal guidelines rather than clearly spelling out procedures for obtaining, storing, and testing blood, and expressing concern that doctors would be left to trust that the guidelines are being followed. He then clarified that a prior remark was a statement rather than a question, and later said he would vote for the bill in committee while making clear that this did not guarantee a yes vote on the floor.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Egbert was recognized to speak, thanked the chair and Representative Bruce for the bill, and then asked for clarification on the meaning of "gross negligence" in the liability provision. He requested an example of what gross negligence would look like, when a provider could be held responsible, and followed up to confirm whether liability would require intentional harm rather than merely gross negligence related to the product.
Bruce Skaug — Was thanked for his work on the bill and asked to explain the gross negligence language.
Bruce Skaug — Explained that the gross negligence language was requested by attorneys and said intentional harm to a patient would make the provider responsible.
Bruce Skaug — Was asked to confirm the understanding of the liability standard.
Bruce Skaug — Explained that donated blood goes through a regular testing process and said gross negligence would mean intentionally or willingly misusing the product.
Bruce Skaug — His bill is identified as House Bill 528.
Michael Martinez — Michael Martinez, appearing virtually from Cordillane on behalf of Vitalant blood donation, testified against House Bill 528. He explained that Vitalant operates blood donation centers and supports hospital blood supply and safety, then argued the bill addresses a problem that does not exist, could increase health care costs and patient expectations, and may create false confidence that directed or autologous donations are safer. He concluded by urging the committee to oppose the bill, and no questions were raised afterward.
Laura DeMere — Identified as the next in-person witness.
Laura Dimiree — Laura Dimiree testified in support of HB 528, drawing on her personal experience with surgery and blood transfusion decisions. She explained that when she was asked to sign for blood, she requested unvaccinated blood but it was unavailable, and she said certain blood products conflict with her strongly held religious beliefs. She emphasized that direct donor options are important to her survival in future surgeries and noted that friends have also faced barriers, sometimes needing to go out of state to obtain direct donor blood.
Amanda Cox — Amanda Cox introduces herself as speaking for herself and notes her role as a local clinical director. She then describes a personal experience in which her husband faced a medically necessary transfusion, and they learned that physician-directed donations were rarely honored in Idaho because approval depended on the regional Red Cross director. She explains that this restriction could have forced them to travel out of state at significant expense. Cox says the American Red Cross donor-directed form was available online at the time and emphasizes her support for House Bill 528, while also noting some concerns about protections for individuals seeking this type of donation.
Edward Hill — Asks Ms. Cox to clarify the timing and location of the donor form on the website.
John Trimble — Introduced as the next witness to testify.
John Tribble — John Tribble, a local physician and medical director of a nonprofit independent clinic, testifies in favor of patient autonomy and informed consent. He explains that multiple patients have had difficulty or been rejected when seeking autologous blood donation through local hospitals and regional blood donor banks, often without being given a reason or specific explanation. He argues that Idaho should align its law with federal regulations so patients can be protected and allowed to make that choice.
Rod Furniss — Representative Furman asks why the donation requests were denied and continues pressing for an explanation, saying he does not understand why they were denied.
Liz James — Liz James is introduced as a virtual witness, then identifies herself as a pharmacist and founder of the nonprofit Blessed by His Blood. She speaks in support of House Bill 528 and argues that public confidence in the medical industry has declined, citing concerns about lack of consent and historical blood contamination issues.
Dr. Wafik El Derry — Cited as one of the oncologists who presented to ASIP on vaccine-related health implications.
Dr. Charlotte Cooperwasser — Cited as one of the oncologists who presented to ASIP on vaccine-related health implications.
Ms. James — The committee thanks Ms. James for her testimony and asks for questions.
Shaney McLaren — Shaney McLaren is introduced as the next witness and then begins her testimony by identifying herself and stating that she represents herself. She briefly describes her background in hospital, clinical, and community education.
Clinton Oler's — Introduced as the next virtual witness; likely the speaker is Dr. Clinton Olers.
Dr. Clinton Olers — Dr. Clinton Olers introduced himself, explained that his PhD is in the history of science, and stated that he represents Safe Blood. The committee then concluded his testimony, referring to him as “the doctor” and thanking him for his time.
Sarah Bacon — Sarah Bacon was identified and confirmed as the next virtual witness. She then introduced herself as a Kimberly, Idaho resident and elected precinct committeeman for Kimberly Precinct 3, and testified in support of House Bill 528 while stating she was speaking only for her own views as an Idaho citizen and precinct committeeman.
Sean Alex — Announced as the next virtual witness, though the transcript then shifts to another speaker/commentary.
Nicole Sherrick Irwin — Announced as the next in-person witness.
Nicole Cyraq Irwin — Testified on behalf of the American Red Cross and asked the committee to vote no on HB 528.
Nicole Cyraq Irwin — Nicole Cyraq Irwin explained that the organization does not refuse physician-ordered directed donations, but she does not have access to rejection data because those decisions are physician-directed. She said directed autologous donations can be medically necessary but are rare and often end up unused, which she argued can create a false sense of choice. She clarified that the shortage she referenced is a nationwide U.S. blood shortage, describing it as severe and noting the system is on a blood appeal. She then walked through the donation process: making an appointment, health screening, collection, transport to Salt Lake for testing, and the fact that donors can give one unit every 54 days. She explained that blood can be frozen and stored, but if a patient needs more than what they stored, they would receive blood from the general supply, citing an example of a patient needing 88 units. She also said the bill’s gross negligence definition provides protection for doctors and hospitals. Finally, she argued that self-directed storage diverts staff, requires extra specialized processing, and may actually worsen the shortage, while noting that Idahoans donate about 93,000 units a year and that the app can show donors where their blood goes.
Nicole Irwin — Member asks the witness to repeat her last name; transcript shows several variants.
Nicole Irwin — Explained that rejections can occur for incompatible blood types, donor health concerns, and appropriateness of family-member donation.
Nicole Irwin — Responded that the cost is often passed on to the patient and is about double the cost of a regular unit.
Marco Erickson — Asked whether the witness could explain the cost increase despite the fiscal note showing none.
Marco Erickson — The witness addresses Vice Chair Erickson by name.
David Leavitt — Asked a follow-up question and referenced Representative Furman’s question.
David Leavitt — Asks whether people with rare blood types and RH factors could benefit from collecting their own blood.
David Leavitt — Receives Dr. Hill's answer confirming the medical rationale for autologous donation in rare blood types.
David Leavitt — The chair asks whether Representative Kaler has another question; Kaler indicates he does.
David Leavitt — Asks to ask one more quick question before the next witness sits down.
David Leavitt — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Clint Hostetler — Referenced in passing as having a question the speaker wanted to address.
Clint Hostetler — Mentioned as the member to go to next.
Clint Hostetler — Asked whether storing blood for oneself could be a net positive during a nationwide blood shortage.
Dustin Manwaring — Representative Furman deferred to Representative Kaler and then asked about the life cycle of donated blood, indicating willingness to let Kaler speak first while still raising the substantive question.
Dustin Manwaring — Referenced as having made a prior point that Egbert agreed with.
Dustin Manwaring — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
Bart Hill — Introduced as the next witness.
Dr. Barton Hill — Dr. Barton Hill, a board member of the American Red Cross of Eastern Oregon and Greater Idaho and a former emergency medicine physician, explained that transfusions should be minimized because all blood transfusions carry inherent risk. He added that directed donations from friends or family and autologous donations create additional cost and complexity and are more often wasted.
Dr. Hill — Dr. Hill explains that autologous donations can reduce immune-related transfusion risks because patients receive their own blood, but they are limited by timing, shelf life, and the possibility of causing anemia before surgery, which can still lead to an additional transfusion from the anonymous donor pool. He also notes that directed donations from friends or family can create antibodies that complicate future transfusions. He then concludes by opposing House Bill 528, saying there is no existing problem the bill solves. In later questioning, he clarifies that rare blood types and significant antibodies are the main medical reasons for autologous donation, that such donations do occur in Idaho, and that unsafe blood should not be transfused because the treating provider makes the medical decision. He adds that the bill’s gross negligence language would likely protect doctors because the decision would be a reasonable medical judgment rather than intentional harm.
Mr. Hill — Is asked to explain whether rare blood types could benefit from autologous donation.
Sierra Hamm — A message is received that Sierra Hamm is trying to join virtually, but she is not on the program list.
Dr. Irwin — A member asks permission to direct another question to Dr. Irwin while the virtual witness issue is being resolved.