Fast Take on the July 1, 2019, SB 276 Amendment

Fast Take on the July 1, 2019, SB 276 Amendment

Because of the press of other business, this is going to be short and quick.

The new amendment is at least as bad as the prior version, because it does not change the two main operative provisions, 1. All Exemptions are still reviewable and revocable by the health department if they do not comply with the established guidelines, and 2. Physicians who write exemptions beyond these guidelines will be reported to the Medical Board for prosecution.

here is the link to the current marked up bill.

Here are the key takeaway points:

All Exemptions (meaning exemptions under the new law and those given under SB 277) are still reviewable by the state and/or local department of health, but now they are reviewed by physicians or nurses. That is obviously intended to resolve the criticism that the bill did not specifically require physicians to make these important medical decisions. Including nurses, still doesn’t resolve the problem, in my opinion.

Physicians who write exemptions which do not comply with CDC, ACIP, or AAP guidelines will be contacted for additional support. (My view is that the health department will find insufficient support for any exemption inconsistent with the above guidelines)

The health department can revoke a medical exemption that does not meet the above guidelines, but as in the previous version, “family history” can be considered, in the department’s discretion. But as before, don’t expect that to mean anything other than what is in the guidelines.

There is now a more flushed-out appeal process involving a panel of medical doctors. But don’t expect any reversals of revocations of exemptions, because they are all reading from the same hymn book (the Pediatric Infectious Disease Red Book).

There are provisions about what happens to the child with a revoked exemption during the appeals process. There is a grace period, which is about the only good news in this version. It is too early to tell how long that grace period will last, but it ends when the appeal is denied, or possibly 30 days thereafter.

In short and obviously, this version does not resolve the concerns raised by the vaccine aware.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

6 thoughts on “Fast Take on the July 1, 2019, SB 276 Amendment

  1. Can you please tell us what contraindications and precautions are listed in the Red Book? I’ve heard that they are “the same” as the C&P’s in the CDC/ACIP “best practice guidelines” but that’s not precise enough for me…I always like to go to the original source…But I can’t afford to pay $35 to access the relevant chapter of the Red Book for 24 hours to compare…

    Thank you for all your good work on vaccine issues!

  2. Hey! Thanks for this post. So you don’t think the strikethrough of all the “prior exemptions may be revoked” language equates to a grandfathering at all? I read it a few times and it seemed like the only requirements I’m seeing are that the previous MEs are in the database by Jan 1 2021. The revocation seems to only apply to “forms”, which non of the existing MEs are, only the future ones will be. Am I reading this incorrectly? Seems like they couldn’t legislate investigation and persecution of docs who were legally following the rules up to this point, making them retroactively guilty for a crime.

    1. there may be a loophole for Pan in there: “(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, section, a clinically trained immunization program staff member who is a physician and surgeon or a registered nurse may review any exemption in the CAIR or other state database as necessary to protect public health.”

      1. Not liking that loophole “(8)”! We need the definition of “protect public health”. Would 2 cases of measles in Los Angeles be a cause to review every single exemption in the database for the entire state to protect public health? This is way too broad.

Leave a Reply