New Hampshire House Bill HB589

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/21
• Refer: 1/13/21
• Report Pass: 11/1/21
• Engrossed: 1/18/22
• Refer: 1/18/22
• Report Pass: 3/8/22
• Enrolled: 4/4/22
• Chaptered: 4/12/22
• Passed: 4/12/22

Caption

Requiring workers' compensation to cover prophylactic treatment for critical exposure

Impact

The passage of HB 589 has the potential to significantly impact state laws governing workers' compensation. By broadening the circumstances under which protective treatments are covered, this bill aligns with the evolving understanding of occupational hazards faced by emergency responders. Local governments and employers would need to adapt their policies and budgeting considerations to accommodate these changes, which could involve both immediate healthcare expenditures and adjustments in insurance premiums depending on the increased claims that may arise from this broader definition.

Summary

House Bill 589 aims to expand the definition of 'critical exposure' within the workers' compensation framework in New Hampshire. This updated definition explicitly includes contact with a person's blood or body fluids for individuals with ruptured or broken skin or mucous membranes. The bill mandates that all expenses related to the medical evaluation and post-exposure prophylactic treatment for emergency response and public safety workers be covered by the workers' compensation insurance. This initiative seeks to enhance the protections available to those who are exposed to potential health risks while serving in high-risk professions.

Contention

Discussion around HB 589 reflects notable points of contention regarding its fiscal implications and operational pragmatism. Proponents argue that by ensuring immediate access to prophylactic treatments, the bill may ultimately lead to lower long-term healthcare costs by preventing more severe health issues from arising. Critics, however, caution about the indeterminate financial impacts on employees' compensation rates, expressing concerns that the increased number of claims could strain local and state resources. The balance between necessary healthcare for emergency workers and the potential financial burden on county and local budgets remains a pivotal issue in the ongoing legislative discussions.