Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1057

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/24
• Refer: 2/2/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

The procedure for adding federal newborn screening recommendations to the state-required newborn screenings, granting rule-making authority, and providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures. (FE)

Impact

The bill will impact the existing statutes related to newborn screening by introducing a systematic approach to integrating new disorders into the state's screening process. This could enhance the early detection of various congenital and metabolic disorders in newborns, potentially leading to timely interventions and better health outcomes. The provision for annual reviews also ensures continuous alignment with the latest medical research, allowing the state to remain responsive to advancements in healthcare recommendations.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1057 streamlines the process for incorporating federal recommendations for newborn screening into state law. The bill mandates that the Department of Health Services (DHS) evaluate and potentially add any disorders included in the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) by January 1, 2024. It establishes a structured evaluation process whereby DHS must assess each disorder and determine if it should be included in the mandatory testing for newborns within 18 months of its addition to the RUSP. If a disorder is not included, the DHS is required to conduct annual reviews of current medical literature to reassess its testing necessity, ensuring that no relevant disorder is overlooked over time.

Contention

Notably, there are some points of contention regarding the bill. While proponents argue that the bill improves the screening process for newborns, critics may raise concerns about the capacity of the DHS to handle the evaluations and the timely implementation of new testing rules. Additionally, the bill allows for emergency rule-making without the need to demonstrate an emergency situation, which could lead to scrutiny over how swiftly and effectively rules are implemented. Overall, this aspect could lead to debates on administrative efficiency and health policy effectiveness within the state.