Prohibiting certain actions by the Department of Health Services related to the immunization program.
Impact
If enacted, AB229 would significantly alter the parameters within which the DHS operates concerning immunization requirements. It would effectively prevent the department from adding new vaccine mandates for diseases that were not previously listed before the specified cutoff date, thus maintaining the status quo on immunization guidelines. This may hinder the agency's ability to respond flexibly to emerging health threats and could lead to increased risks amidst outbreaks of diseases that may not be covered under the existing statute. The bill's constraints might lead to a public health debate concerning individual rights versus communal health safety, particularly with regard to childhood vaccinations in educational settings.
Summary
Assembly Bill 229 is a legislative proposal aimed at amending specific statutes related to the statewide immunization program in Wisconsin. The bill seeks to restrict the Department of Health Services (DHS) from requiring vaccinations against diseases beyond those specified as of January 1, 2023. Notably, it prohibits the inclusion of varicella (chickenpox) in definitions of substantial outbreaks, thus limiting DHS's authority to mandate vaccinations based on historical rules. Furthermore, the bill allows parents or adult students to claim exemptions for the varicella vaccine if they can provide a history of the disease, potentially impacting public health management regarding vaccinations in schools and childcare facilities.
Contention
This bill has already sparked discussions around the implications for public health and local control pertaining to school immunization regulations. Proponents argue that it upholds parental rights and protects students from mandates they deem unnecessary or excessive. Conversely, opponents raise concerns that restricting DHS's control may compromise collective health efforts, particularly in managing outbreaks of communicable diseases. The restriction on adding diseases to immunization requirements could have broader implications on public health policy and may lead to a polarized dialogue on vaccine mandates in the context of state and individual rights.
Relating to preventative health care and public health, including prohibited immunization and face-covering requirements, private business or school closures, and the ordering and administration of immunizations by a pharmacist.