Legislative Report 5/20/2015 - End of Session

Remember the Rubik's Cube? I always had a hard time solving that 3D, 3-axis puzzle. The last week of the legislative session seemed like trying to solve a giant Rubik's cube of legislation. Fourteen bills were assigned to Committees of Conference because the House and Senate could not agree on details in the versions each chamber passed. In addition to those bills, the Immunization bill (H.98), the Water Quality bill (H.35) and the Energy bill (H.40) still had not been settled.

Early in the week the House Health Care Committee took a couple more days of impassioned testimony on whether to retain the philosophical exemption or to remove it before finally bringing it to the full House for a vote. The hours-long debate on the floor reflected the range of opinions heard in testimony. Several amendments were offered before the House voted to remove that exemption while retaining the religious and medical exemptions. The 85 to 57 vote crossed party lines as individual legislators made up their own minds on the legislation. Following the decision on vaccine exemptions, the House voted quickly to concur with the Senate on proposed amendments to the Water Quality bill, which will put Vermont on the path to reducing phosphorous runoff into its lakes and streams.

 

By Friday afternoon most of the conference committees reported agreement on all but the Budget, Revenue, Health Care, and Education bills, and the Senate was still debating amendments to the Energy bill. Earlier in the afternoon we passed the very important Child Protection bill (S.9) which requires any mandated reporter who reasonably suspects abuse or neglect of a child to report it to Department of Children and Families instead of to a superior, and it improves cross-agency communication for child welfare cases. Typical of the "hurry up and wait" character of the session's final days, the House was repeatedly recessed to await updates on the status of conference committee negotiations.

 

Friday evening we received from the Senate its amendments to the Energy bill, and the House quickly concurred in its passage. The Senate left the provisions adopted by the House and added provisions regarding siting of solar energy projects. They include giving municipalities automatic party status in Public Service Board hearings, defining minimum setback requirements, and allowing municipalities to define screening requirements. Passage of this bill satisfies the objections Connecticut and Massachusetts had regarding Vermont's double-counting of renewable energy credits (RECs) and avoids the loss of $50M in annual revenue for our utilities, thereby avoiding a potential 6% increase in electric rates.

 

Saturday brought the passage of the Education bill and the Health Care bill. The Health Care bill had been trimmed back considerably because of an inability to agree on funding. What remained was a 33 cent/pack cigarette tax increase and subjecting soda to the 6% sales tax. The package contains $3.2 million in new state health care spending, which is eligible for roughly another $3 million from federal matching funds. The money will be used to level-fund Vermont Health Connect subsidies for out-of-pocket costs, target increases to Medicaid rates, and invest in initiatives to strengthen the primary care system.

 

As late as Saturday afternoon negotiations were still going on among the House and Senate leadership and the Governor regarding how the agreed upon budget would be funded. $53M in program cuts had been agreed upon with the expectation that $30M in additional revenues would have to be found. This represents $3M more in cuts and $5M less in revenues than originally passed by the House. Finally, around 10 PM the final agreements were made and the House gave final approval to the Budget. After the traditional speeches from the leaders of the Progressive, Republican and Democratic parties, the Speaker of the House, and the Governor, the session was gavelled to a close just before 11 PM.

 

I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 5/6/2015 - Difficult Decisions

Statue of Gov. Thomas Chittenden,
Vermont's 1st Governor

The legislature is in the final stretch of the session and instead of winding down, we seem to be winding up as bills dealing with some of the more difficult issues reach the floor. Differences of opinion seem to become more pronounced even as everyone strives to adhere to the rules of civil debate. Contention instead turns to use of parliamentary strategies such as amendments, roll call votes, and sometimes interminably long floor speeches. The work on the floor ran into the evening on both Thursday and Friday as numerous amendments and 16 roll calls were requested on the Senate health care bill, S.139. Moreover, many of the bills passed earlier by the House will be coming back from the Senate with changes. Several of these will have to be resolved by a conference committee, including the budget.

Two bills this session generated a large volume of emails and constituent contacts: the firearms regulation bill which strengthens enforcement capabilities for illegal use of guns, and the bill passed by the Senate with a provision to eliminate the philosophical exemption from vaccinating children. The vaccine issue came up very late in the session with a Senate amendment to a House bill that was passed earlier, so it is not certain whether the House will actually take action on the floor before the session ends sometime in the next two weeks. However, having passed the health care bill on Friday, the House Health Care Committee decided to begin to consider S.98, the vaccine bill on Tuesday. The Vermont House rarely takes up a bill without exhaustive testimony from all sides of an issue, and this will give the public an opportunity to weigh in.

Existing law allows three types of exemptions from the immunization requirements for children to attend school: a medical exemption, a religious exemption, and a philosophical exemption. The use of the philosophical exemption by parents who believe that vaccines pose a higher risk than the diseases they are supposed to prevent is opposed by the medical community who see it as a threat to the health of the general public. Vaccines are important and have been successful in practically eliminating many diseases and reducing the incidence of many others in the general population. Recently I have heard many first person accounts of adverse reactions to vaccines, which give me pause when faced with the question of whether the philosophical exemption should be eliminated. Supporters of keeping the exemption are concerned that if a child has an adverse reaction to a vaccine, or if there is a possibility that such a reaction occurred, that it should not be dismissed automatically as having nothing to do with the vaccine. This is probably a rare occurrence, but it does become the overriding concern for parents who are faced with it. Parents need to be reassured that they are heard and listened to when they have serious concerns.

While each side is convinced that their position is right, we in the legislature take our responsibility seriously to allow testimony from all sides of any issue before taking a firm position to change or not change a law. We need to let the process work before we make such a decision. I am looking forward to an open process that will lead to the correct decision.

I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 4/18/2012 - Immunizations Revisited

One of the most controversial bills to come out of the legislature this session has been the Immunization bill, S.199.  The question it addresses is under what circumstances, if any, should a child be allowed to attend a public school or a day care facility without having received the age-appropriate vaccinations required by the Vermont Department of Health. 

On the one hand, there is the issue of protecting the public, especially children, from outbreaks of dangerous communicable illnesses as a result of low vaccination rates.  On the other, there is the concern of many parents that some vaccines present a higher risk for serious illness than the diseases they are meant to prevent.  Another aspect of the debate is whether the statistics showing an increase in the percentage of children who enter school "unvaccinated" accurately portray the situation. 

I have been following the debate on this issue very closely, paying attention to the concerns on both sides of the issue.  I have been fortunate to get input not only from constituents, medical professionals and parent advocates, but also from members of the House Health Care Committee on all aspects of the immunization debate.  They have taken testimony and discussed it in great depth.  I believe the committee came up with alternative language that recognizes the necessity of immunizations for maintaining public health as well as the concerns that some parents have regarding certain vaccines.

The vaccination rates for all the required vaccines except chicken pox are more than 90% statewide.  The chicken pox, or varicella, vaccine is at 87%.  However, while the data may show satisfactory rates of immunization for specific vaccines overall, there are pockets of the state where vaccine rates are critically low and need to be increased to keep both children and immune-compromised adults safe.  The House Health Care Committee, after consultation with school nurses as well as parents and doctors, decided to rely on education rather than a mandate and included a $40,000 appropriation for that purpose.

The committee's amendment will retain the philosophical exemption, but will require parents to consult with their pediatrician and acknowledge that they have been informed of the risks of not having their children immunized by signing a form.  Recognizing that the statistics showing decreased immunization rates do not distinguish between rejection of all vaccines and rejection of one or two, or postponement of a vaccine, the bill requires two more years for reporting of vaccination rates among school-age children.  In addition to K and 7, statistics for 1st and 8th grade will also be reported to the VT Dept of Health by each school.

It is my firm opinion that vaccines are crucial to preserving the public health and that government has a responsibility to promote their use even to the point of requiring them.  Since the main objective is to increase the overall rates of immunization, however, I support S.199 with these modifications because I believe that it addresses the immunization issue with the proper balance.

Legislative Report 3/4/2012 - Town Meeting and Vaccines

[This article appeared in the Charlotte News on March 6, 2012.]

We are now at the half-way point in the legislative schedule.  A lot has been accomplished so far, but there is still quite a bit to do before we are finished.  Town Meeting gives us a chance to get back in touch with our communities, so I hope we were able to connect there.  My legislative summary report that was available at Town Meeting can also be found online at my website, www.MikeYantachka.com.   



Rep. Mike Yantachka interviews Health Commissioner
Dr. Harry Chen on the Chittenden County Democrats
Show March 5, 2012



A major topic of interest that has generated a lot of emails is Senate bill S.199 which does away with the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccinations while retaining the religious and medical exemptions.  I have been listening to arguments on both sides of the issue.  To me it is a question of balancing the rights of parents to refuse a medical treatment for their child versus the threat to public health that such exemptions may pose.  Whichever position has more weight, it is important to know what the bill does and does not do.

1. It retains exemptions on religious and medical grounds.  Courts have treated religious objections differently than philosophical ones, and some medical conditions preclude the administration of certain vaccines.
2. It requires children entering public school to be vaccinated for certain diseases.  The particular immunizations are designated by the Vermont Department of Health appropriate to the age of the child. 
3. It establishes a pilot program that would have the goal of making vaccines available at no cost to all Vermonters and to reduce the cost at which the state may purchase vaccines.

The arguments against the bill include individual rights of parents to control what medical treatments their children receive, the possible dangers that vaccines may pose, and anecdotes of reactions to vaccinations.  It has to be acknowledged that a small minority of individuals, children included, do suffer an adverse reaction to some types of vaccines, although the type of vaccine causing the reaction varies with the child.  It is also true that vaccinations are not 100% effective; so some kids may get pertussis, for example, despite being immunized.

On the other hand, the responsibility of the public health system is to protect the public from health threats, which include infectious diseases.  There is no doubt that infectious diseases are still around and that many more people would suffer if vaccines were not available.  It is also true that if a child brings an infectious disease to school, it puts others at risk, for example, someone who is pregnant or immune compromised. 

When I was a child, polio was the scourge of the day.  I remember being taken by my mother to the local American Legion hall where vaccines were being administered to the public.  Today, polio is virtually nonexistent in the United States.  However, it still exists in other parts of the world, and a few cases in the 90’s occurred in the U.S. as a result of being carried from abroad.  The fact that some infectious diseases are so rare today is due in large part to the availability of vaccines.  That said, I’ll be listening to all points of view and learning as much as I can to inform my vote on S.199.