House narrowly passes GOP-backed bill to eliminate New Hampshire Vaccine Association

Yahoo

06-03-2025

Dover Democratic Rep. Seth Miller, right, consults with a colleague during a voting day for the New Hampshire House of Representatives on Thursday, March 6, 2025. Earlier in the day, the House voted to eliminate the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin)
A Republican-backed proposal to eliminate New Hampshire's mechanism for purchasing vaccines was approved by the state House of Representatives Thursday.
The House voted, 189-181, in favor of House Bill 524, which seeks to terminate the New Hampshire Vaccine Association.
The New Hampshire Vaccine Association is a nonprofit established by the Legislature in 2002 that serves as a universal purchasing program with the goal of providing universal access to vaccines for children. It does not set or recommend policies, but rather it buys vaccines in bulk and distributes them to doctors and providers, combining money from all insurers in the state to get a 30% discount on vaccines.
The Republicans backing this bill argued the private sector could better fill this function.
HB 524 would repeal the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. But what does the NHVA actually do?
Rep. Michael Granger, a Milton Republican and the bill's sponsor, said while introducing the bill that its goal is 'to save a large amount of money.' He argued the association wasn't actually saving anyone any money, but still costing the state money to operate.
Granger brought Laura Condon, a volunteer with the controversial nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center and a vocal vaccine conspiracy theorist, to make the case for the bill.
'It is best to remove government from involvement in the purchase of medical products when private business does quite well and cost-effectively for vaccines for adults,' said Condon, who recently publicly questioned whether vaccines might cause cancer and falsely asserted online that vaccines cause autism. She described the assertion that the government is able to do these duties cheaper than private industry as 'a false premise.'
Opponents say the bill wouldn't save any money, as the funds that pass through it come from insurers, not the state itself. Without the New Hampshire Vaccine Association, medical offices would have to purchase vaccines themselves, would incur the administrative costs to do so, wouldn't get the discount, and would bill insurers at full price. This, opponents said, would threaten vaccine access and make it more difficult for parents to find vaccination clinics for their children. The bill would actually increase costs for the state, they argued, as it would have to assume the costs of managing a vaccine inventory to be prepared for disease outbreaks, a role the association currently fills in New Hampshire.
'For 20 years this is an arrangement that has worked beautifully for everybody,' Rep. Lucy Weber, a Walpole Democrat who serves on the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, said. 'It's a win-win-win-win. It's good for kids. It's good for parents. It's good for the practices. And it's good for costs.'
Weber said the bill would result in fewer vaccinations. Still, she argued the New Hampshire Vaccine Association 'is not pro-vaccine or pushing vaccines.'
'It is making them available to parents who want their children to be vaccinated,' she continued. 'And in that respect, it is a parental rights, parental decision organization. And parents can do what parents want to do. There is nothing in the vaccine organization as it stands that's requiring parents to get vaccines.'
Deputy House Democratic Leader Laura Telerski, who represents Nashua, added that this will disproportionately impact rural communities where there are fewer providers and parents have to travel farther for pediatrician visits.
'Opponents of this bill believe that government has a role in public health and providing that access,' Telerski said. 'And the people who are supporting the bill believe that small government is taking precedence over public health.'
The bill has been widely panned by doctors, nurses, and medical organizations.
'We already have a very, very good system in place,' said Dr. Patrick Ho, president of the New Hampshire Medical Association and a psychiatrist in Lebanon.
Ho disagrees with proponents of the bill who say the private sector would be able to complete this function at the same cost.
'I think what that argument really disregards is the power of the program overall to leverage essentially the lower costs of purchasing the vaccines and negotiating for significantly lower priced vaccines for everybody across the state, insured or not,' he said. 'It also disregards the very significant administrative resources that would need to be deployed for each practice, each health system to procure these vaccines themselves.'
Ho pointed out the bill is opposed by providers and insurers alike.
'Everyone involved in obtaining vaccines for our state and for the children of our state is aligned in thinking this is a really good program,' he said. 'There's no reason to do away with it.'
Ho said the New Hampshire Vaccine Association is 'really just a big win for the children of the state' and that it 'reduces burdens to vaccines.'
'When the state is able to purchase vaccines at the lowest possible price, this ensures that the children of the state can get free vaccines,' he said. 'Because the health care provider offices, the clinics, and the insurance carriers don't have as much administrative burden.'
The opposition to the bill, while ultimately unsuccessful, was bipartisan. In addition to Democrats, some Republicans voted against it Thursday.
Rep. David Nagel, a Gilmanton Republican, called it 'a horrible bill.'
'I gotta live with myself,' he said, explaining why he voted against it.
Outside of his work in the State House, Nagel is a doctor, known nationally for his work on pain management. He served on the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee until he was removed last month ahead of the committee vote on whether to recommend this bill for approval, as reported by WMUR.
The bill will now be considered by the Ways and Means Committee.