HB 524 would repeal the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. But what does the NHVA actually do?
The NHVA is a nonprofit established by the Legislature in 2002 and is a universal vaccine purchasing program. (Photo courtesy of Executive Office of the Maryland Governor)
Next week, House Bill 524 will be heard by the New Hampshire House of Representatives. This bill would repeal and eliminate the New Hampshire Vaccine Association (NHVA), but it is important for our legislators and their constituents to know exactly what this might mean for the children and families of our state.
The NHVA is a nonprofit established by the Legislature in 2002 and is a universal vaccine purchasing program. This NHVA does not set vaccine policies or recommendations. Rather, this program allows the state to use a federal, contracted price list when purchasing vaccines.
While 'how' and 'for what price' vaccines are purchased by the state may seem like an unimportant detail, the NHVA allows the state to purchase vaccines at the lowest possible cost. This in turn allows Granite State families to get their children vaccinated for free, regardless of insurance coverage or income. Furthermore, the NHVA also saves New Hampshire millions of dollars each year by contributing $24 million annually to the state Department of Health and Human Services for vaccine purchases.
When we consider the rising costs of health care, it is no surprise that cost may factor heavily into which elements of care families feel that they can engage with. As a physician, I have encountered many patients who have felt compelled to delay or decline medical care, ration medications, or be otherwise unable to prioritize their health — all due to how much this care may cost. The NHVA, though, has ensured that families in New Hampshire have not needed to choose between purchasing necessities like groceries and the health and future of their children.
In projecting what our state might look like without the NHVA, it is important to have this context and this information about what the NHVA is — and what it is not. Eliminating the NHVA would not eliminate vaccines. Instead, it would increase the cost of vaccines for all Granite Staters. This cost would be passed on to physicians and clinics, insurance providers, and most importantly to families who wish to vaccinate their children.
The unintended consequences of eliminating the NHVA could be devastating.
New Hampshire has been among the top states in terms of percentage of children who have been vaccinated, and the free availability of vaccines due to the NHVA has been an important contributor to this. Without the universal purchasing program of the NHVA, vaccines would no longer be able to be purchased at the lowest possible price. In this scenario, Granite Staters with the lowest incomes would be disproportionately impacted. This would be unconscionable, because all children should be able to be protected against deadly preventable diseases, not just children raised in higher-income households. In the best-case scenario, childhood vaccinations become a privilege for wealthier families. Unfortunately, we are already seeing the worst-case scenario unfold in Texas, where an outbreak of measles, a disease that had once been eliminated in the U.S., has materialized.
The Granite State has been a great example of the benefits of removing barriers to care, and the NHVA has been a large part of this success. Eliminating the NHVA would not eliminate vaccines, or even change policies relating to vaccines. This would, however, take the option out of the hands of lower-income families who would otherwise be able to vaccinate their children for free.
With so many barriers already making health care hard enough to access, it would be unacceptable to add more barriers in an area where our state has seen success. Thus, it is important to know what the NHVA actually does, and that without them, our children would suffer the most.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Texas bill allocates $13M for animal spay and neutering services
The Brief The budget passed by the Texas Legislature allocates $13 million to a pilot program to spay and neuter cats and dogs. Gov. Greg Abbott has yet to approve this funding. This builds off of recently passed legislation, Senate Bill 1568, which created specialty license plates to fund animal sterilization. Texas lawmakers passed a budget that sets aside $13 million for animal spaying and neutering services in order to limit the spread of infectious diseases. If approved by the governor, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) would lead a statewide pilot program over the next two years. What we know The program was created in an effort to reduce the prevalence of infectious diseases such as rabies, toxoplasmosis, and leptospirosis. These diseases, which can be transferred from animals to humans, can cause adverse side effects in people. What they're saying Shelby Bobosky, executive director of the Texas Humane Legislation Network (TLHN), said the pilot program is a crucial step forward in protecting both animals and people. "Shelters, veterinarians, and local communities have long struggled with limited resources to manage stray and feral animal populations," she said. "This funding is not only indispensable, but it also reflects a clear understanding by the Legislature that animal welfare is a vital part of our public health infrastructure." Bobosky believes the effort will help to tackle Texas' pet overpopulation problem while working to improve community health. The backstory The pilot program is a continuation of previous legislation the TLHN led: Senate Bill 1568, which passed on May 24, 2025. This bill, authored by State Senator Judith Zaffirini, a Democrat from South Texas, created specialty license plates to promote public participation in animal sterilization. The new license plates would include the phrase "Spray. Neuter. Adopt." The sales of this license plate would support the Animal Friendly Account to help fund programs and organizations that support animal sterilization in order to reduce stray populations. What's next If signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, the DSHS will begin forming the plans and procedures to implement the pilot program over the upcoming months. The TLHN plans to work with animal shelters, veterinary professionals, rescue organizations, and local municipalities to collect feedback to share with the DSHS. The Source This information was gathered from Texas Policy Research, as well as a news release sent by the Texas Humane Legislation Network.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
House won't override DeSantis' ‘free kill' repeal veto
A trio of flashing billboards less than two miles from the Florida Capitol is slamming Gov. Ron DeSantis for vetoing the "free kill" bill on medical malpractice. (Photo credit: Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix) House Speaker Daniel Perez said Thursday the chamber will try again next year to pass a repeal of the 'free kill' statute following Gov. Ron DeSantis' veto of the proposal. DeSantis on May 29 vetoed the Legislature's attempt to remove the bar on parents of adult children and the adult children of single parents from suing hospitals and physicians for non-economic damages for the deaths of loved ones. The governor said repealing 'free kill' would increase health care costs for Floridians and make it harder to keep physicians in the state. 'Of course, the governor has in his right the power to veto this bill, and he chose to do so,' Perez told reporters. 'I disagree with the veto, and we will be bringing that bill back next year for a continued conversation.' Lawmakers passed HB 6017 with bipartisan support. Repealing the ban on suits to recover non-economic damages is one of the perennial arguments in Tallahassee, as business interests and medical groups oppose the move. Perez said he remains opposed to placing caps on the pain-and-suffering damages, which is something that DeSantis said could make him support the repeal in the future, along with caps on attorneys' fees. The family members barred from suing for pain-and-suffering damages can recover economic damages, such as lost wages, medical bills, and funeral costs. 'I don't think that we should determine how much a person's life is worth when someone negligently ended it,' Perez said. The Senate also rejected a bid to cap the damages at $1 million on April 30. Florida, for now, remains the only state banning the recovery of pain-and-suffering damages for parents of adult children and adult children of single parents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX


E&E News
4 days ago
- E&E News
Texas legislators bury prison cooling bill, risking court fight
Texas lawmakers ended the state's most recent legislative session without advancing a plan to install air conditioning in the state's prison system — likely putting Texas on a collision course with a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit by prisoners. Texas runs the nation's largest state prison system — with about 140,000 inmates — but only about a third of the beds are air conditioned. Temperatures inside the prisons regularly exceed 100 degrees in the summer, and researchers estimate that heat contributed to the deaths of 14 inmates annually in Texas from 2001 to 2019. The Republican-controlled Legislature has tried to address the issue in its past three sessions, but this year lawmakers were under increased scrutiny because of a preliminary ruling in an inmates' lawsuit. Advertisement U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled in March that the conditions are 'plainly unconstitutional' but stopped short of issuing an injunction on behalf of a group of inmates. He noted at the time there were bills pending in the Legislature to provide air conditioning and said a court order would divert resources that could be better spent fixing the problem.