Dillon’s Law
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4564
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-21: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2025-09-16T13:55:55Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled "Dillon's Law," aims to update federal rules for grants that help states address children's asthma in schools. It expands who can be considered "trained personnel" for administering emergency asthma medication (like epinephrine), allowing states to include non-school employees in this category. This helps states qualify for grant preferences by promoting wider access to life-saving treatments during asthma attacks.
Key Provisions
- Preference for States in Grant Programs: States get priority for grants under the Public Health Service Act if they allow trained individuals to carry and administer epinephrine in schools. The bill broadens this to include "trained personnel" (not just school staff like nurses).
- Special Rule for Non-Employees: Schools can count non-employee individuals as part of their trained personnel if:
- The individual meets federal training requirements (e.g., proper certification for handling epinephrine).
- The state's attorney general (chief legal officer) reaffirms the state's overall certification, confirming it accounts for these non-employees.
- Updated Terminology: Replaces "auto-injectable epinephrine" (a specific type of injector like EpiPen) with "epinephrine delivery systems" to cover a wider range of devices for delivering the medication.
- Minor Technical Fix: Corrects a typo in the existing law from "schoolin" to "school in."
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Broadens Personnel Definition: Previously, preferences focused narrowly on "school personnel" (e.g., employees like nurses). Now, it includes "trained personnel," explicitly allowing trained volunteers or others outside the school staff, as long as they meet standards and the state certifies it.
- Expands Medication Scope: Shifts from limiting to auto-injectors to any approved epinephrine delivery method, making the rule more flexible for new technologies.
- These changes amend Section 399L(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g(d)), which governs grants for asthma treatment programs without altering the grant funding amounts or core eligibility.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers these grants, may see more states qualifying for preferences, potentially increasing grant distribution to areas with flexible school policies. States' attorneys general will need to review and reaffirm certifications, adding a minor administrative step.
- On Citizens: Students with asthma (especially in elementary and secondary schools) could benefit from faster access to emergency treatment by more people, reducing risks during attacks. Families and communities may see improved school safety without relying solely on limited school staff.
- On International Relations: No direct impact, as this is a domestic public health measure focused on U.S. schools and grants.
- Overall, it could encourage more states to train and authorize non-employees (e.g., parents or community volunteers), potentially lowering asthma-related emergencies in schools.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- States and Schools: Benefit from easier access to federal grants if they adopt broader training policies; must ensure compliance with reaffirmation by attorneys general.
- Students and Families: Primarily children with asthma, who gain from expanded emergency response options in schools.
- Trained Individuals: Volunteers, parents, or community members who can now be officially recognized for administering medication, increasing their role in school health.
- Federal Government (HHS): Manages grant preferences and may handle more applications from qualifying states.
- Healthcare Providers: Involved in training personnel on epinephrine use, potentially seeing higher demand for certifications.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens liability protections implied in the original law by clarifying that trained non-employees can act under state certification, reducing legal ambiguities for schools. No new lawsuits are anticipated, but it relies on states' attorneys general for enforcement, which could lead to varying state interpretations.
- Constitutional Implications: None significant; it operates within Congress's authority over public health spending (via the Spending Clause) and does not infringe on state rights or individual liberties. It promotes equal access to health resources without mandating state action.
- Political Implications: Bipartisan support (sponsors from both parties) suggests broad appeal for child health initiatives. It could influence future education and health policies by incentivizing states to expand volunteer roles in schools, potentially setting a precedent for similar "good Samaritan" expansions in emergencies.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (14)
Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4], Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-21: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-07-21: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-21: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Dillon’s Law — issued 2025-07-21 — PDF (3 pages)