Big thanks to Their Mindful Mama for recording the Medical Board hearing on SB 276. This is after public comments were stated and the board members had a discussion on the bill, presented motions and voted. You will also find a transcript of the meeting below.
Listen and read closely. The members of the board heard us and did not support this bill, as it reads today. They offered amendments, such as expanding the CDC guidelines.
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D: A public comment…I’m of the opinion that I think we need an amendment and so I would be open to supporting with an amendment and I’m open to dialogue with the board in terms of what could be a viable amendment that finds some middle ground.
Jennifer Simoes (Chief of Legislation): Do we have any board members that have recommendations for an amendment for SB276?
Board Member 2: I have some concerns actually about how much time it would take to get all this information, but I’m still [inaudible 00:49] and impressed by the amount of concern from the public and I thought I’d decided before I came in but I’ve gotten some literature that made me rethink it. I don’t have a specific recommendation for the amendment, however. But I’m concerned enough about it to take the [inaudible 1:12] away from it.
Jennifer Simoes: Do we have any comments from any other member? A second to what’s on the table which is the fourth edition or do we have recommended language for an amendment?
David Warmoth: This is David, I would also support it if amended and the amendment would go to looking in at the myriad of reasons for an exemption that currently in the current bill.
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D.: This is Lori, with respect to the amendment I felt that the public brought up different viewpoints about vaccine injuries, previous history, family history, and perhaps genetic predisposition supported by genetic testing. Those are some terms we could put in there so that it’s not just limited to CDC guidelines alone.
Michelle Anne Bholat, M.D. (Secretary): Hi, this is Michelle Bholat, and I echo Dr. Hawkins point of view. I’m most concerned of the statements or the [inaudible 02:53-02:55] removal of the physician and doctor relationship. I also would like to see more information on epigenetics, there are definite areas within communities of color, that are concerned about these issues and I think that the public raised an important point, very important. The CDC does provide guidelines, and for those that are physicians in the group you’re very well aware that it’s the pediatricians, the family physicians, that are providing a large majority of these vaccines to children. And I would be looking to our research scientist to those, those areas that are going to be informing us of what is in…what we can call the true north. And if the true north are those things and those issues that even if when you look at family history and you look it up in genetics where is that information and again, where is that true north.
So you know I having been in public health for a long time I’m a huge supporter of vaccines. I believe in vaccines, I understand the issues of herd immunity. But the issues that were raised here are concerning enough for a deeper dive. And I think that I would like to see a broader discussion and I would, I would, I would support a…I would want to see things amended here and I don’t unfortunately have a list to be able to give you for that, but there are some concerns that are definitely raised here [inaudible 04:44]
Jennifer Simoes: Thank you. Are there any members that have any other comments?
Felix C. Yip, M.D: It’s Dr. Yip. It’s just that listening to the public literature there would be so many amendments that if… yeah I’m not sure we can just go to support it because there’s so many amendments/changes. For example, the physician needs to be drive as far as [inaudible 05:15] educating the parents or guardian whether vaccination is suitable for the children. And second I do have concerns with having the state officer to do exemptions. Not knowing who they are, are they trained and how broad the spectrum [inaudible 05:33], for example, CDC guidelines sort of strict as the bill put on the table. And the other issue is also the bigger collective that the [inaudible 05:50] assets who are the children [inaudible 5:51].
And that I again I think need to be really worked out because [inaudible 05:58] the doctor and patient privacy. I think that we do want to have the authority to subpoena the record right now will do have problems [Inaudible 6.08] there are some schools that certain decision [inaudible 06:12] without good cause and our hands are tied because we get those records. I think [inaudible 06:18] the direction of how [inaudible 06:22] certain circumstances [inaudible 06:26] concerning how to subpoena record if you think the decision [inaudible 06:28] those exemptions. [inaudible 06:31] state officers or officers locally to give exemptions. So I’m not sure how many amendments we’d make in order to have this [inaudible 06:39] you’d pretty much change the whole bill.
Jennifer Simoes: Are there any other members with comments?
Dev GnanaDev, M.D.: [inaudible 06:53] I think we’ve got to step forward. You got multiple board members talked about some kind of amendment. We had one board member talk about we don’t know what the amendments are. I just want to find out where we are so I was wondering if it’s that day why not take a neutral position for the board because nobody [inaudible 07:18] nobody’s there to support. I’m just curious.
Board Member: Jennifer?
Jennifer Simoes: So if we take a supportive amendment position I actually need to have the amendments because I can’t go to the author’s office and say we support if you can make amendments but we don’t have amendments. And so I mean our options like I think you just went over them. It’s either you support, we have amendments, and we take the support of amendments, neutral I mean I guess that’s an option, I don’t think we’re at the point of opposing, but Dr. Yip brought up somethings on the premise of the bill. And so I know we cannot support an amend if we don’t agree with the premise of the bill. So, what do you think?
Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Executive Director): Again it sounds like from the discussion that’s happening that I believe that individuals believe that the CDC guidelines are too narrow is what I’m hearing from most members. So we could go back and support if amend to include some other options for outside of the CDC guidelines. I’ve heard a couple suggestions for that. That might be something that you would want to entertain.
Susan F. Friedman: Can we make a motion that we support the idea of vaccination and we support the idea of the bill with reservations about the Department of Public Health and Office and we have reservations about the exemptions.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Again, as Jennifer said I think we really need specific Amendments so that’ll be hard to do unless you just put it in concept with the medical board section of it. So you really do need specific amendments that we could give to Dr. Pan’s office, other office to make the changes.
David Warmoth: This is David. I would second Dr. GnanaDev’s motion to take a neutral position and I’d add that we form a committee to consider amendments.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Okay, since there was no second on the first motion if I’m not hearing any support since Dr. Hawkins withdrew his then we would move to…that motion would fall away and then we would move to Doctor GnanaDev I didn’t hear you make a motion, but is that your motion?
Dev GnanaDev, M.D: So I have an idea [Inaudible 09:58-10:07] Two things, one we can take a neutral [Inaudible 10.10] idea and the second was [Inaudible 10:14] especially what is presented to the medical board. The medical direct which we always support anyway [inaudible 10:26] the narrowness of the exemption to the CDC guidelines. [inaudible 10:33] what the amendment would be. How do you change it? So that means we can’t make a motion to support [inaudible 10:43] for amendment. We have two options I just want to hear about [Inaudible 10:47] support concept or [inaudible 10:52] that’s what I think and I would be allowed to hear people’s opinion before a new motion comes up.
David Warmoth: This is David again I would I would move that we support in concept.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer (Executive Director): And again is that support in concept for the portions allowing the medical board to obtain the records and support in concept the… I’m trying to look at this. The issue in the bill with the exceptions of the CDC guidelines being too narrow and the …What’s the other issue I’m sorry. And the CDPH review?
Board Members: Yes
Jennifer Simoes: So, we support the concept of the CDPH review because I’ve heard some concerns with that so I just want to be clear.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Their support, not supporting that part of it.
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D.: This is Lori what timeline are we working against in terms of giving a position?
Jennifer Simoes: I mean, so were in…let’s see almost June, and so now everything is starting to go to the second house, and so, our next board meeting is not until the beginning of August and that’s only basically one month left of session right. And so that basically gives me time to get a letter to the governor’s office. If we take a different position, there when the bill goes to them. So it’s not going to give me…I mean I can still continue to work with the author’s office but I have to be clear on like what we’re supporting the concept of because when I go to the hearing to testify, I need to be able to clearly say what concepts we’re supporting. So I think all the board members agree you support the concept of getting [inaudible 12:45] information we need to build, do our investigations but…
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: And it sounded like there was support in review of those exceptions you’re just not certain of the appropriate party to do that?
Board Member: Exactly
Board Member: Right.
Board Member: Thanks correct, yeah.
Dev GnanaDev, M.D: Jennifer are you doing okay [Inaudible 13:10] Do you need a second?
Jennifer Simoes: Yes, we need a second.
Board Member: What is the motion? I know it’s neutral.
Jennifer Simoes: So the motion is to take support in concept Position on the bill. Support…the concepts that are supported are that the medical exemptions be reviewed in some manner and that the medical board will be able to obtain the documents via the release, via the exemption on the exemption form as it’s stated right now in the bill.
Board Member: [Inaudible 13:54-13:57]
Jennifer Simoes: Oh, yes sorry and that the CDC…yeah, that would be something that we need to work with them and that’s not your support in concept, that’s your what language you would need to work with the authors office in changing, but it is too narrow for the CDC guidelines.
Board Member: Okay,
Board Member: Okay
Michelle Anne Bholat, M.D.: May I just make the comment, so really being very clear this issue of the CDPH on this motion is we’re not supporting that, at this point, because there isn’t enough information. We don’t want that to go to a state regulator. Is that what we’re intending over [inaudible 14:33] certain people’s points of view. And so…we’re also talking about the medical exemption review and how that is going to happen and so we’re saying support with these three issues versus getting more information on [inaudible 14:57] for the evaluation this is going to review and the physicians that are right now putting these exemptions forward. [inaudible 15:07] and we’re trying to find a way to do that. [inaudible 15:12] This is why I’m a little bit…there is a lot going on here.
Michelle Anne Bholat, M.D. : There is a lot in the bill. So can we do a restatement?
Jennifer Simoes: Yes, so from what I had heard earlier the issue with the medical exemption review was that you didn’t want it to be the California Department of Public Health, you had some concerns with that. So we would be going back and looking at that area of it. So the medical exemption review you believe that it needs to be reviewed, but you’re just not sure of who that entity would be. Then the second thing is that the CDC guidelines are too narrow and so you would want some broadening of what that information would look like. And then the issue of the medical board being able to obtain the medical records, you want the medical board to be able to get those medical records which will be on the form as it’s currently indicated. And I think I think that’s everything that’s covered.
Felix C. Yip, M.D.: [Inaudible 16:10] I’d like them to reword the details how [inaudible 16:16] To protect those patients because we don’t want a kid who was legitimately exempted and potentially be discriminated by schools because some schools could find out their exempt for any reason they don’t want them in the school. So [Inaudible 16:31] how to use it [inaudible 16:36]
Jennifer Simoes: Okay so when I write the supported concept letter but I’m basically going to say what we support, but if I don’t have exact amendments I can’t work out all these details. Like for a bill you have to have a governmental entity, you can’t require a non-governmental entity to do something. So those are things that we probably have to talk about at our next board meeting. So basically my letter would say, here are the concepts we support and we’ll work on the authors’ office on the other things. So I’m not going to bring up all these issues as concerns because if you bring him up as concerns we have to bring up a solution with it. So, I can say the concepts that we support with what I’m hearing is that the medical exemption be reviewed, and that the medical board obtain the records so we can do our investigations, and then we would have to at the next meeting talk about possible alternatives for the other things. Just to be clear so you know how my letter is going to be drafted.
Dev GnanaDev, M.D: I actually agree with her. I agree with you I think we agree the only thing we should only be proposing which we are really clear about. We are not clear what the amendments are, we are not clear what to do about CDPH. So I think we should support what the concepts with that and then we take apart the next important board meeting what we are having.
Board Member: So, okay. So we have that we support in concept with our additional language. We have that as a motion, do we have a second?
Board Member: Second.
Board Member: Doctor GnanaDev, second. Ms. Kramer can we call the roll?
Ms. Kramer: Dr. Bholat?
Bholat, M.D: Nay
Ms. Kramer: What was that?
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: I’m sorry what was that?
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Is that nay Dr. Bholat?
Bholat, M.D: Yes, No
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Thank you
Ms. Kramer: Thank you, sorry.
Ms. Kramer: Miss Friedman?
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D.: I’m sorry this is Lori can you repeat that one more time. What the motion is?
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: So it’s a support in concept, supporting the support for the medical board to be able to get the records that will be on the exemption form. To release the medical records and support a medical exemption review, however by some entity at that point.
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D: Okay,
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: Should I start over?
Board Member: Just continue.
Ms. Kramer: Miss Friedman?
Susan F. Friedman: Yes.
Ms. Kramer: Dr. GnanaDev?
Dr. GnanaDev: Yes
Ms. Kramer: Dr. Hawkins?
Randy W. Hawkins, M.D.: Yes
Ms. Kramer: Miss Lawson, Oh, yes she left I apologize.
Ms. Kramer: Miss Lubiano?
Laurie Rose Lubiano, J.D: Yes
Ms. Kramer: Mr Warmoth?
David Warmoth: Aye.
Ms. Kramer: Doctor Yip?
Felix C. Yip, M.D.: No
Ms. Kramer: Miss Pines?
Denise Pines (President): Abstain.
Kimberly Kirchmeyer: The motion passes. We are on our final agenda items.