Salini Mohanty, Alison M. Buttenheim, and Caroline M. Joyce are with the University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Alison M. Buttenheim is also with the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania. Amanda C. Howa and Saad B. Omer are with Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. Daniel Salmon is with Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jan;109(1):96-101. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304768. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
To understand the experiences of local health jurisdictions with Senate Bill 277 (SB277), the California law that eliminated nonmedical vaccine exemptions for public- and private-school entry. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with health officers and local health department (LHD) staff in California between August and September 2017. Two overall themes emerged: (1) vague legislative and regulatory language led to variation in the interpretation and implementation of SB277, and (2) lack of centralized review of medical exemptions allowed medical exemptions that are not consistent with valid contraindications for immunizations to be accepted. Variation in the interpretation and implementation was commonly reported with provisions related to individualized education programs and special education, and independent study programs and homeschooling. Without a centralized review of medical exemption requests, respondents reported variation in the interpretation of which specialties of physicians can write medical exemptions, which conditions constitute a valid contraindication for immunization, and the process for reporting a questionable or suspicious medical exemption. The regulatory language within SB277 led to variation in how the law was interpreted and implemented within and across LHD jurisdictions and school districts.
为了了解当地卫生部门对加州参议院法案 277 (SB277)的经验,该法案取消了公立和私立学校入学的非医疗疫苗豁免。我们于 2017 年 8 月至 9 月期间对加州的卫生官员和地方卫生部门(LHD)工作人员进行了半结构化电话访谈。出现了两个总体主题:(1)模糊的立法和监管语言导致 SB277 的解释和实施存在差异,(2)缺乏对医疗豁免的集中审查导致与疫苗接种的有效禁忌症不一致的医疗豁免被接受。与个别教育计划和特殊教育以及独立学习计划和家庭教育有关的规定,经常报告存在解释上的差异。由于没有对医疗豁免请求进行集中审查,受访者报告说,对哪些医生的专业可以开具医疗豁免、哪些条件构成免疫接种的有效禁忌症以及报告可疑或可疑医疗豁免的程序存在解释上的差异。SB277 中的监管语言导致该法律在 LHD 管辖区和学区内以及跨学区的解释和实施存在差异。