WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6174

AN ACT RELATING TO BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONS -- PROTECTIONS OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ACT

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Edith Ajello and 9 co-sponsors

Requires abortion-drug labels to show the dispensing clinic name (not the provider), shielding clinicians; also adds PFAS notification and free-filter support for private wells.

04/08/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6174

Summary — HB 6174: “Protections of Healthcare Providers Act” (with additional inserted PFAS provisions)

Note up front: the text you provided appears to combine two distinct measures from different jurisdictions. The title and principal text of HB 6174 (Protections of Healthcare Providers Act) concern prescription-labeling for medication-abortion drugs (Rhode Island language). Interleaved earlier in the document is a separate set of public‑health provisions (Michigan-style numbering: new sec. 12722–12724) about PFAS detection, notification, and free filters for private wells. Below is a concise, objective summary of both parts, followed by status/next-step notes.

Part A — Protections for Healthcare Providers Act (prescription‑label change)

  • Purpose: To protect healthcare providers and dispensing facilities by changing what appears on prescription labels for medication abortion drugs.
  • Key provision:
    • Amends Chapter 5-37.8 (Protections for Healthcare Providers Act) by adding section 5-37.8-4.
    • Requires that the prescription label for “medication abortion prescription drugs” display the name of the dispensing healthcare practice (clinic/practice), rather than the individual dispenser’s name.
    • “Medication abortion prescription drugs” is defined to include drugs used to induce termination of a pregnancy, explicitly listing (but not limited to) mifepristone and misoprostol.
  • Effected parties:
    • Dispensing healthcare practices and pharmacies that fill or dispense medication abortion drugs.
    • Patients receiving those prescriptions (labels would show practice name).
    • Individual dispensers (their names would not appear on the label).
  • Timing:
    • The act is written to take effect upon passage.
  • Potential impacts and considerations:
    • Privacy/protection: Could reduce identification of individual clinicians or pharmacists on labels, potentially lowering risk of harassment or targeted harassment.
    • Operational: Pharmacies and EHR/prescription-labeling vendors would need to change labeling protocols to populate practice name instead of individual dispenser.
    • Legal/administrative: May require updates to pharmacy policies and state pharmacy board guidance; potential conflicts with federal or state labeling/dispensing regulations should be reviewed.

Part B — (Inserted) PFAS private-well notification and filter program (Michigan‑style provisions)

  • Purpose: Require notification and limited mitigation (free filters) when PFAS is detected above EPA or state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in private drinking wells or monitoring wells.
  • Key provisions (adds sections 12722–12724 to the public health code):
    • Notification: If an owner notifies the department that PFAS was detected above EPA/state MCLs, the department (defined as Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy) must, within 30 days, send that owner a notice including:
    • household water-use advice and instructions to reduce PFAS exposure;
    • information on how to obtain a free PFAS NSF-certified water filter from a local health department;
    • educational materials and info on additional testing.
    • Neighbor notification: The department must also notify owners of real property within a 1‑mile radius of the tested well. Notices must state testing occurred, PFAS exceeded MCLs, provide household-use advice, explain how to obtain testing and how to report results to the department, and include educational materials.
    • Department-detected contamination: If the department detects PFAS above MCLs in its own monitoring or drinking wells, it must notify property owners within a 1‑mile radius within 30 days (same content as above).
    • Free filters: Local health departments must provide a free PFAS NSF‑certified water filter to any private well owner whose well tested positive; owners must provide a copy of the department notice to obtain the filter.
    • Voluntary testing registry: The department must create a voluntary registry of individuals who want email notification when testing occurs under the department‑initiated testing provision; email must state location, date, and reason for testing.
  • Affected parties:
    • Private well owners within the 1‑mile notification radius and those whose wells test positive.
    • Local health departments (responsible for providing filters).
    • Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (notification & registry duties).
  • Timing/requirements:
    • Notices must be issued within 30 days of detection (owner- or department‑initiated).
    • Filters are provided upon presentation of the department notice.
  • Potential impacts:
    • Public health benefit: Faster notification and access to point‑of‑use remediation (filters) could reduce exposure.
    • Cost burden: Local health departments may face costs of buying/providing NSF‑certified filters; state budget implications depend on funding sources.
    • Administrative: Departments must establish registry, outreach processes, and manage testing notifications.

Legislative status and next steps

  • Provided history is mixed across jurisdictions. Specific items include:
    • Rhode Island: Introduced 04/04/2025; referred to House Judiciary; scheduled for hearing 04/08/2025; committee recommended holding the measure for further study (04/08/2025).
    • Earlier Michigan‑style text shows introduction 11/26/2024 (Rep. Phil Skaggs) and referral to Committee on Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation; later note 01/22/2025 referral to Joint Committee on Judiciary — these entries appear inconsistent with state jurisdictions and should be verified.
  • Recommendation: Confirm the bill’s jurisdiction and official bill text/version before relying on this summary (the document you provided merges two different measures). If you want, I can:
    • Verify which state’s HB 6174 you want summarized, or
    • Pull the official enrolled/introduced text from the relevant legislature and produce a cleaned, jurisdiction‑specific summary.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.