October 7, 2026 · HEALTH · 6,262 words · 29 speakers · 300 segments
Thank you. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting of the House Health Committee to order. Patrick, will you please call the roll?
Chair Frankel.
Here.
Rep Benham.
Here.
Rep Borowski.
Designation.
Rep Boyd.
Designation.
Rep Hanbage.
Yes.
Rep Howard.
Here.
Rep Khan.
Designation.
Kozarowski.
Designation.
Rep Krajewski.
Designation.
Rep Mays.
Designation.
Rep Friolotten.
Here.
Rep Sanchez.
Designation.
Rep Schusterman.
Designation.
Rep Venkit.
Here.
Chair, Rep.
Here.
Rep Bonner.
Here. Rep Borowitz.
Designation.
Rep Brown.
Here.
Rep Day.
Here.
Designation.
Rep Krupa.
Here.
Rep Roy.
Present.
Rep Rossi.
Here.
Rep Stare.
Designation.
Rep Tordzik.
Present.
Rep Walsh.
Here.
Rep Zimmerman.
Here. We have a quorum. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, members. The chair calls up House Bill 2593, printers number 3502, sponsored by Representative Keith Harris. Patrick, will you please explain the bill?
2593 directs the Department of Health to conduct a prostate health public education campaign and established a prostate health education campaign fund. The public education campaign must cover prostate cancer risk factors, the age at which individuals should consult a provider, the benefits and risks of screening, the treatability of prostate cancer with early detection, and any other information the Department deems necessary. The education campaign must be conducted through several media formats, venues, and languages, and must target at-risk populations. Additionally, the campaign must provide reliable information to policymakers. The Prostate Health Education Campaign Fund is established as a separate fund in the State Treasury for which funds are appropriate to the Department of Health to administer the education campaign. The Department is permitted to apply for grants or accept donations to the fund. Thank you.
The question is, will the committee report House Bill 2593 on that question? I'm offering Amendment A04265, which makes the creation of the public education campaign contingent on an appropriation from the General Assembly. Will the committee agree to this? Are there any comments on the amendment? Chair Rapp?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be supporting the amendment, but I will reserve any other comments after when we look at the bill.
Thank you. Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing none, amendment A04265 is adopted. The question occurs, will the committee report House Bill 2593 as amended? Is there discussion on the bill? Chair Rapp.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be supporting the bill today as amended, and according to the American Cancer Society, approximately 36,000 men will die from prostate cancer in the United States this year, which is roughly one death every 15 minutes. Education and early detection can significantly reduce mortality rates if prostate cancer is not caught early and spreads to distant parts of the body, the five-year survival rate drops to around 38%. While I support education, I'm cognizant of the continuing costs that we are adding to our budget. The department anticipates needing another $670,000 to oversee this campaign with fiscal considerations, which will be addressed through the budget process. which is the reason the amendment was important. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chair Rapp. And I want to thank Representative Harris for his work on this issue and his dedication to fighting prostate cancer. Those in favor of reporting House Bill 2593 as amended will vote aye. Those who vote no. Are there any negative votes on the legislation? Seeing none.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Roll call?
Yes. Roll call, please, Patrick.
Chair Frankel.
Yes.
Rep Benham.
Yes.
Rep Borowski.
Designation, yes.
Rep Boyd.
Designation, yes.
Rep Hanvich.
Yes.
Rep Howard.
Yes.
Rep Khan.
Designation, yes.
Rep Kosarowski.
Designation, yes.
Rep Kajewski.
Yes.
Rep Mays.
Designation, yes.
Rep Freelotten.
Yes.
Rep Sanchez.
Designation, yes.
Rep Schusterman.
Designation, yes.
Rep Venkit.
Yes.
Chair Rep.
Yes.
Rep Bonner. Rep Borowitz.
Designation, no.
Rep Brown.
Yes.
Rep Day.
Designation, yes.
Rep Krupa.
Yes.
Rep Roy.
Yes.
Rep Rossi.
Yes.
Rep Steyer.
Designation, yes.
Rep Tordzik.
Yes.
Rep Walsh.
Yes.
Rep Zimmerman.
Yes.
25 to 1.
Thank you. House Bill 2593 will be reported as amended. Thank you, members. Chair calls up House Resolution 534, printer's number 3429, sponsored by Representative Venkat.
Sonia, will you please explain the bill or the resolution? House Resolution 534, sponsored by Rep. Venkat, directs the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study on primary care as a career choice among medical students. The study will look at how schools promote primary care careers, incorporate primary care experiences into curricula, and track retention in primary care. The commission must consult organizations with expertise in medical education and physician workforce development, and the report must be produced within one year of the resolution's passage. Thank you.
Is there any discussion on the resolution? And on that question, I recognize Representative Venkat.
Thank you, Chair Frankel. Thank you for bringing up this resolution. We are very fortunate in the Commonwealth to have a number of excellent medical schools, but we also know that we have a serious issue with primary care career choices among medical students and the ability to retain those medical students in residencies as well as in the health care workforce here in Pennsylvania. This resolution is meant to provide the General Assembly with information that we can use to hopefully incentivize primary care as a workforce choice among medical students. Speaking myself, as an emergency physician, I am very grateful for the service of my primary care physician colleagues and certainly hope that this resolution will result in concrete legislative proposals on which we can take action. And I want to thank the Pennsylvania Academy of Family Physicians for bringing this to my attention and to bring it to the Health Committee's attention, and I certainly hope that we will be able to have an affirmative vote.
Thank you, Rep. Venkat. Are there other comments on the resolution? Chair Rapp.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be supporting the resolution. We definitely are experiencing a health care provider shortage across the Commonwealth, not just with physicians but with many other health care practitioners. Regarding physicians, we continue to face shortages of primary care physicians, particularly in rural and health professional shortage areas. Primary care physicians traditionally serve as our main ongoing health care provider and coordinate our care with necessary specialists. So I'm hoping that the study will provide up-to-date information on medical students, why they enter primary care, and what more we can do to ensure an adequate pipeline of primary care physicians across the Commonwealth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will also need a roll call vote, sir.
Thank you. Thanks, Chair Rapp. This body has made a commitment to understanding the problem of primary care recruitment with previous studies. This resolution builds on that work to assess whether what has been implemented is actually working and to identify other possible recommendations to grow the primary care workforce. I would ask for an affirmative vote. Those in favor of reporting, House Resolution 534 is committed. We'll vote aye. Those opposed, no. Patrick, will you please call the roll?
Chair Frankel.
Yes.
Rep. Benham.
Yes.
Rep. Browski.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Boyd.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Hambridge.
Yes.
Rep. Howard.
Yes.
Rep Khan.
Designation, yes.
Rep Kozorowski.
Designation, yes.
Rep Krijuski.
Yes.
Rep Mays.
Designation, yes.
Rep Freelotten.
Yes.
Rep Sanchez.
Designation, yes.
Rep Schusterman.
Designation, yes.
Rep Venkit.
Yes.
Chair Rep.
Yes.
Rep Bonner.
Yes.
Rep Borowitz.
Designation, no.
Rep Brown.
No.
Rep Day.
Designation, yes.
Rep Krupa.
Yes.
Rep Roy.
Yes.
Rep Rossi.
Yes.
Rep Stare.
Designation, yes.
Rep Tordzik.
Yes.
Rep Walsh.
Yes.
Rep Zimmerman.
Yes.
24 to 2.
Thank you. House Resolution 534 will be reported as committed. Chair calls up Senate Bill 804, printers number 1282, prime sponsored by Senator Bascola.
Erica, will you please describe the bill? Senate Bill 804 prohibits the use of dietoethylhexylphthalate, otherwise known as DEHP in IV bags and IV tubes. If this sounds familiar, it's the companion bill to the bill the House voted unanimously on Rep. Kosarowski's version this past Monday.
The question is, will the committee report Senate Bill 804? Is there any discussion on the bill before I turn to Chair Rapp?
Chair Rapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, we've looked at this bill before from a House member, so I definitely will be supporting this bill. Thank you.
I think all the members, well, I can't speak for all of them. Oh, we'll find it. All right. I will note that one of the dates in the bill has passed, notification provision for July of this year. We will need to make that technical amendment on the floor. Once that change has been made, this bill will mirror House Bill 2614, which passed the House unanimously yesterday, as was noted by our Executive Director, Erica. The question is, will the committee report Senate Bill 804? Those in favor of reporting the bill will vote aye. Those opposed, no. Will you please take the roll, Patrick?
Chair Frankel.
Aye.
Rep. Benham.
Yes.
Rep Borowski.
Designation yes.
Rep Boyd.
Designation yes.
Rep Hamdage.
Yes.
Rep Howard.
Yes.
Rep Khan.
Designation yes.
Rep Kosarowski.
Designation yes.
Rep Krajewski.
Yes.
Rep Mays.
Designation yes Rep Friolatin Yes Rep Sanchez Designation yes Rep Schusterman Designation yes Rep Benkit Yes Chair Rapp Yes Rep Bonner Yes.
Rep Borowitz.
Designation, yes.
Rep Brown.
Yes.
Rep Day.
Designation, yes.
Rep Krupa.
Yes.
Rep Roy.
Yes.
Rep Rossi.
Yes.
Rep Stare.
Designation, yes.
Rep Tordzik.
Yes.
Rep Walsh.
Yes.
Rep Zimmerman.
Yes.
26-0.
Thank you. House 804, Senate Bill 804 passes unanimously. Thank you. The chair calls up Senate Bill 730, printers number 1799, prime sponsored by Senator Yaw.
Erica, will you please describe the bill? Senate Bill 730 creates the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program to replace the existing out-of-hospital-do-not-resuscitate order in Pennsylvania. The POLST order converts a patient's wishes for medical treatment at end-of-life to an order in their medical record so that those wishes will be honored by any provider across health care facilities. While the DNR is specific to resuscitation, whether a patient would want CPR, for example, the POLST deals with a wider range of options, such as whether a patient would want to be hospitalized or stay at home, whether a patient would want a feeding tube, and what level of comfort care a patient might want. Existing do-not-resuscitate orders would still be valid but can no longer be offered. There is a one-year phase-out period. The bill contains significant guardrails for the POLST. A patient is not eligible for a POLST unless a physician has signed off that they are likely to die within one year. Neither insurers nor health care providers can make their services contingent on a patient signing a POLST. An advisory committee made up of providers, patient and disability advocates, bioethicists, and faith-based providers and advocates will advise the Department of Health on POLST issues and create the form, which must contain a range of options for care. A provider who cannot in good conscience comply with a POLST is not required to. They must tell the patient and arrange a transfer if possible.
Thanks, Erica. The question is, will the committee report Senate Bill 730? Is there any discussion on the bill on that question? The chair recognizes Senator Yaw, who has joined us this morning.
Senator Yaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Senate Bill 730 codifies the Pennsylvania Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, known as PULSE. Your description was very accurate, very good. It is a complicated bill, but the bill represents years of careful work, thoughtful discussion, and collaboration among physicians, patient advocates, legal experts, emergency medical personnel, and many others who share a common goal. That goal is ensuring that Pennsylvanians have their health care wishes respected. PULS is a medical order completed after a conversation between a patient and a health care professional that spells out the specific treatment a seriously ill patient does or does not want at the end of life. Unlike general planning documents, PULST is designed for individuals with serious or advanced illnesses whose medical decisions may need to be followed immediately by doctors, nurses, and emergency personnel. The test is a reasonable medical judgment that the person will die within a year. It's important to note that PULSE is different from an advanced directive. Advanced directives generally identify a surrogate decision maker or provide broad guidance about future care preferences, often in situations that are not yet foreseeable. PULSE transfers a patient's current medical condition and treatment preferences into a physician or clinician-signed medical order that must be followed, ensuring care aligns with the patient's wishes in real time. The need for PULSE was first brought to my attention by Dr. Alexander Nesbitt, a highly respected hospice and palliative care physician at UPMC Susquehanna in Williamsport. Dr. Nesbitt's advocacy, expertise, and persistence have been invaluable throughout this process. I will say that this process started somewhere back before COVID, and when Dr. Nesbitt came to my office, and I've known him for probably 20 or 25 years, he had a bill all prepared that he had worked on with his palliative care organizations that he had been involved in. he had worked on and he said it was all ready to go it was 24 pages long i told him i said i guarantee you that anything starting off with 24 pages that goes before 253 people is going to probably have some changes to it so now we are you know six years down the road and i the last time i saw the bill I think it's 39 pages long. But I will say that what we have accomplished, the legislation before us today, it builds on the years of, you know, engagement and reflects a broad consensus among those most directly involved in end-of-life care. It contains strong safeguards and provides a clear guidance for health care providers while preserving the rights, dignity, and autonomy of patients. What it is not, it does not relate to suicide. It does not relate to assisted suicide. It is not a euthanasia bill. I am grateful to Dr. Nesbitt and all of the health care professionals for their input during this process. I'd like to thank Senator Michelle Brooks and her committee and Chairman Frankel and his staff for bringing everyone to the table to form a consensus on this issue and working with me toward a framework that puts patients first. Senate Bill 730 is a product of collaboration, compromise, and a shared commitment to patient-centered care. this bill the bill before you today is supported by the pennsylvania medical society the pennsylvania home care association the pennsylvania academy of family physicians the pennsylvania association of elder law attorneys and the pennsylvania catholic conference senate bill 730 will provide meaningful benefit for patients, families, and health care providers across Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Yaw. Before I turn to Chair Rapp, are there other members who have comments? Chair Rapp.
Sorry. I'm sorry.
Representative Bonner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have a comment, but I had a question, if I may ask it. And my question, in estate planning, we typically do two documents that are related to health care. One is the living will, and then the second is a health care power of attorney. And I'm just wondering what the post will do that those two documents do not do, if the senator may be aware of a typical health care power of attorney and a living will. What does this add to the process or the authority of physicians or hospitals to do that we do not currently cover with those two other documents?
Do you want to respond? Yeah, I can respond. Okay. Yeah. Actually, if you want to look at it, there's more documents involved. I mean, we have will, we have a will, we have a living will, and then we have Pulse. A will, as you know, distributes your property, and many people, and I've experienced this, put things in their will about end of life or about burial. And the worst part about it is that, you know, something happens after the will is not read until after people are already dead. And it's like, I want it to be buried at sea. Oops, we didn't do that. That's the will. Living will is what hospitals require if you're going into surgery or there's something unforeseen happens. And that's kind of the key is something unforeseen happens. Or you may have a living will now that says if I'm in a traffic accident, I appoint somebody, a child or an attorney or somebody to make decisions for me. So it's long range. Pulsed, the test is based on reasonable medical judgment that the person will die within a year. And it also, what it does is it replaces some of the do not resuscitate orders that emergency responders must comply with. the post order my recollection a lot of these are in use right now in hospitals and according to dr nesbitt they're on pink paper uh they you know they travel with you uh it is a prescription the best way to describe it is you know we have prescriptions if you you get a prescription from your primary physician for exercise or for that type of treatment. You also get a prescription from your health care provider for drugs. This is a physician's order that is much stronger, and it says, here's what the order is. It's the same as a prescription. and how that's it but the test is that the person is definitely facing death it's not something it's down the road or anything the test is that it's likely that the person will die within a year so that's how it fits in i think representative vincat wanted to weigh in on the question as well
yeah so uh first of all i wanted to thank senator yaw for bringing forward this legislation and for being a champion on this. I remember working on this when I was president of the State Emergency Physicians Organization, and it has been a long time coming, so thank you. I also want to thank the Senator for including in the expert panel the Pennsylvania College of Emergency Physicians because emergency physicians deal with this document on a regular basis and I certainly have in my career both as an emergency physician and having chaired the ethics committee at my health system for many years. To address Representative Bonner's question, which is a very important one, the power of attorney document is clearly a designation of who you would like to make decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated in doing so. It often does not indicate what the patient might want, what that individual might want in the very granular circumstances that can exist in end-of-life care, when death, as Senator Yaw has pointed out, is foreseeable within the next year. And a living will document, candidly, is not very applicable in the acute care setting. It is a conditional document that says, if I have an end-stage medical condition, this is what I may or may not want. The judgment of whether a patient is in an end-stage medical condition is not as easily done as it is said. A POLST is an actionable medical order. Senator Yaw is absolutely correct. It has three components to it. It basically asks the question, what would you want if you are in full cardiopulmonary arrest? what would you want short of being in full cardiopulmonary arrest? Being in an ICU, not being in ICU care, being in comfort care measures primarily. And then it has other specifics within it. It is generally signed by the patient or by their legal designated representative or power of attorney and a health care provider. It is meant to take effect the moment that it is executed. So a lot of the controversy on this has been around, is this a euthanasia document? Is this somehow accelerating death? It is not. I completely agree with Senator Yaw on this. It is meant to empower patients and their families in making decisions when they are in an end-stage medical condition, when death is foreseeable. And so it is highly useful in a variety of clinical settings, emergency departments, hospitals, pre-hospital care, nursing home care, because it has specifics that the other legal documents don't necessarily have. And so it's very important, in my opinion, that we codify this in state law. I hope that addresses Representative Bonner's questions on the difference between the three, and I would certainly urge an affirmative vote on this legislation.
Representative Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Representative Venkat, for a further explanation. Just a short follow-up question. I haven't had an opportunity to study the bill, and I certainly will as it proceeds to the floor. But can you explain to me how the surrogate is chosen under the bill?
I'm happy to take that if you'd like, Senator.
Yeah, please. This wouldn't in any way impact those decisions. So this doesn't address that portion of Title 20 and Chapter 54. So a surrogate would still follow the original process. To sort of make it succinct, this is the difference. For example, your choice of a surrogate or your living will are an expression of wishes. The POLST is a medical order, so it converts those wishes to an order that goes in the medical record to be followed. So, and it's across settings. So currently, many hospitals and facilities are using POLSTs, but it doesn't necessarily transfer across facilities because there isn't sort of the statewide framework. I have a copy here if you'd like to look at one that is being used.
So just so I understand that we have a patient who comes into the hospital, and they are not capable of making a medical decision, which many of them are. We know we may have a family that's very divided, and some are desirous of full medical treatment, others are not. So I'm just wondering how the physician or the hospital will decide who is the surrogate for the patient who may be unable to make a decision at this time?
That is not spoken to in this legislation. It would be similar to the system that exists now. It wouldn't change because of the way that the pulse is sort of enacted. Whoever is making the decisions would be the person making the decisions.
All right. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Krupa.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Yaw, for bringing up this bill. I do have concerns. So in my private law practice, I've assisted clients with countless advanced health care directives, and they're very important decisions that they very specifically set out what their wishes would be, things like if they're in an end-stage medical condition, would they want things like tubal feeding? Would they want CPR? Would they want even dialysis and antibiotics? It's a very detailed form that you go through. They answer questions about organ donations. One of the most fascinating questions on the form that I used, which is a form that was authorized by the state, is are these directives guidance that your health care agent can override,
or must they follow these instructions? And the personal example I gave when I was advising clients was, you know, it depends on, you know, what you want, obviously, but if I were to name my husband as my health care agent, I would say that he must follow my instructions because my husband would never say, pull the plug. If I were to name my mother as my health care agent, my mother's been a nurse for 45 years. My mother, I know, would think the compassionate thing to do would be not to leave me alive as a vegetable. God forbid something like that would happen. But my choice would be very different depending on which two of those people I named as my health care agent. One of the things that concerns me most about this bill is that we're taking away the right of the individual when they're competent and when it's not in an emergency situation to make these choices. And of course, as long as they're competent, they should always have the option to change those choices. And thank you, Representative Vencap, for indicating that, yes, the Pulse is an order that the patient is involved in those decisions and signing off on that. But there's a loop here. So in the bill summary, it talks about conflicts with an advanced health care director. And if the Pulse order conflicts with any provision of the advanced health care directive, the document that was executed later in time will prevail to the extent that there's a conflict. But then when you go to who's going to be the surrogate decision maker, that could be the health care agent, the health care representative, the guardian of the person. In all of those situations, then, if that health care agent makes a choice that's different than what that competent patient or what the patient had decided when they were competent, that's going to be overridden then under this bill. And it takes away, then, the individual's choice to spell out what their medical decisions are in the future. So I appreciate the spirit behind this bill, but for that reason, I'll be a no. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Otten.
Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Senator Yall, for introducing this bill. I appreciate the commentary that's been provided here today, but just as somebody who's not a lawyer and not a doctor and is just like a daughter-in-law and a mom and a sister that's kind of had to deal with this over the last 10 years, a lot of times people don't have access to attorneys to even create advanced directives. A lot of times advanced directives are created at a time and age that haven't been updated in so long that the circumstances have changed. and I can say from personally being involved in decision making about end of life for people that I care about and love I there have been serious conversations about knowing that the person wouldn't have wanted what was decided 20 years ago or 15 years ago in the existing circumstances and really feeling conflicted with having to follow advanced directives that have been outdated and not updated in a very long time. And it's really hard on a family. And so I think this is really helpful to give doctors a tool to engage in those discussions that people who don't have access to attorneys at a time in their life when they are competent to be thinking about these things, or maybe someone, my sister recently lost her spouse at a young age. At that age, you weren't even thinking about end of life, and it wasn't even something you would consider. And so I think it's really helpful to give doctors a tool to engage in thoughtful discussion with individuals and their families about how these things are handled and taking that burden off of people who are already dealing with emotional situations and frankly just don't want to have to be making these decisions for people at a time that's already difficult. So I just want to thank you and I support the legislation. Thank you, Representative Aughton. Before I turn it over
to Chair Rapp. Are there any other members who have something to say? Chair Rapp.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I spoke to you prior to the meeting, I am disappointed we didn't have a little more time to look at this bill and go through it, but I understand how things work here when we're at the end of session, sir. So I appreciate your explanation to me. Personally, I've gone back and forth on this issue for many years during my time as a House member and a family member. I can certainly understand someone's desire to have a statutory recognized medical order, and I want to thank you, Senator Yaw, for bringing this to us today. I know it's been worked on for many years. And I do understand someone's desire to have a statutorily recognized medical order that an individual can discuss with their health care practitioner. I can also understand health care facilities such as hospitals, wanting certainty that they will have certain immunity for recognizing and following through on a pulse. On the flip side, I am concerned that these orders can be expanded past their anticipated use and be abused or even ignored. I'm specifically concerned that these types of orders could be used to advance euthanasia, even though this bill states that nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to advance or support euthanasia, suicide, or health care practitioner-assisted suicide. I'm glad to see there is an express prohibition regarding euthanasia, suicide, or practitioner-assisted suicide, because I could not support any bill regarding PULTS that does not contain similar language And what bothers me is what I see going on you know north of us in Canada well where we seen just over the last couple years 100 euthanasia cases And it not just Canada. It's other mostly socialistic countries in the European arena. And of course, Perhaps in other countries we see a lot of extermination of the population. It's my understanding that negotiations are still ongoing regarding this bill and that a floor amendment will likely be considered. If an agreement is reached to run this bill on the floor, and I'm sure it will be, I will review any amendment prior to my vote on the House floor. I do want to bring to the attention of the members and the public on the public policy feedback on the bill. The Pennsylvania Health Care Association did not take an official position on the bill, from what I am reading. However, while it was in the Senate, they provided the following comments. While reviewing the immunity parts, we thought it probably could be strengthened, and that was according to their legal counsel. And as an example, we'd like to see better language as to how to handle conflicts when the pulse says one thing and the family then wants to change it. Also, we wouldn't mind seeing a better definition of good faith belief, such as the absence of a written statement terminating or revoking the pulse. I don't want Dad told me last night it was revoked. And also our council recommended that the immunity language is consistent with Section 5431. We also thought having the trade groups participate committee would be warranted. The Pennsylvania Association of Elder Law Attorneys did not take a position on the bill as currently written. However, they indicated they will support the bill with the following amendments, which I understand there's, again, there's going to be a floor amendment. I'm hoping that these thoughts will be included. Their thoughts revised proposed Section 5492 to eliminate language suggesting that appropriateness for Pulse depends upon a prediction that the patient is likely to die within the next year. Amend 5494 eligibility to affirmatively provide that a post is appropriate for a patient who has a serious life-limiting medical condition or advanced frailty that places the patient at risk of a life-threatening clinical event, and that appropriateness is not dependent upon a prediction that the patient is likely to die with any specified period of time, and make any conforming amendments necessary to ensure that the legislative findings and the operative eligibility provisions consistently reflect this standard. So, Chairman Frankel, Senator Yaw, reluctantly, I, for today, am supporting this bill, not seeing the amendment, being assured that the amendment will be introduced on the floor, and given the ongoing negotiations that have taken place on this bill and the various stakeholder groups that have come together to support the bill, I do have kind of a difficult time with the prediction of a physician. I believe there's a higher power than a physician. and I believe we all have an appointed time to meet our maker, but I'm not always sure that's based upon the prediction of a physician, although I'm not putting down physicians in any way, shape, or form. They do a wonderful job in taking care of the frail, the weak, and from birth to death. So I applaud any physician that has to work in this arena in having to make these decisions. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the legislation in hopes of seeing and being able to review the amendment before it goes to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Yaw, for your hard work on this legislation.
Thank you, Chair Rapp, and I want to thank all the members for their thoughtful questions and discussion on, I think, what is a very important piece of legislation. And I want to make clear and clarify that this legislation does not make changes to the surrogates or decision-making. It does make sure that those wishes are followed. You know, sickness is perhaps our most vulnerable moment. Whether people who are near the end of life want more interventions or fewer to go to the hospital or to stay home, we want to ensure those wishes at this most intimate time of life are honored. I want to thank Senator Yaw for all the work he's put into this bill and for all the stakeholders for their willingness to come through to craft legislation that can garner the support of passionate advocates across the spectrum. I do want to add that there are no amendments in the committee today, and given the truncated timeline, any amendments will need to be voted on the next session day. In the interest of transparency, Amendment A-04446 has already been filed for anyone to review, and we'll make sure that members have that opportunity and Chair Rapp as well.
So the question recurs. Will the committee report Senate Bill 730? Those in favor of reporting the bill will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Patrick, will you please take the roll?
Chair Frankel.
Aye.
Rep. Benham.
Yes.
Rep. Borowski.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Boyd.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Hanbage.
Yes.
Rep. Howard.
Yes.
Rep. Kahn.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Kozarski.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Krijuski.
Yes.
Rep. Mays.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Freelotten.
Yes.
Rep. Sanchez.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Schusterman.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Venkid.
Yes.
Chair Rapp.
Mr. Chairman, before I vote, I know this is not procedurally probably correct. Is the language of the amendment already available?
Yes, it was posted yesterday for review, but for review on second consideration.
Aye.
Thank you very much.
I think I'm going to be a no until I have a chance to really review that amendment and how it impacts the bill on final passage.
Rep Bonner.
No.
Rep Borowitz.
Designation, no.
Rep Brown.
No.
Rep Day.
Designation, no.
Rep Krupa.
No.
Rep Roy.
No.
Rep Rossi.
No.
Rep Stair.
Designation, no.
Rep Tordzik.
No.
Rep Walsh.
No.
Rep Zimmerman.
No.
14 to 12. Thank you, Patrick. Senate Bill 730 is passed out of committee. Thank you, Senator Yaw. You're welcome to stay with us. But we're about to conclude with our calling up of non-controversial House Resolution 648 that has been deemed the only one we have today, remarkably. So with any member that wishes to know on this resolution, Simply raise your hand when I call for a vote. The committee will vote on the following resolution, House Resolution 648, printers number 3990, from Representative Venkat, recognizing January 2027 as National Blood Donor Month in Pennsylvania. Is there any opposition to the resolution? Those objecting, please raise their hands. Seeing none, the resolution is reported out of the House Committee unanimously. That concludes the business of the day, but I certainly want to make sure that I want to thank all the members of the Health Committee as we conclude our session for, I think, what was a productive committee year and the number of bills that we were able to pass out of committee on a bipartisan basis, bills that got through the House on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, you know, we have not had as much cooperation on the other side of the building. But I really want to thank the fact that we've had deliberative conversations, civil conversations, disagreements when we've had them, but also been able to work collaboratively to advance, I think, a very important agenda for the health of Pennsylvanians. And I want to thank particularly my counterpart, Chair Rapp, her staff led by Mike Siggett, my staff led by Executive Director Erica Fricke for all their work during this past two years. and look forward to what may come next session. And I want to say that there is a slight possibility that we might have to reconvene off the floor. I think it's unlikely, but given negotiations that take place between the two chambers and the number of bills that may be considered in the last week of session, there may be the need to bring us back together off the floor. I hope not. Anyway, thank you. Thank you very much, members. Thank you. Thank you.