(P-PH-4) Development of a Proactive Strategy to Respond to Proposed State Legislation Impacting the Blood Supply

Background/Case Studies: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation surrounding COVID-19 and mRNA vaccines has led to increasing patient requests for blood transfusions from unvaccinated donors in the United States. A growing number of states have proposed legislation requiring blood product labeling with donor vaccination status or requiring hospitals and blood collectors to honor all patient requests for directed and autologous donations. This type of legislation may negatively impact blood availability and safety, undermine donor and patient confidence in the safety of the blood supply, and increase waste and cost. These proposals are described by proponents as promoting “patient choice”. As patient choice blood bills have increased in frequency and evolved over time, a proactive program was developed to respond to active legislation and prepare for expected future legislation.

Study

Design/Methods: Prior to 2025 a reactive approach was used to respond to proposed state legislation with potential impact to the blood supply, with 1 patient choice blood bill monitored in 2023 and 10 bills in 2024. So far in 2025, 16 US states have introduced 27 bills related to blood donation, with 17 of those bills related to the patient choice movement. A proactive program was implemented to respond to this proposed legislation, including collaboration and communication with other organizations in this space.

Results/Findings: The program included frequent review of all new state legislation potentially impacting the blood supply for early identification of bills most likely to advance, development of educational talking points for local leaders that can be individualized to address specific language used in each state, compilation of evidence-based supporting literature, and collaboration with state lobbyists and other stakeholders within the Transfusion Medicine community. Written statements, signed either alone or with collaborating organizations, were submitted to 6 states, and regional blood center leadership testified at legislative hearings in 3 states. No bills have passed into law at this time.

Conclusions: Patient choice state blood legislation may significantly impact blood availability while increasing waste and cost, and may undermine donor and patient confidence. As state legislative efforts continue to gain momentum, it is critical for the Transfusion Medicine community to respond in an organized and collaborative way. While efforts have thus far prevented such potentially damaging legislation from becoming law, legislation proponents are becoming more numerous and sophisticated in their efforts moving forward. It is essential that physicians, hospitals, blood collectors, and professional organizations collaborate to anticipate future legislative activity and develop effective messaging and tactics to ensure this legislation does not undermine public confidence or timely access to a safe, abundant blood supply.