H.B. 156 Blood Transfusion Amendments

What this bill does

H.B. 156 would require Utah hospitals and providers to allow patients to store and transfuse blood from directed or autologous donations collected by a licensed vendor the patient chooses, for planned surgeries and procedures only. No vendor would be required to take part, and hospitals and providers would be protected from liability.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 13 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Health and Human Services Committee: vote to change the bill · Jan 27, 2026Who voted how
• 10 yes, 3 no, 1 absentHouse Health and Human Services Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 27, 2026Who voted how
• 64 yes, 7 no, 4 absentFinal House vote · Feb 5, 2026
• 2 yes, 4 no, 1 absentSenate Health and Human Services Committee: Senate vote, which failed · Feb 12, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 27, 2026 House Health and Human Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (41 turns)

  1. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:34:40

     Chair, am I supposed to sit in?

  2. Committee chair3:34:41

     Doesn't matter. You can pick.

  3. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:34:44

     Okay. Thank you Chair and committee. We will try to go really quickly here. Um, this is the Blood Transfusion Amendments bill that was heard in this committee last session. Um, it got all the way through the process. It was number seven on the Senate board at midnight. So we're bringing it back. Um, last session. It was lovely, lovingly labeled the BYOB bill. Um, we made amendments last year based on state holder feedback, and I just made another amendment based on stakeholder feedback yesterday. So we have a substitute if, if we need it. I'm not sure I wanna move it right now. Um, the focus of the bill has always been on patient choice and peace of mind keeping safety and proper protocols at the forefront. It requires providers to allow for and Utah hospitals to store and transfuse blood collected through directed or autologous donation by a licensed vendor of the patient's choice following all federal safety guidelines, but only for planned surgeries and procedures. No vendor is required to accommodate these requests. The hospitals and providers are protected from liability. The bill just opens the door for willing vendors to work with hospitals in Utah, allowing patients more flexibility and decision making authority regarding their own health. This bill was brought to me by patients who requested to use directed blood donation, including autologous in their own blood at Utah Hospitals, and were denied and feel their concerns are not being heard and addressed. Their situations are serious and delicate. They involve multiple congenital heart defects in one patient whose mother, Katie Gregory this committee heard from last year, and she's here in the audience. Leukemia and preparation needed for surgeries. We heard from Helen Watts last year and she was not able to be here today. Directed blood donation is when you choose other people to donate to you. Autologous is when you save your own blood. It's legal in all 50 states, but only at the discretion of the provider. And not all providers or hospital systems allow it. Community blood donation, directed donation and autologous all have risks and benefits. Directed donation is not considered safer than community donations, but some patients prefer it. Um, when patients choose directed or autologous donation, they must go through a certified licensed blood bank. And in that process, they receive extensive education on safety, including timing of donations and choosing the right do donor, their provider can co can provide additional counsel. Cooper and Celia Quez reached out to me a couple months ago. Cooper, if you can be walking up here, that would be great. And they're preparing for a surgery needed by their special needs daughter. I've asked Cooper to quickly explain his situation. You can do it quickly. Right. And, um, his comments will conclude our presentation and we'll be open for questions.

  4. Cooper Remkes3:37:58

     Esteemed community members thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 1 56. My daughter Joanna will be having, uh, sure. To, um, tell us your name and who you Representing Mki and, uh, what was that question And who you're represent if anyone. Yourself. My, myself, I'm representing myself, Cooper Mki. Okay. Okay. Uh, my daughter Joanna, will be undergoing heart surgery. This summary of Primary Children's Hospital. She'll be 16. She has down syndrome and she'll need blood transfusion. Everyone in this room has been close to someone who has needed surgery, maybe even yourself leading up to this. Uh, you can recall the stress you felt doing research about what was going on. Discerning what path to take. Listening and asking questions to your doctors and surgery team. Healthcare is a practice and, uh, no one knows exactly what will happen when you get to the other side. As we approach this surgery, there are many choices that need to be made. If our doctor and us are in disagreement on a detail who should have the final say? On one hand, the doctors are very knowledgeable and have the benefit of experience in training. On the other hand, we know our daughter and we have to live with long-term results in our country that honors choice within reasonable limits. HB 1 56 reflects this principle. By maximizing choice within reasonable limits, doctors advise the patients and the patients make the choice. As mentioned already, healthcare providers have immunity to liability. The bill is short, straightforward, it's rooted in common sense. In non-emergency situations, it'll allow us to choose the donors for our daughter's blood transfusion. For many families like mine who are approaching a stressful event like major surgery, being able to choose our donor brings a peace of mind. Since Joanna's a minor and has special needs, it's my responsibility to advocate for her wellbeing. We're optimizing and fine tuning her health as we lead up to the surgery. If I can do anything to Helper, even if it helps a little, I'm willing to do it. I'm hoping to choose the blood donors if only because it removes one more unknown. We've had a couple of medical advisors who recommended directed donation as well. Other benefits are that directed donation also increases the overall blood supply. Families who choose it bring additional donors, and any unused units can go back to the hospital's in inventory if the hospital wishes to keep it. Medical screening is required by a licensed blood bank, and the bill clarifies, uh, that it does not permit immediate family donation. This protects patients and maintains medical best practices. Modern tracking systems, including qr, uh, code, uh, based tools already make blood unit management efficient and reliable. When we asked our cardiologist at Primary Children's Hospital about directed donation, we learned that many have inquired about it, but to his knowledge, it has never been granted. Families like ours want this option and yet have no path to access it. HB 1 56 fixes that by giving patients the ability to choose their donors, this bill simply honors parent Patient Choice and Sports Hospital. By welcoming more donors, it harms no one. It helps many. It's as safe as community donation, and it brings anxious patients like Joanna, a bit of control about what is about to happen to their bodies. For the sake of families who simply want the reassurance of choice during vulnerable moments, I respectfully urge you to pass HB 1 56. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair3:41:09

     Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee for any clarifying questions.

  6. Rep. Logan Monson3:41:16

     Representative Monson, I have a few maybe. Um, who, who is not granting this to happen as is right now?

  7. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:41:29

     Um, well, we haven't found a Utah hospital that does allow it. Um, the Red Cross actually requires a doctor's note, um, saying that it is medically necessary to have a, a different process than the usual process. That's not state code, that's just the Red Cross. Um, but this bill does not require any, um, provider or any vendor to participate in the program. So Red Cross a RUP, it's voluntary for them to participate or not.

  8. Rep. Logan Monson3:42:07

     Okay. And then, um, how, so this was passed previously, correct. And, and didn't make it all the way through? Yes. How many times since then has this been, um, like, do, do we know a number? Is there a number out there that we know, Um, of patients who have been Yeah. Within the last year?

  9. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:42:25

     Yeah. Oh gosh, I have no idea. Okay. I mean, I, I know I've talked to four patients.

  10. Rep. Logan Monson3:42:31

      Okay. Um, and is, I think I know the answer to this question, but I just want to ask it anyways. Is blood considered a medication?

  11. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:42:44

      I dunno the answer to that question. You're The nurse I think, I think, I think it is. I mean, in, in my mind, yes, it is. And, and from practice.

  12. Rep. Logan Monson3:42:51

      Um, so maybe a little bit of a concern, I guess would be if this is allowed and then in subsection or in in B, the donation or transfusion of the blood product would be detrimental to the donor. Is it then the provider that's saying, eh, this could be detrimental? In that case everything could be. So then we just are back to square one. I kind of feel like, So because the status quo is that they have to say it is medically necessary, I think that this is a step forward. Instead of saying, yes, it's medically necessary, they're saying it's dangerous for this particular patient or this particular donor to do it. Otherwise it's okay. So they would need to have a reason why it was dangerous for the patient or the donor. Whereas right now they can't give you permission unless it's medically necessary, which it rarely is. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

  13. Committee chair3:43:50

      Thank you. All right. Seeing no other comments, we'll go to the public for a comment. Who wants to comment on this? All right, we're gonna go quick. You got a minute.

  14. Maryann Christensen, Executive Director, Utah Eagle Forum3:44:05

      So Maryanne, just come on up. Maryanne Christensen, executive director of Thank you, Utah Legislative watch. I just think we need this kind of body autonomy and I think we deserve it. So thank you for voting. Yes,

  15. Committee chair3:44:21

      Thank you Marianne. Go ahead. Gail.

  16. Gayle Ricka, Utah Eagle Forum3:44:30

      Gail Ika with Utah Eagle Forum. I just wanna say that I actually have a friend who had this very situation and, uh, with her daughter, and so they left the state and, uh, at a, a very hard time leaving a family behind while they Uintah to another state so that they could actually have their, her, so her daughter could, uh, have, have, uh, the blood that they picked. So I just think that's something really important that we need to do. Thank you. Thank

  17. Committee chair3:44:57

      You, Gil. Next.

  18. Dr. Mark Orton, Physician3:44:59

      Hi. My, my name is, uh, Dr. Mark Orton. I'm a pathologist, practicing pathologist board certified in clinical and, uh, anatomic pathology and have subspecialty boards in transfusion medicine, which deals specifically with the collection, testing, processing and transfusion of blood. And so the question was asked, is this is blood, uh, a drug? The answer to that is no. It's a biological element. Um, medical necessity dictates that about one 10th of 1% of transfusions are autologous, are directed based on specific medical needs. The reason that we don't typically allow autologous or directed units is because they are not as safe as pulling a unit off the shelf. When we have a process in place for 99.99% of the blood that's out there, and we institute a process, I guess I'll, I'll, I'll for you. You're good. I actually have a quick question. Yeah. Um, is, does, does the autologous blood go through the same testing as the blood that's on the shelf? It does. There's the understand. You have to understand though, in testing blood products, there's still a window for various viruses where somebody donates where we can't pick it up by testing. It's a very small window. But we've shown, and it's been repeatedly shown that for autologous and directed unit, not autologous, I'm sorry, but directed units, the, the number of positive tests we have is higher, significantly higher than the, the random donors that come in and donate blood because there's a feeling of need that's, that's portrayed to them by the family or the people that are asking of them, or people that are afraid to say, I, I can't donate because I know I'm at risk. Um, and will be turned down. And so the, the blood that is used for autologous and or directed units cannot be put back in and is never put back into the blood. Um, I was medical director for Mountain Star Blood Services for 16 years, and so I've dealt with the patients on this side of this repeatedly too. Um, it puts patients at greater risk. We've talked about directive, but for autologous units, it's been shown time and time again. I, I studied 800 transfusion reactions, uh, prospectively and retrospectively when I was in Denver doing my fellowship. Autologous units have about the same rate of transfusion reaction. Um, they, they still have febrile reactions, they still have trolley reactions. They still have, uh, vol volume overload or what we call taco reactions. Um, but they're also more likely for, for auto television units, they're more likely to be transfused than if they look at that same population that doesn't give unit because we now make them preoperatively anemic. And so they frequently are transfused more often. So they're at greater risk of transfusion reactions and problems in general. And they're at greater risk in the surgery because they're more likely to, to to drop below where they should be or they're comfortable so that they need to be, to be transfused. And frequently postoperatively, they're at greater risk because not all of their units frequently are transfused. They, they use the same transfusion triggers, so they, they statistically come out of procedures at a lower hematocrit, lower, lower level than they would've been had they not given units. Okay.

  19. Committee chair3:48:13

      Thank you. Next. Thank you.

  20. Katie Gregory3:48:17

      Good afternoon. My name is Katie Gregory. I spoke to you last year. Um, I, on a personal note, when my daughter was at the University of Miami, she had 11, uh, units donated and they very happily put them into the main supply at the University of Miami. Um, it is a well-known fact that patients with lower stress recover from surgery faster and better than those with high stress. If allowing a patient to choose their own blood donors lowers their stress and leads to a better surgical outcome, that seems like a small price to pay for better patient care and recovery. Uh, my daughter has a cute little heart, Fran, who is currently awaiting, uh, heart transplant at, uh, primary children. She's inpatient. Her mom is praying that HB B 1 56 passes so she can feel semblance of peace going into this extremely stressful time. Um, I would ask you to please pass this for Mila and for all the other patients that are requesting this. Thank you. Thank

  21. Committee chair3:49:11

      You. Katie, go ahead.

  22. Benjamin Donner, Executive Director, American Red Cross3:49:14

      Hello. Thank you so much for letting us speak. My name's Benjamin Donner. I come as a father and as the executive director for the American Red Cross here in, uh, central and southern Utah. Seven years ago I was here on the capitol and had no idea that three weeks later I would be rushed to the emergency room to need a blood transfusion. I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for that. In my role, I spend every single day doing everything I can to get donors to come in and donate this life-saving blood, uh, that's on the shelf that we save patients every single day. Anytime there's distrust in that system and I, my heart goes out to all families that need it, I know I needed it. Um, anytime that safety of the blood supply is questioned and individuals potentially choose not to. That puts me at risk, that puts our society at risk. So we ask that you vote no on this.

  23. Committee chair3:50:12

      Thank you, Benjamin. Thank you. Go

  24. Francis Gibson, Chair, Utah Hospital Association3:50:17

      Ahead. Thank you Madam Chair Francis Gibson, chair of the Utah Hospital Association. Um, let me first tell you that the Representative, Gricius, who has worked on this bill has continued to meet with anyone who would talk to her. And this bill has had many different iterations. Unfortunately, as a hospital association, we only take positions when there were united in our cause. And for that, not every hospital feels the same way. And so we have some hospitals who are gonna take a neutral position and we have some hospitals who are opposed as well. I know that's probably not an answer you want to hear, but that's basically where we're at as an association. I think there are different perspectives depending on where you go. Thank you.

  25. Committee chair3:51:04

      Get outta the way, Francis. Okay, we'll go to two online real quick. Chris Beckstead and Cole Elliot, you'll have one minute turn on your camera please.

  26. Kristina Pexton, resident3:51:25

      Hello, I'm Christina Paxton. I'm from Centerville, Utah. Um, I've also been, uh, working in transfusion medicine for the last 27 years and I've, I won't reiterate what we've heard with those that are opposed to this bill, but as medical professional, I'm opposed to the bill. Again, my heart goes out to anyone who is, um, undergoing surgery, but this bill is unnecessary. The, the, if it's medically needed and it makes sense, then autologous and directed blood, um, blood units are already available. Um, so those things are already there and set in place. Um, we're just asking that we don't do any of these sweeping state mandates that we deal with this issue on a, in a case by case basis. So again, um, against the, this bill, HB 1 59. Thank you.

  27. Committee chair3:52:22

      Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Chris. Alright, Cole, Elliot, go ahead, Cole.

  28. Cole Elliott, Medical Director, Red Cross3:52:37

      Thank you. Good evening, chairwoman Paul and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Cole Elliot. I'm here to represent the Red Cross. I'm the medical director for Utah. I do oppose the bill 'cause it sends a message to the community. The blood supply is unsafe directed donations. Main benefit is when a patient has a rare blood type and we cannot source compatible blood in a timely fashion. Directed donations from close family members pose risk and must be irradiated to prevent graft versus host disease. Hospital. Blood banks may not be able set up if these increase in volume to take these and distribute them. Blood cannot be synthetically produced and the healthcare system relies on volunteer donors to maintain a safe and sufficient blood supply every two seconds. In the US there's a need for a blood transfusion. We are experienced shortages and this can be compounded by storms and holidays. Diverting resources away from the voluntary donor community could further hinder our efforts. In conclusion, the bill sends a message that the current blood supply is not safe and I oppose the bill. Thank you for listening. The opportunity to speak. I tried to keep it short with the time constraints.

  29. Committee chair3:53:42

      Respectfully. Thank You, Cole. All right, we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion.

  30. Rep. Bridger Bolinder3:53:50

      Representative Bolander, I just want to make it, is there a substitute that we've adopted or no?

  31. Unknown speaker3:53:56speaker not certain

      Uh, I don't, I don't think it was ever published, so I, I don't think so. There's one here online. Oh, is it online? We can adopt. It might make somebody happy.

  32. Rep. Bridger Bolinder3:54:09

      I move that we adopt sub one HB 1 56. All it does is say that if the hospital, oh, sorry,

  33. Committee chair3:54:17

      A second. That motion is in order. Do you wanna speak to it? No. All right. Go. Okay, go to the sponsor.

  34. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:54:24

      The, the only change is that if a hospital already has a process in place where they will collect the blood, store it and get it to the patient in direct or autologous, um, situations, then they can use their own procedure. They don't need an outside vendor. That's the only difference.

  35. Committee chair3:54:44

      Okay. We'll come back to the committee for a vote on that. Um, the vote is to, or actually for discussion. Any discussion? Not seeing any. So we'll have a vote on adopting the substitute to one HB 1 56. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Seeing none that passes. Oh, I get a vote, right? Seeing? Yes you do. Aye. Seeing none, that passes. All right. Representative Eliason,

  36. Rep. Steve Eliason3:55:13

      I'd like to make a motion that we pass the bill out with a favorable recommendation as amended. Substituted, Substituted. Excuse me.

  37. Committee chair3:55:25

      That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  38. Rep. Steve Eliason3:55:29

      Very briefly. I may be the only person in the room or the committee that has done this, and I wanna share perspective. Um, I, I did it for my mother and at the time she was very fearful of the blood supply and she had a high degree of anxiety. I don't know if she would've gone through with the surgery had she not had an option to don't to receive blood from a family member. I know that sometimes we always like to break out the brain and the rest of the body, but there are, they're one organism that function together. And so I don't wanna discount the anxiety that somebody may have perceived or real about the blood that they'd be receiving and allow this patient choice on something that's still scientifically sound to be that be an option for them.

  39. Committee chair3:56:19

      Thank you. Thank you. We'll come back to the committee for any discussion. Seeing none, we'll go to the make, to the sponsor.

  40. Rep. Kristen Chevrier3:56:28

      Um, I think I'll waive.

  41. Committee chair3:56:30

      Thank you. We'll go back to the maker of the motion waive. All right. The motion is to pass forward HB 1 56 as substituted with a favorable recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. Will you raise your hands if you sit? So we have Representative Fitsu, Manu, Representative Hollins Representative Barlow as nose. So passes 10 to three with the four mentioned being nose. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

• Feb 5, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Reading clerk53:37

     The bill has been circled. Med reading clerk First substitute House bill 1 56. Blood transfusion amendments by Representative Shelley. This bill was heard in Health and Human Services with a vote of ten three one.

  2. Speaker (presiding)53:49

     Representative ch

  3. Rep. Kristen Chevrier53:54

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is the same bill we heard last year on blood transfusion amendments. Um, we made some amendments last year based on stakeholder feedback. We made one change this year to allow hospitals with their own in-house blood donation processing system to be able to collect the directed donation blood in-house as long as they make the allowances required in the bill with changes. Stakeholders were either neutral or supportive. Last year the bill passed both committees the floor of this and the floor of this house unanimously and made it to number seven on the Senate board just before midnight, the last day of the session. The focus of the bill has always been on patient choice, peace of mind, and keeping safe, safety and proper pro protocols at the forefront. The bill requires providers to allow for and Utah hospitals to store and transfuse blood collected through directed or autologous donation by a licensed vendor of the patient's choice following all federal guidelines. Uh, yeah, my PA pages got mixed up. Sorry. Okay. So anyway, you follow all the federal guidelines and, um, so the, the blood is just brought to the hospital and it is matched to the patient. There are QR codes to do this. There are, you follow all the safety protocols that are federally required. There is no liability for hospitals or providers. If a provider feels that there is a safety problem for either the donor or the patient, um, the provider can pull the plug on the, uh, the procedure, so to speak. Um, anyway, the, the purpose of this bill is to give patients an option. And the reason that I opened the bill file clear back before I was even elected is that, um, I have a friend with a daughter with three congenital heart defects who needed blood and was unable to get hospitals in Utah to accommodate her and had to go to Florida to get the procedure done. And she asked me if we could make it possible to do this in Utah. So, um, I've also had three or four other people come to me since then with similar situations. And I think it would just be nice if we could make this available. It is not safer to do regular blood donation than it is to do, uh, autologous or, uh, directed donation. So there are risks and benefits on both sides. And that is the bill.

  4. Speaker (presiding)56:44

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the bill. See none back to your Representative, Shelley. For summation, I'll Waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on substitute 1 56 in all present, having voted voting is now closed. First substitute HB 1 56 passed this body with 64 yes votes, seven no votes will be sent, uh, to the Senate for the, uh, for their consideration. Madam Meeting Clerk

• Feb 12, 2026 Senate Health and Human Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (28 turns)

  1. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)28:00

     and call HB one fifty one first sub blood transfusion amendments. It's yes, early bird gets warm. All right, welcome. I am, I am the bird. And we have kind of a full agenda. People trickle in, so, okay. Let's see how we go. Okay. I am pushing. Are you turn? Is it on? Yeah, it is on. You're there, Uhhuh. All right.

  2. Rep. Kristen Chevrier28:26

     Alright, so this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, this bill is the same bill that you heard last year. We made amendments last year based on stakeholder feedback. We made one change this year to allow hospitals with their own in-house blood donation system to be able to collect directed donation in-house as long as they make the allowances required in the bill. Um, with the changes, most of the stakeholders were either neutral or supportive. Last year, the bill passed both committees and the floor of the house, um, unanimously and made it to number seven on the Senate board. Just before midnight on the last day of the session, the focus of the bill has always been on patient choice and peace of mind keeping safety and proper protocols in the forefront. What it does is require providers to allow for and Utah hospitals to store and transfuse blood collected through directed or autologous donation by a licensed vendor of the patient's choice following all federal safety guidelines, but only for planned procedures and surgeries. No vendor is required to accommodate these requests. The hospitals and providers are protected from liability. A medical doctor still has the option to say no if he, he or she deems it unsafe for the donor or the patient. This bill just opens the door for willing vendors to work with hospitals in Utah, allowing patients more flexibility and to authority regarding their own health. The bill was brought to me by several patients, and I've had more reach out to me over the past year, um, who wanted to use directed or autologous donation and were denied by Utah Hospitals. And they felt that their concerns were not being heard or addressed. Um, this has nothing to do with the safety of the blood supply. It has everything to do with making patients comfortable, getting procedures done that are required to be done, knowing that there are some people who will not get needed surgery simply because they don't know where the blood is coming from. And, and that is a commentary only on their level of comfort, not on the blood supply. I do know that the blood supply is 35% down right now, and I feel like this bill would be a good way to augment the blood supply Community. Blood donation and directed donation are not considered safer than community donation, but some patients just prefer it because of the comfort it gives them. Um, and that is the bill. Okay. I'm Open for Questions. Thank

  3. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)31:12

     you. We'll bring it to committee for any questions. Senator Plumb.

  4. Sen. Jen Plumb31:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. To, to the presenter. We've had some really good conversations about this bill and, um, being in healthcare, there's these kind of weighing sides of things, and I think one of the things I've talked to you, expressed to you about is my concern that what this does to the potential for people to donate in general, to feel comfortable with the need for blood. Well, I don't need to donate. People will just bring their own blood. And a kind of a changing mindset around it. I I just wondered maybe if you would share some of your thoughts on that, like, as we've talked about that. It's, it's a piece I've really struggled to kind of, uh, a hurdle I've struggled to get over with.

  5. Rep. Kristen Chevrier31:58

     Yes. Thank you for the question. I believe that bringing more people into the donation picture is actually a benefit. I think that people when they come and donate for specific people are likely to continue to donate because they see the need. Um, I don't see it being a disincentive for people to donate.

  6. Sen. Jen Plumb32:21

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  7. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)32:23

     You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We'll go to the public for anyone to comment on this bill, please come forward and, uh, let us know your name and who you represent. You can both come up and we just do simultaneously.

  8. Kristen Richey, Eagle Forum32:44

     Hi, my name's Kristen Richie and I represent Eagle Forum. We are in support of this bill. Anything that brings individuals greater medical freedom, more autonomy, more decision making in their own lives is, is a positive thing. And we appreciate the sponsor and the care that's gone into crafting this in such a way that, um, the medical profession feels comfortable that their needs are met, um, that safety is protected, uh, for individuals, but also that people have the right to be able to, uh, donate their own blood for their own procedure as planned. And we're, we're, we think this is very positive thing and are in support of the bill. Thank You. Thank you.

  9. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)33:33

     Please proceed.

  10. Dr. Cole Elliott, Medical Director, American Red Cross of Utah33:35

      Good morning, chairman Grover. I'm members of the committee. My name is Dr. Cole Elliot. Can you maybe tap that button, see if that's, it's on up here. Can you hear me okay? Pull that closer. Yeah. You kinda have to eat these mics. Is it good now? Yeah, you have to get really close, like, okay. There you go. Thank you. Welcome. And I serve as medical director of the Red Cross and Medical Director of Utah. Um, I oppose the bill since autologous and directed donations are not against the law currently, and it sends a message to the community that the blood supply is unsafe. The Red Cross, as you know, is a humanitarian organization with the mission of helping, and that extends to our blood operations where donor and patient safety are top priority. The blood supply is extremely safe. We take what the donors give us and help as many people as possible. Something to keep in mind. Autologous and directed donations address what is medically planned, but they do not address what is not planned medically, such as an emergency. A main benefit of directed donations is when a patient has a rare blood type and we may not be able to get compatible blood on a short timetable. Directed donations are not safer than those from the volunteer donor community. Directed donations from close family members also pose a risk and must be irradiated to prevent graft versus host disease. Hospital. Blood banks may not be set up to receive and release these donations. And this can put a, a strain, particularly in smaller hospitals. The unit comes in and they don't know how to handle it. They don't have a computer process to do so. Both autologous and directed donations create wastage when not transfused and autologous donations cannot be given to anyone else. These units require specific procuring labeling and shipping to ensure they are reserved for a certain recipient with added cost. Unlike pharmaceuticals, blood cannot be synthetically produced. The healthcare system relies on volunteer donors to maintain a safe and sufficient blood supply every two seconds. In the us there's a need for a blood transfusion, however, with fewer people donating that at any time in the past 20 years, we are experiencing blood shortages, and this can be compounded by storms and holidays. There's an ongoing strain on the blood supply and diverting resources away from the volunteer donor community could further hinder our efforts. In conclusion, the bill sends a message that the current blood supply is not safe because people are not comfortable receiving units from the volunteer community. And I must oppose the bill. Thank you for listening and the opportunity to speak today. Thank you.

  11. Michelle McOmber, Utah Medical Association36:11

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michelle MCC with the Utah Medical Association. Uh, we appreciate the sponsor working with us and putting a lot of amendments in the bill that made us feel that we could move to neutral on the bill. So thank you so much for working with us.

  12. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)36:28

      Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and bring it. Oh, is there more? Okay. Please come forward and have a seat. And who else would like to speak this bill? Just two more kids. Jenna, just for time management. So please limit your comments. Oh, we've got, okay, so I'll put a timer on for about a minute. So go ahead.

  13. Karen Danielson, resident36:44

      Okay. My name is Corinne Danielson. Oh, just kidding. So, two years ago, I never imagined I'd be fighting for my child's life. Um, so I'm not a doctor. I'm not a scientist, but I'm a mom. My son was diagnosed with neuroblastoma cancer two years ago at five years old. Um, we relied on blood transfusions regularly. He had intense chemotherapy, multiple major surgeries, two bone marrow transplants, radiation and immunotherapy. His little body went through more than most adults can understand or even withstand. He required 41 transfusions in his treatment. Some were red blood cells and some were platelets. 41 times. We relied on the blood supply system to be safe, precise. And Ava available. Many of them were urgent. One day he had to have three platelet transfusions within 24 hours because of a poke that was during his second bone marrow transplant. During bone marrow transplant transplants, their immune system is completely wiped out. At one PA point, he was unable to leave the hospital room for 27 days. He lived there because even a common virus could threaten his life. So during that trans, during those transfusions, that was when everything was about being able to have blood transfusions for safety. So his transfusions have to be very specific things that we didn't understand or know about, but our doctor's educated asan. We are so grateful for the Red Cross for them being able to help us safely get transfusions for our child. I'm asking you to please vote no on HB 1 56 and protect the system that protects children like my son. Thank you.

  14. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)38:41

      Please proceed, Chair and members of the committee.

  15. Jenna Bishop, American Red Cross of Utah38:44

      Thank you. My name is Jenna Bishop Jenna, and I'm here as a mom, as someone who works for the American Red Cross. And as a parent whose child needed blood during the pandemic shortage, when my 17-year-old son was in cancer treatment, primary Children's would normally transfuse a child at hemoglobin of eight. But because blood was scarce, he had to wait until he dropped to seven. You guys watching a normal active mountain biking teenager becomes so pale and exhausted, it was terrifying. And then one unit of blood would bring him back. His color returned, his energy returned, and for a few days he felt like himself again. That blood came from our regulated, centralized system that keeps patients safe. I eventually Uintah work for the Red Cross because I saw firsthand how essential that system is, and I wanted to support other families going through what we did. HB 1 56 puts that system at risk. Um, you guys, there's a serious concern when a law suggests that alternative blood is needed, it sends the message that the current blood supply is unsafe. It isn't that even the perception of danger can reduce donations, and that alone causes shortages. Please listen to those who are smarter than I am who have experience, um, in blood banking. Please listen to them and, um, and please, uh, I respectfully ask you to not move this bill forward. Thank you.

  16. Heidi Ruster, Regional CEO, American Red Cross of Utah40:04

      Thank you. I ruster Regional, CEO of the American Red Cross here in Utah. Um, thank you so much esteemed Senator Vickers for, um, having an opportunity to speak about this bill and our opposition to it. Uh, a large rise in autologous and directed donation adds significant complexity to every stage of the blood collection process, both in the Red Cross and throughout blood centers in the country. Um, and A-A-A-B-B is also in opposition to this kind of bill. So at this point, this kind of collection, if it is increased significantly, would double the per unit cost of the blood. If donor behavior shifts substantially, those higher operational expenses would be built into the cost of service model and passed through the hospitals and likely to the patients. The size of any increase depends on how much donor behavior changes. We feel. The US blood supply is safer today than ever before, sustained by incredible volunteer donors and protected through rigorous, rigorous donor health screening. Thank you so much. Thank You.

  17. Brent Bishop, resident41:20

      Please proceed. My name is Brent Bishop, um, represent myself. Um, I just have a que I mean, a statement slash question for the sponsor. Does she have any data on her feeling that this would increase of donors? That as far as that's outta protocol, it's you just testify in favor or against? Okay. Well, I would, I would ask that question of my statement would be, I don't know that that would increase. And without data, why should we go with a feeling? And the second thing would be in the bill mentions gross negligence on the part of the hospital not being responsible, accepting cases of gross negligence. Well, what defines gross negligence? There exists tests for all of these diseases. What if they let one of those diseases through? Does that mean they're grossly negligent? And therefore they have to have on site a facility equivalent to what the blood providers have now in order to test these bloods, the, these autologous and directed donations to make sure that they're safe. Otherwise they become responsible for these Juab for, you know, making mistakes or for things that happen that ne aren't necessarily a mistake. And, and therefore I think it would increase costs and cause additional, you know, uh, work in the system that isn't necessary because of the safety of the existing blood supply. Thank you.

  18. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)42:43

      Okay. Thank you. Go ahead

  19. Delaine England, United Women's Forum42:47

      Dela. Hi, I'm Delaine England. Thank you so much for your time committee. I am speaking in favor of the bill for one simple reason. It's called freedom. There are people, I don't, I don't have a distrust of the blood at the hospital. I don't have a distrust of the medical system, but what I, I've never had a surgery, so I don't think this applies to me, but I am concerned about there are people who there are issues with receiving other people's blood and there's people who need to receive specific blood, or they want to receive blood from a family member or someone they know and trust. And it's just simply a matter of allowing people their right to try, their right to try different things and to have to have more power and control over their own medical decisions. So I ask you to please support this. Thank you.

  20. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)43:40

      Okay, thank you. Uh, we'll go ahead and bring it back to committee for further action. We're gonna go ahead and go with people here in the room. Oh, yeah, sure. Well, we're not at that, but we're looking for action for the committee if there's any. Senator Stratton.

  21. Sen. Keven J. Stratton43:58

      Thank you. I have a motion. I, I'd like to move, uh, HB 1 56 substituted with blood transfusion and manage favorable recommendation. I'd like to speak to that. Okay, go ahead. I appreciate and value that the testimony and, and the great work of, of, uh, all that's taking place in this space. It strikes me, uh, as, as I look at this legislation, I'm looking at, uh, the, the overwhelming support in the house in the committee over there. Uh, the vetting that's taken place over the course of two years. I recognize, uh, uh, red Cross and is a great stakeholder here and, and has, uh, very good, uh, remarkable history of being and, and performing service and, and being there in the need. And so I'm not trying to take what they're saying lightly at all and, and not dismissing it. I think we need to listen to that and recognize that we also though need to cognize the, the, a paradigm of a scarcity mentality versus an abundance mentality. And at the root of that is the need I, I believe, to be sensitive as best we can to all. And I, I feel from my perspective that this, this will not, this actually increases with the technology and the things that we have today, be able, the resources, it does, uh, certainly increase the, the, the, the work that needs to be done to accommodate. But there is strength in doing that. And, uh, with that, I, uh, stand in favor of the bill as stated.

  22. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)45:56

      Okay. Discussion to the motion. Senator Plumb,

  23. Sen. Jen Plumb46:00

      As I kind of referenced before there, there's so much in this that, that my head and heart back and forth on, and without hopefully sounding dramatic, I I may be one of the only people in here that's actually held a, a, a, a unit of blood that is about to go into somebody's body, a child's body and save their life. So the, the preciousness of this is by no means lost on me. I just, I can't get to the point where I see the increased workload, separate fridges, separate testing for, for autologous blood. That's sometimes 50% of it's not used. The, the burden on the system and, and the fear that I have that there are, just because you get blood from someone related to you does not mean that it's better for you. In fact, sometimes it's worse because you share certain types of antibodies, which means that your body unfortunately reacts against it and says, uh, for the weirdest reasons, get that cell, get that cell, get that cell Happens sometimes in pregnancies too, or lost pregnancies. And it's, it's one of the things that I think we in medicine have to throw our hands up and say, there are things bigger than us. 'cause we don't understand, but they are what they are. And, and I want so much to find a, a happy medium where it feels like people's freedom in their medical care is honored because I'm so glad people brought up freedom and medical care here because I really do believe that these decisions in medical care about your own body and about your child's body should be between you and between the professional medical staff that you're working with, not the legislature. So I'm glad that freedom is an been brought up as an important piece here, but I just can't get there with this being the right next step. I, I I I fear dramatically when our blood supply is low, what that means for the next potential trauma patient. And I, I can't get over that hurdle. So thank you.

  24. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)48:04

      Thank you. Okay. Seeing all the other comments to the bill sponsor.

  25. Rep. Kristen Chevrier48:09

      Thank you. Um, my life was saved by a blood transfusion several years ago, so I do very much appreciate the, the Red Cross and the other blood suppliers and, um, understand that the need for blood to be available in an emergency. I had three people online who wanted to comment, but all of them have experiences where they needed to be able to do directed donation or, um, autologous. And, um, and I think that their concerns are also valid. And this bill does not apply to emergency transfusion. If anything, having more people come in to donate is going to be a benefit to the blood supply. The blood comes already through a certified blood donation vendor. It is screened and tested and ready to go, has a QR code on it so that it's matched to the patient. The only thing needed is a little extra space in the refrigerator. They already have to separate types of blood. There's no reason that they can't also separate personalized blood. In Florida, directed donation does increase the blood supply because the blood is gratefully accepted by the hospitals and saved to use for other patients. Um, I guess that's all for now. Thank you so much. Okay.

  26. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)49:29speaker not certain

      Thank you. Back to make a motion.

  27. Sen. Keven J. Stratton49:32

      Thank you. I, I think it might be helpful again to talk about the scar scarcity versus abundance, uh, focus and paradigm as we look at it. It is certainly very concerning that, that our blood, blood supply is, is low. It's interesting that we would, if that's the case, that we would try to prevent an additional flow into that supply from, from, from taking place. There is, I think, a great respect, a great, uh, historical, uh, uh, perspective and, and track record with, with our blood supply and when we have and recognition. And there's no need to, to be respond to fear in this space that, that there will be bad, bad, uh, perception. I think what it shows, it, it shows that bring all the good you have, we welcome it and let us make, make it better. And, and I, I it's a, it's just a paradigm shift and, and again, great respect and and honor to, to what, uh, uh, red Cross has done through the many, many years and even generations. And, uh, I think this adds to it in, in a very positive way. Appreciate consideration.

  28. Committee chair (Sen. Keith Grover)51:05

      Okay, thank you. So the motion force is passed out favorably. HB 1 51, first sub. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And any opposed? No, no, No, No. O So it fails two to four with thank you, chair and committee, Senator Stratton and Senator Grover in the positive or in the affirmative.