This bill amends section 399L(d) of the Public Health Service Act to create a special rule that allows elementary and secondary schools to treat certain trained individuals who are not employees as if they were trained school personnel for the narrow purpose of earning preference under children’s asthma treatment grant programs. It also replaces the term “auto‑injectable epinephrine” with the broader phrase “epinephrine delivery systems” and fixes a typographical error.
Why this matters: the change lets states with limited on‑site medical staff — for example, rural districts that rely on volunteers or parent responders — compete for federal grant preference without having to reclassify personnel. Expanding the device language may affect what products states can buy with grant funds and how training is designed, while the attorney‑general reaffirmation mechanism creates a legal checkpoint that states must navigate before claiming the preference.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a special rule in 42 U.S.C. 280g(d) allowing schools to count non‑employee individuals as trained personnel for purposes of grant preference if those individuals meet the statute’s training requirements and the state attorney general reaffirms the State’s certification. It also renames covered products from “auto‑injectable epinephrine” to “epinephrine delivery systems.”
Who It Affects
State health and education agencies that apply for children’s asthma treatment grants, local school districts (especially those with staff shortages), volunteer responders or parents who might be trained to administer epinephrine, and manufacturers/suppliers of epinephrine delivery systems.
Why It Matters
Federal grant preference creates an incentive for states to authorize or recognize non‑employee responders; procurement language broadening device categories can change procurements funded by grants; and the AG reaffirmation step ties federal preference to a state‑level legal attestation, raising compliance and liability questions for schools and states.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill threads a narrow federal policy lever — grant preference — through state school health systems. Rather than directly authorizing non‑employees to administer medication, it creates a path by which a school may count those individuals toward the statutory definition of “trained personnel” when a State seeks preference under the children’s asthma treatment grant rules.
That counting is conditional: the individuals must satisfy the statutory training requirements referenced in the Act, and the State’s attorney general must expressly reaffirm the State’s certification while acknowledging the inclusion of such individuals.
Because the text ties eligibility to paragraph (3)(E) (left intact but invoked), implementation will hinge on how that paragraph’s requirements—training standards, authorization, and any recordkeeping or supervision language—are interpreted and applied to people who are not on payroll. The AG reaffirmation step creates a legal checkpoint that states will likely use to evaluate statutory compatibility with state scope‑of‑practice and liability frameworks before they declare non‑employees eligible for counting toward grant preference.The device‑language change from “auto‑injectable epinephrine” to “epinephrine delivery systems” is small in drafting but potentially consequential in procurement.
Grant administrators will need to decide which products fall within the new phrase and update grant terms, allowed line items, and training curricula accordingly. Finally, the bill’s other edits (removing an illustrative phrase that singled out school nurses and correcting a typographical error) are technical but widen the statutory reader’s view of who may qualify as trained personnel.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 280g(d) (section 399L(d) of the Public Health Service Act) to add a special rule permitting non‑employees to be treated as trained school personnel for grant preference.
A non‑employee will qualify only if the individual meets the statutory requirements of paragraph (3)(E); the bill does not change paragraph (3)(E)’s content, it only invokes it for these individuals.
The State attorney general must reaffirm the State’s certification under subparagraph (G) while accounting for the inclusion of these non‑employee trained individuals — an explicit legal attestation step required before preference is applied.
The bill replaces the term “auto‑injectable epinephrine” with “epinephrine delivery systems,” broadening the class of devices that grant‑funded programs may consider.
Two technical edits: it removes an illustrative phrase that mentioned “such as the school nurse” and corrects a typo (changing “schoolin” to “school in”).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: “Dillon’s Law”
Provides the Act’s short title. This is a standard heading that has no substantive effect on construction but is how the bill will be cited in legislative and administrative materials.
Special rule allowing non‑employees to count as trained personnel for grant preference
This is the bill’s core operational change: it inserts a special rule into the statutory preference language allowing an elementary or secondary school to treat an individual who is not an employee as part of the school’s trained personnel for the narrow purpose of grant preference. The provision conditions that treatment on two things—(1) the individual meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(E) and (2) the State attorney general reaffirming the State’s certification under subparagraph (G) in light of that treatment. Practically, grant reviewers will need to verify both the training status of specific individuals and the AG’s reaffirmation when assessing State applications.
Broadened device terminology
The statute’s product language is amended to replace “auto‑injectable epinephrine” with “epinephrine delivery systems.” That change expands the statutory descriptor of covered products and will affect allowable purchases under grant awards, how procurement solicitations are written, and which products training must address. Grant guidance and award terms will likely need revision to clarify the universe of acceptable devices.
Removal of illustrative language and a typo correction
The bill deletes a parenthetical example in the lead‑in to paragraph (3)(E) that had singled out the school nurse, and corrects a separate typographical error elsewhere. Removing the example narrows the statute’s implicit occupational focus and highlights that the statutory training standard applies without privileging a specific job title. The typo correction simply fixes textual clarity in the codified statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students with severe allergies or asthma in understaffed districts — they gain a higher chance that trained non‑employees will be recognized in grant applications, which can increase funding for emergency medication and training.
- States and local districts with chronic nurse shortages — they can claim federal preference without having to rehiring staff, improving competitiveness for federal asthma‑treatment grants.
- Parents, community volunteers, and other non‑employees willing to undergo training — the change expands the roles that training can make meaningful for school emergency response.
- Manufacturers and suppliers of epinephrine delivery devices — the broader device language may enlarge eligible product categories for grant‑funded purchases, affecting demand and procurement specifications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local school districts — they must set up verification, training, supervision, and recordkeeping systems for non‑employees and may incur costs for background checks, credentials management, and insurance.
- State attorney general offices — the AG must perform or sign an explicit reaffirmation assessing legal compatibility, which adds an administrative and legal review burden.
- Grant administrators and state education/health agencies — they must revise grant application materials, audit procedures, and allowable‑cost definitions to reflect the new device language and non‑employee rules.
- Liability carriers and potentially schools — without federal liability protections in the bill, districts and volunteers may face coverage gaps or higher premiums as insurers reassess risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between improving life‑saving access (by allowing trained non‑employees to count for grant preference) and maintaining legal and clinical safeguards (scope‑of‑practice, liability, and supervision). The bill pushes states toward expanded use of non‑employees through financial incentives but stops short of harmonizing licensing, indemnity, or operational standards, forcing states and districts to bridge the gap themselves.
The bill uses a narrow federal lever (grant preference) to change how staffing is counted without touching state statutes that actually authorize who may administer medication or provide civil‑liability protections. That distinction creates a practical implementation problem: a State can claim preference if it counts non‑employees as trained personnel and the AG reaffirms the certification, but that does not, by itself, change licensing, delegation, or scope‑of‑practice rules that govern whether those individuals may legally give epinephrine in particular school settings.
Schools and states will need to reconcile federal grant assertions with existing state law before deploying non‑employees in clinical roles.
The statutory referral to paragraph (3)(E) raises a second difficulty: the bill does not redefine or expand paragraph (3)(E); it merely makes that paragraph applicable to non‑employees. If paragraph (3)(E) contains requirements tailored to employees—supervision, employment‑based credentialing, or access to school medical records—adapting those requirements to volunteers may be operationally complex.
Finally, the broader phrase “epinephrine delivery systems” is sensible drafting to avoid product‑specific lock‑in, but it shifts ambiguity to grant administrators and purchasers who must now decide which devices qualify and how training and storage requirements differ by device type.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.