We’re going to start with House Bill 365, and if the sponsor of that bill would come forth. ??, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a pretty straight-forward bill. It’s to allow Chatham County to have a special election to fill a vacated school board slot, and it’s actually the slot that I left. They had two people apply for this position. The board has four members. They were split equally. They could not come to consensus. They actually hired a mediator and still could not come to consensus. They want to coordinate the special election with the municipal elections in the fall with a filing period from July 5th to July 19th so that other candidates could apply if interested, and I believe they were going to try to have a special county-wide bond referendum for an agricultural building at the same time. I would ask for your support please so that they can fill this spot on the school board. Any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question of the bill sponsor and then a motion if it’s appropriate. So how many people are on the board, and you’re saying that your seat is still vacant; is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma’am. There are normally five school board members. Currently there are still four on the board and they could not come to a consensus on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize if you already said this. Is the board itself agreeable to this procedure? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry; I had resolutions from both the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education requesting this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I offer a motion to give it a favorable report? Unless it’s already been done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think Representative Adams said she wanted to do a motion, so we’ll let her go with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d move for a favorable report for House Bill 365. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have heard the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it and the motion passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Next is House Bill 760, Summer Reading Camps. Representative Brandon. This is a PCS. I need a motion to have the PCS before us. Representative Lucas makes that motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. Brandon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you members of the committee. I want to thank my bill sponsors, Representative Hardister, Representative Cotham, Representative Brown, who helped me with this bill. This is a really very simple bill. What this bill does is that when I was trying to build capacity in my district for the summer reading camps that we passed with the law last year, what I found is that some of the people through the public-private partnership actually had the capacity to serve some kindergarteners, first-graders and second-graders, but the way the law is currently written is that you only can be a third-grader that is not reading proficiently in order to be eligible to go to the summer reading camps. All this bill does is say if the public-private partnership has the capacity to take those students in kindergarten, first grade and second grade, then they’re able to also attend those summer reading camps, and I’m happy to yield to any questions if there is any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, a question for the bill sponsor. Representative Brandon, this difference from regular summer school – if a child’s having problems then they may take summer school courses, so this program is entirely different than summer school courses? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is correct. This is with the… What’s the bill called last year that the Senate did? Whatever that bill was called. It’s something, the education act of last year. What that does, if a kid was not proficient in reading in third grade, the law states that we had to have summer reading camps available for the
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The third graders that did not pass, because the current law from last years act says that if you are not reading by the third grade then you cannot go to the fourth. But we were supplying these summer reading camps for those students that were not reading proficiently in third grade and specifically for the excellence in public school act. And so this is just really clarifying that if a public private partnership, which is already in the law to establish these summer reading camps, if they have the capacity to actually teach kindergartners and first and second graders who are not reading proficiently, then they can also attend those summer reading camps. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think maybe some of my questions have been answered. So this is a public private partnership, so it is being funded by.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right now, we have current appropriations that probably does not do justice. So thats the reason that the current law has asked for public private partnership. And so for example, in our district, I’ve been reaching out to reading connections and others, along with our superintendent, to try to figure out how we can build this capacity, and what we’ve found is that many of the community partners that we had identified to do these summer reading camps had the capacity to actually incorporate K, first and second, but they just under the law, they couldn’t do it, and so this just clarifies that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, its open to any child now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so when you run out, you won’t run out of space? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, our idea is that we don’t want to limit. There will be all types of things that might could limit. There might be space, and there might be a time issue. But those who do have the capacity, wouldn’t want to just limit them to third grade. If they have the space, and they have the additional funds, then we didn’t want the law to prohibit them from being able to include those students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Corbit? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to start with a couple of questions for staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m looking at what current law on this, and quick questions, but is there programs like this for all 115 school districts at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke the retention and summer camps won’t start until the summer of 2014. But according to the budget from last year, which enacted the excellent public schools act in the north caorlina read to achieve program, all local administrative units would provide a summer reading camp to any child who does not demonstrate reading proficiency and who may be retained under 115C-83.7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And follow up, so there is an appropriation already in the two year budget for this 2013-14? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom from fiscal research could answer that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom, fiscal research. As you know, Representative Luebke the 2012 budget only covered 2012-13, we have yet to do any adjustments for sort of new aspects of the program that are coming online, such as the summer camps, so that would need to be addressed in the 2013 budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes you may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess this is still for staff, I’m sorry. I guess I’m not clear if we’re even going to have money for these in budget that is being worked on right now. Does anyone know, does the governors budget include this program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom, again fiscal research, I think its safe to say that the governors budget did include funds for the summer camps. May be some disagreement about what the total cost should be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, if I may, its in the budget, but its not clear that its enough for all of the school districts? Representative Brandon.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I was going to say is that the lat years budget didn’t have enough in it, either, and thats not the point of the bill because it is a public private partnership, and so I think that what the bill was intended to do, whether...
Agree with it or not, we can have that debate. Was to try to get more community partners in, to try to help go on with their reading summer camps. This bill is not to really deal with the money cost of it, it’s to deal with the community partner side of it. And if they do have a community partner that does have the capacity to do K, 1st and 2nd without our money, the current law says they can’t do it. So this just fixes that, and says if you have the capacity there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to take those students that are younger than third grade, that are showing difficulty in reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is just a clarifying question on the difference in difficulty with reading development versus not demonstrating reading proficiency. And is there some defined, some way to define that category of difficulty with reading development versus a test that you use that shows you don’t demonstrate reading proficiency, so we know who should be considered to have the additional access? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Leader. I appreciate the question. I’m going to defer to Patsy because Patsy schooled me on this part of the bill and how we could actually have a determinate factor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, Patsy? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, in the statutes now on 115C-87.3, there are different definitions for each of these terms and I did summarize them under the current law part of the summary. So reading deficiency is when a child doesn’t demonstrate reading proficiency on the end of third grade tests. Reading, problems with, or difficulty with reading development, that would be any child, K through 3, that isn’t showing any kind of appropriate developmental abilities in reading in different areas of reading like phonics, ?? awareness, or vocabulary, based on any sort of observation or diagnostic or formative assessment. So not a standardized assessment like the, not demonstrating reading proficiency. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a quick follow up then. So there’s a set of different factors, as opposed to performance on an end of grade tests, you can look to a different set of multiple factors and someone could make that recommendation to the parent? Who does the recommendation get made by and to whom? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Patsy? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Representative Hall, the parent or guardian of the child has the final approval of whether or not the child would go to the summer reading camp, so teachers and principals would recommend to the family member of that child that they may benefit from attending the summer reading camp. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are these programs available for charter schools? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have an answer to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under current charter school law, they can actually address the problem of reading deficiency or not developing reading any way they want to. They still have to report how many of the children in the charter school are not demonstrating reading proficiency but there’s no specificity as there is for a traditional public school on that approach. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, I guess my question is, are those persons in the charter schools who fall into those guidelines, are they able to or do they have the funds or how are they treated, are they treated the same as regular public school kids under this program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The charter school would not have to offer a summer reading camp. The charter school could address the reading problems any way they saw fit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the concept of the bill, so these are just clarifying questions please. For year-round schools that may or may not have the six to eight weeks off during the summer, how does it address that is one question. Second question: might it be a provision for parents to opt out if they so choose for their children? Have you got any potential comments for the Schoolboard Association? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Schoolboard Association did contact me via email and ask for parents to mandated and we don't agree with that, because the current bill does give parents the option to opt out, because some parents might choose that they might want to go to Southern Learning Center to address this. They might want to choose alternative ways to be able to address this and no way in the world do I think we should be mandating parents of how they should be dealing with their deficiency problems, so we don't agree with that. And with the six to eight weeks, we're just dealing with current law and the way the current law reads, that those schools have to do some adaptation or different things to be able to address that, but of course, if they're in the school in the summer they don't have summer reading camps. But they still are required to meet the third-grade law, but they do have to adapt and we're just going to deal with changing existing excellence in public schools act. We just want to deal with what's currently in law, we just want to make it available for those students who came first and second if they showed a reading deficiency, so that's all it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative G. Graham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brandon, I have a question that I want to ask. I'm right here. What is the budget and how many participants do you plan to have in the program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Like I said, we can argue against the budget, and we don't know what the current budget's going to be. All this does is says- because this is really a public-private partnership. Whatever budget you get, it will never have enough money to serve all the summer reading camps. It just won't happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Well, what was the budget last year? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would have to ask fiscal research on what it was last year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Norris (??) from fiscal research. The summer camps would not start until summer of 2014, so there was no budget for summer camps last year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there was an amount, maybe, I'm not sure, in the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the overall Excellent Public Schools Act there was 27 million appropriated last year, but that covered other requirements. It did not include summer camps. Those aren't starting until summer of 2014 so they aren't budgeted yet. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our other Graham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Just a quick question, Representative Brandon. I think this is a good idea and I like the concept. My question is, the children who identify as developmentally delayed, is this going to- how will those kids, providing the space is available, have an opportunity to participate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We originally- that's why Representative Hall's question was, if you listened to the answer, was a very subjective way that we do that, so I think that any teacher that recommends the child and whether they'd be developmentally delayed, the problem is that there's no real test up until third grade that we have that we can say, "Oh, they are not reading proficiently," so we are going to have to rely on teachers, whether they're special ed teachers or just regular classroom teachers, that see that a child is not reading proficiently and can recommend them to these other things. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up to make sure I understood, with response to Representative Whitmire's question. I thought I heard you indicate that there was some concern via the Schoolboards Association, and Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know if the Schoolboards Association Representative could just detail that so we know what the concern was and how it's been responded to. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. My name's Leanne Winter. I'm the Director of Governmental Relations for the North Carolina Schoolboards Association. We do not have issue with the substance of what the bill sponsors are trying to do. We actually think it is a good thing to try to address children before we get to the end of third grade and have essentially a "gotcha" for those children. The two things that we-
Shared with the bill sponsors that were of concern with us, for us, were one, how to deal with schools that are year round where the students only have a two to three week break in the summer. The law specifically requires that the summer reading program be for six to eight weeks long, which those schools do not have and thus our districts that have year round schools are not sure how to comply with the law. The second part with the base part of the law that they're concerned about is about parents having the ability to opt their children out of the summer reading program at the end of third grade. If they opt their child out, and the child cannot demonstrate by the beginning of fourth grade, they will automatically be retained. Understand what they are saying and maybe a middle ground would potentially be that the parent could only opt them out if they demonstrate that they have another avenue for which the child will get that intervention. What we are concerned about are parents who think their child is okay and, or not engaged in their education and thus get no services throughout the summer and will automatically be retained at the end of fourth grade. If the state of North Carolina is going to be serious about children being able to read at grade level by the beginning of fourth grade, we need to make sure that that happens. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, are you ready for a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely, mister chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a PCS, okay? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct, and my motion will be, and it's an honor to offer this motion, that House education committee report out as favorable to the proposed committee substitute to House bill 760 and unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the motion's carried. Thank you gentlemen. Our next bill is House bill 765, Representative Dixon. This is the PCS. Do I have a motion to accept the PCS? Representative Collins makes the motion. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair. Mister chair, I would suggest the following procedure. I would like to make a brief overview comment and then I'd like to have a brief comment from staff, and then I'd like to have a brief comment from the representative from the Association of School Board. And I think that'll be the, and then we will entertain questions. I think that'll maybe save us some time and get us on the right track. May I proceed? Members of the committee, this bill would seek to amend current law G.S. 115C-341 which governs the procedure for resolutions of disputes between Boards of Education and Boards of County Commissioners. The proposed committee substitute in addition to existing law would require that the court find the facts as to the amount of money necessary from all sources to maintain a system of free public schools. In addition, the proposed committee substitute would add that the jury also has to consider the educational goals and policies of the local board of education, the financial resources of the local board of education, and the physical goals of the local board of education. The background for this and the language in it comes from a North Carolina supreme court case in 2009, and we've incorporated that same language here in this bill. The effective date of it would be when it becomes law, and mister chair, I'd like a brief comment from staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe Representative Dixon explained it correctly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chair, I'd like a comment from Ms. Leanne Winner, representative of the Association of School Boards. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Leanne? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning again, Leanne Winner with the North Carolina School Boards Association
Also represent the North Carolina Council of School Attorneys on this issue. The process is actually a two step process. The two boards must first go to mediation and then if the mediation is not satisfactorily resolved it would potentially go to court if the school board so chose. This part is specifically addressing the jury instructions at that stage. Since this law was put in place in 1997, There have been 31 cases across the state during the 16 years of where a local board of education has actually asked for this process to be used. Only a handful of those, I’m only aware of four, there may be a couple more, have gone from mediation to court as Representative Dixon said, most of this language is actually from the Beaufort case which went the the North Carolina Supreme Court. He was very willing to work with us to add a few words that you have seen between the first version and the proposed committee substitute and we are fine with the bill and hope you will support it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any questions or debate? Representative Lucas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Dixon, I’m probably sure that you are aware that the Senate mail is in the process of proposing a bill that would take this authority from the school boards. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I am. And I think our bill is a better bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to make a motion if it’s appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ve got a couple over here. Representative Collins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have anybody from the County Commissioner Association that would let us know how the County Commissioners feel about this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Representative Collins, we do. Ms. Rebecca Troutman is here. The Association of the County Commissioner wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this bill. If I’m wrong, the chair may call on Miss Troutman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chairman. This committee is probably the most knowledgable group in the entire state of how much we spend totally on education, or maybe education approp to those. Most people don’t. I saw a poll about three months ago, where they ask the people in North Carolina how much do we spend and people in general think we spend about less than half of what we actually spend in K12. If the jury is not informed what is actually available, the jury can’t possibly make a good decision. I think it’s a great bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If this Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. And this goes to Judiciary subcommittee A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move we give the Committee Substitute a favorable report. Unfavorable as to the original and be referred to Judiciary A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is carried. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our next bill is House Bill 824. Representative Glazier. Yeah, this is the epi pen bill. We got some epi pens that we can pass out so people can see what they are. I don’t know if we had enough information. We’re trying to get around if there was enough of it to have also that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think there’s a pcs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you sure? I’m a little… I need a motion to accept the PCS before us. We have the motion to accept the PCS. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It really is a pleasure bill, extremely bi-partisan and good bill to the committee. It is sponsored by Representative Murry, Representative Holloway, Representative Fulghum and myself. I’ll do sort of the brief outline of the bill and then I think Representative Murry
has some comments and can talk more intelligently than I can about the medical issue with regard to it. And then, Mr. Chairman, we have a number of people in the audience. One or two may want to speak, and the rest, if you would simply ask for a show of hands so everyone knows who’s here, I would really appreciate it. This bill is based on research we did in three states. There’s actually eight states that have this bill, but Illinois, Virginia, and Georgia were ones we took the most look at. It’s simply requires first that local school boards, charter schools, and now regional schools, the regional, I think the one or two regional schools that we have, provide at least two epi auto-injectors for use by trained school personnel to provide emergency medical assistance to children suffering from anaphylactic shock or reaction. As you know, this can happen as a result of often seafood, or peanuts, or any number of allergies and it can trigger a number of kids will have medicine with them, but some we never know until the first hit occurs on that child at a school when they’re having a peanut butter sandwich or they’re outside on the playground and get a bee sting. We have sadly lost some children over the last several years over not having this available. What the bill really does is allow and require each school to have two injectors and we do that for our first reason, because one sometimes is not enough. Second, obviously, even if it is, you want one there till you can replace it. We require that a training program be put in place to allow the staff that is going to be designated to be able to use the epi and Representative Murry can show you how easy that’s going to be. We also require that this be done for purposed of anything happening on school grounds or school sponsored events on school grounds. Much as we’d love to cover busses or love to cover offsite capacity, it’s just very hard, obviously, to have that accessibility. Your PCS adds charters and the original bill didn’t. It adds in the regional school. It also requires, if you look at the bottom of the page, each school to develop its standards and procedures for storage and the storage has to be in an easy accessible site. We looked at subsection e, which is essentially to remind folks that although we don’t want the school to be the sole medication supply for students who have a known medical conditions, neither do we want to be in a position where a child comes to school and forgot their epi, lost it on the bus, and then say that you can use the epi that’s available at school in an emergency circumstance. We worked the school Nurses Association to put that in place. There’s the immunity clause that’s in subsection F that provides if everyone does their job and it’s not grossly negligent or intentional wrongdoing, that there’s immunity from damages, which the other states do. With that, I’d like to turn it over to Representative Murry to talk about the real importance of the bill and then the one or two speakers, Mr. Chair. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the takeaway from this legislation is that, currently, in order for an epi pen to be in a school, it has to be specifically prescribed for an individual student, only for use for that student. This would broaden it so that there would be two epi pens at each school so that should should an anaphylactic reaction occur, that there are epi pens available and trained personnel at the schools to be able to use that. The manufacturer of this product is willing to give two epi pens to schools, so I think that’s a good faith effort on the part of the company to make sure this doesn’t add any cost burden, but the use of these epi pens is extremely simple. It’s injectible, the needle is right here, you slam it down on your leg and push it down. I mean, it’s really, really simple to use. The instructions are right on any epi pen so it’s very simple and it can go through the clothes and it’s really, really simple way to save lives. This is good legislation. I’m glad the public health advocates brought it to our attention. I would urge your support. I’ll be available for any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, and I should also say public health is here as are school nurses association, but if you could, I wonder if you would be able to recognize two speakers and then ask others who might be willing to just stand up and show their support. Kendra Montgomery-Blinn who brought this to our attention, and Dr. Brent Townsend as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll be happy to recognize them if they’ll come forth to the mic back there and identify yourself.
[0:00:00.0] Here we go, good morning my name is ___ Gurney Blen, I’m here today as a mom, I’m from Durham. This guy struggling over here because he is little bit shy is my son Marco, he is in kindergarten. He is allergic to peanuts, tree nuts, kiwi, and pineapple. He keeps two nappy pins in his class at school, two in the nurse’s office and two in his after school program. I’m extremely proud that North Carolina has being proactive with this bill and not waiting until we have a child so name it after. Behind me a lot of people who are here to support the bill, a lot of other parents but also some daycare providers have come and they have asked me if they don’t have time to speak just to mention for them that we are asking that you also extend just the immunity portion of the bill to daycares and private schools. I understand that the law could not require private schools and daycares to stock the nappy pins but the immunity would give them the security that they would need to administer on nappy pin. Many children are first diagnosed with a life threatening allergy when they have their very first reaction at daycare. In Virginia, the school workers did not gave Maria another child’s nappy pin because they were afraid of liability, they are afraid that they would be sued even though there were other nappy pins available in office. So, we just ask you to protect all child even those in daycare and private schools and extending that immunity would safe lives and the trainers have been distributed I think you have already seen those and learn how to use them. The best news that I can tell you as well is that right nappy pins are being given to the schools for free, we distributed some literature about that as well. The drug companies are giving out four free nappy pins to schools who qualify. In order to qualify they must have a law like this one in place. And then they can obtain additional nappy pins to reduce price. Can those behind me those are here in support of this bill please stand so that everybody can see who you are, we have got parents, daycare providers, doctors, school nurses, Representatives from the Pediatric Association. If anybody is in opposition to the bill can they stand I’m not sure that I know of anybody but I suppose I should give them a chance. I’m proud of North Carolina, I’m proud of this bill and I’m proud to speak on behalf of it. I will try one more time to show you Marco who is struggling he is six and a half. Thank you all very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Dr. Tounson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dr. Tounson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pleasure to identify you Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I’m Dr. Bran Tounson, I’m a pediatric radiologist here in Riley and I’m also the parent of Alex Tounson the five and a half year old with severe food allergies and I’m speaking to you today as both as parent and as Representative of the North Carolina Pediatric Society. First of all personally, when Alex as 14 months old I got the dreaded call from daycare that he would accidentally gotten into another child sippy cup that had milk. And she said, “It looks like he’s having trouble with breathing, should I give him the nappy pin?” And even though I knew that was a right thing to do and luckily we had a prescription to have the pins of their size, I hesitated just because I was shocked that this was actually happening to my family, luckily his daycare teacher did not hesitate giving the nappy pin and everything was okay. And now as a physician I wanna to say that food allergies are on the rise. A recent study in 2011 says that one in 12 children has food allergies and that number is increasing overtime. The reasons we don’t quite understand but more importantly in 2005 a study from the general pediatrics showed that one in four children will have their first allergic event at school and will not even know that they have an allergy until they are in trouble. Now, luckily there is a cure for an anaphylactic reaction and that care is epinephrine. In 2007, the general pediatrics that are widely use epinephrine auto injectors and they found not only the epinephrine the first line a treatment for child who is having an anaphylactic reaction with that there are no adverse effects for otherwise healthy children who receive an nappy pin and that’s important and that is one of the reasons we so strongly support the immunity cause. It is much better to treat and definitely let that child have that reaction. And if there are any other concerns about epinephrine or what this mean and food allergies please don’t hesitate to contact me or any member of the North Carolina Pediatrics Society so we can speak more. I’m very much in support of this bill and as we said several other people are as well. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I have Representative Dickson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman for a motion at appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative ___[04:56]. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman just couple of quick questions of the bill sponsors. [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
If I may [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes you may [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you gentleman, very ?? of this but I gotta ask the basic questions. Number One. What is the possibility of missed diagnosis and what would be the effects if it was missed diagnosed of having someone injected with this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that's part of the reason why we have a training program is to help the teachers identify what an allergic reaction really looks like. Shortness of breath, tongue starts swelling up, itchy that kind of thing. The dose of Epinephrine is actually very small in these Epi pens. And any adverse reactions to would be mainly because of the injection more so than the drug, the puncture wounds that type of thing. That would be the more adverse thing. But from the diagnose perspective or an recognition of an Anaphylactic? reaction is easily identifiable and side effects from the drug would be minimal because the dose is small but the dose is significant enough to stop a reaction from proceeding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] You got it [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this considered a controlled substance as you would think? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. It's not a controlled substance. It is a prescription medication but it's not a controlled substance. And that's one of the benefits of this legislation instead of having patient specific only Epi pens at school it has Epi pens available for use should an reaction occur. So that's one of the things we're doing with this legislation is enabling Epi pens to be accessible for any allergic reaction not just the patient specific prescribed Epi pens at schools. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Representative. Thank you Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES] G. Graham [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think this is an excellent bill and I think it will be very helpful. But I'm concerned that juvenile diabetes is on the rise in North Carolina. And I'm wondering if the committee, the health committee, could maybe look at that. I don't know if you could make it a part of what we're doing now but it is an issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm certain that we can communicate that to an representative,?? representative Avalon representative members on that and communicate that and agree with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question on the Epi pen. I noticed there's no ingredient statement, there's no statement as to active ingredients. Is that required? [SPEAKER CHANGES] So that's a placebo. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What your holding is there is no active ingredient in that. If you look at the it is clear it is clearly indicated on the Epi pen it talks about the delivers zero point three intramuscular dose of Epinephrin its on the you've got a placebo because if you wanted to practice we've given that to you so you can practice, if you want. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I practice on you? Representative Gill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the speaker spoke to non private schools, non public schools and to private day cares. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be included in the bill. Do we need an Amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me respond this way. When we originally drafted it we talked with folks. We added in charters and we added in regional schools. First for private schools. I think the jurisdiction of the general assembly to mandate into private schools is more limited. And I didn't want us to get into that battle or that thicket when we are trying to deal with public schools. It may be that what we can do, and Representative Murray and I have talked about it, as this proceeds through the House and into the Senate is look at adding the private school in the Immunity Clause so that if the private school chooses to do this they would have immunity and that sort of makes sense. And we can do that at the next stage. The day care issue I think has two things. Number One. We haven't,that we are aware of, gotten an agreement from the Epi pen manufacturer on producing free ones to all day cares. So there is a cost issue. Secondly, because of the vast nature of the different types of day cares and their private, public blended its going to take a little research I think to figure that one out. And also to figure out there will be some additional regulations required, I think, given those will be junior Epi's and so again, we didn't want to get that issue messed up in stopping this bill. But we are going to look at that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Horn [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Chairman, my question is is this the only product of its kind? Are we committing or promoting a particular manufacturer or are there competitors out there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There really isn't a competitor to this, it is the only, the only other way to administer an epinephrin would be to draw it up in a syringe from a multi-dose vial and that's - we don't want to go there. Now if you're in an emergency room situation that works, that might work, but from a market place standpoint this is the only game in town. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon you ready for the motion, and this is the PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, may I make a brief comment before my motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may, just brief. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll be very brief. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee I don't know all of the technicalities of this but I do know the reality of it and just a few weeks ago the most precious little perfect four year old granddaughter to exist to anybody in North Carolina had one of these experiences and I can tell you the difference between her fear of another situation and knowing and having this explained to her that it was going to be available was the difference in night and day. And so it's a great honor for me to make the motion for favorable approval of the PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You heard the motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it and the motion is carried, and that concludes our business today and we're adjourned. [AUDIO ENDS]