This is NOT a Messaging Bill

Symbolic, perennial, "messaging bills" are introduced in order to make a political statement, draw awareness to an issue, or appease a constituent, all without any real intention of the bill passing.

 

When advocating for accessible labeling bills be clear with the sponsor that this is NOT a messaging bill.  Eleven accessible prescription labeling state laws have been passed and every state should follow suit, because this is a life saving human rights bill. 

 

On average it has taken three introductions for bills of this nature to get passed.  If a state is on it's forth or fifth attempt, it might be time to make it clear that this is not just to make a political statement, but real change is needed.  

 

It might be time to discuss with the sponsor the barriers that are in the way so it can pass.  That may mean finding a new sponsor, or co-sponsors that have a bit more clout, talking to the committee chair directly, forming a coalition of like minded organizations in disability rights, health equity, language access, and literacy and bringing the pharmacy lobby to the table for discussions.

 

Many pharmacists and legislators initially feel like providing accessible labels is doing blind patients a favor, and it should not be mandated, especially an unfunded mandate.  But the ADA makes it clear that the government does not pay you to not discriminate.  And basic access to health information is not a favor.  

 

For a more in depth look at the "basic access is not a favor" argument read about the 2024 legislative hearing in Colorado.  https://www.staysaferx.org/2024/03/basic-access-is-not-favor-colorado-hb24.html