Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Education
 
Board
State Board of Education
 
chapter
Child Care Program [8 VAC 20 ‑ 790]
Action Amend regulation to require each child day center that participates in the Child Care Program to implement policies for the possession and administration of epinephrine and each family day home provider or at least one other caregiver employed by such pro
Stage Fast-Track
Comment Period Ended on 12/17/2025
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
12/4/25  6:26 am
Commenter: Cheryl Strong Family Day Home

No to Epi Pen
 

The mandate imposes a substantial and recurring financial strain, particularly on small, home-based family daycares which often operate on thin margins.

  • High and Recurring Cost: EpiPens are expensive, and their shelf life is typically only 12-18 months. Requiring the purchase of multiple, weight-appropriate doses (infant/child and adult) for a center with diverse age groups would necessitate an annual, unfunded expense that diverts limited resources away from core childcare needs, such as educational supplies, facility improvements, or provider wages.

  • Administrative Overhead: The mandate introduces new administrative responsibilities, including:

    • Rigorous monthly inspections to check expiration dates.

    • Secure, accessible, and compliant storage (e.g., maintaining a locked, yet immediately available, container).

    • Managing procurement and tracking replacements, which is a major diversion of time for a sole provider.


?? Liability and Medical Scope of Practice Concerns

Epinephrine is a potent, prescription-only medication. Requiring non-medical staff to administer it to a child without a known diagnosis introduces significant liability and safety risks.

  • Lack of Clinical Expertise: Family daycare providers are childcare educators, not medical professionals. They lack the clinical training to accurately diagnose a severe, undiagnosed allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) versus other conditions that may present similar symptoms. Administering a strong drug unnecessarily carries its own medical risks.

  • Legal Exposure: Administering a prescription medication without a specific, physician-written order for that child exposes the provider to increased legal liability. While "Good Samaritan" laws exist in some jurisdictions, they may not offer full protection in a regulatory setting, especially when complex decisions regarding appropriate, weight-based dosage for an undiagnosed child are involved.

  • Redundant to Existing Protocols: For children with known allergies, existing regulations already require parents to provide patient-specific EpiPens, along with a physician-signed action plan and appropriate staff training. This targeted, parent-physician-provider collaboration is the safest model.

CommentID: 238422