2005 Legislation: Eliminating Mercury in Health Care Setting

Background: Eliminating Mercury in Health Care Setting

Many health care devices contain mercury. Disposal of health care devices containing mercury causes mercury to be released into the environment. Exposure to mercury adversely effects the brain, kidney, and fetus. Mercury free alternatives for health care devices are available.

The American Nurses Association (ANA), the American Hospital Association, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Health Care Without Harm have partnered to form Hospitals for a Healthy Environment ( H2E [www.h2e-online.org]) in order to support the virtual elimination of mercury in health care through the use of mercury free alternatives. A major goal of H2E is to eliminate the use of mercury in health care by 2005. Legislation is needed to expedite this initiative.

Legislation

Mercury fever thermometers have been the initial and the most visible target of legislation related to mercury in health care. In 2005, NJ, NY, PA, VT, MT and NC introduced legislation to ban the sale of mercury thermometers. VT legislation also called for the labeling of health care products that contain mercury. CA AB 1415 and NY SB 4469A were passed. NJ enacted legislation that bans the sale of mercury fever thermometers; however, it does not apply to thermometers used for professional health care. Prior to 2005, 13 states enacted legislation to ban the sale/distribution of mercury fever thermometers: CA, CT, IL, IN, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NH, OR, RI, WA.

In 2005, CA,NY, MA, and MT took the initiative a step further, introducing legislation that also prohibits the sale or distribution the following common hospital devices if they contain mercury: sphygmomanometer, barometer, esophageal dilator, bougie tube, gastrointestinal tube, flow meter, hydrometer, psychometer, manometer, and pyrometer. NY SB 4469 was passed. Prior to 2005, WA and ME enacted legislation that prohibits the sale of mercury in sphygmomanometers, thermostats, and other devices by 2006. MI introduced legislation that states a manufacturer shall not sellmercury-added product unless the manufacturer has applied for certain exemptions and another that directs the state to avoid purchasing products that contain mercury.

Additionally in 2005, two states (SC and LA) introduced legislation that had the potential to move them into position to eliminate mercury in health care. SC introduced 2005 legislation that called for the development of a report that outlines strategies for minimizing and eliminating mercury wherever feasible. LA enacted HCR 51 which called for the development of a mercury action plan to reduce the use of mercury, reduce releases of mercury to the environment, remediate areas known to be contaminated with mercury, and minimize of human exposure to mercury through communication, management, research, collection, recycling, and disposal.

In addition to legislation listed above that is a priority for ANA, legislation has been introduced to address other sources of mercury pollution and exposure in 2005:

• Seventeen states introduced legislation to related to mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines (DE, FLA, IL, LA, MA, MN, MO, NV, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, VT, WA). IL HB 511 LA SSR 1, and MO SB 74, and NY SB 4256 were enacted.
• Eight states have introduced legislation related to mercury in dental fillings (amalgams). AZ, ME, and VT legislation would require disclosure before the insertion of mercury containing amalgams. CA, MA, MN, MT, and NM legislation would require separation and proper disposal of mercury containing waste generated by the use of mercury containing amalgams. The NM bill also calls for the generation of a report of the dangers of the use of mercury containing dental amalgam to the secretary of health. CA and MA legislation also pertain to the provision of equal-coverage for non-mercury fillings at no additional expense. ME legislation further requires the elimination of mercury in dental offices over a three year period.
• Twenty-one states introduced legislation that addressed the sale and/or disposal of mercury found in other products such as: cars, toys, switches, and electronics (AK, CA, CONN, IN, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NJ, NH, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, TX, VT, and WA). AK SB 323, NJ AB 2482, ME LD 692, TX HB 2793, and VT HJR 41 were passed.
• Eleven states introduced legislation requiring a reduction in mercury emissions from sources such as coal fired power plants, diesel engines, and/or creamatoria (AK, CA, IL, IN, ME, MA, MD, MI, MO, MN, NY). MN legislation also called for the establishment of research grant program to reduce mercury emissions from coal fired power plants.
• RI and TX introduced legislation that would require the placement of warning labels on fish. The TX legislation also called for the testing of retail fish for mercury. MA called for the labeling and disclosure of existing mercury containing products. Both MA and NC included public education about the hazards of mercury pollution.
• NC, NY, and SC legislation would prohibit the use mercury in schools.
• MI legislation would memorialize the US Congress to hold public hearings on the effects of mercury exposure on public health.

Search	Contact ANA	Join/Renew Membership	Members Only	Online CE
NursingInsiderSpecial Offersnursesbooks.org © 2008 The American Nurses Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright Policy | Privacy Statement