Plasma donation and vaccines top state advocacy priorities

This article was first published in the Spring 2026 edition of the IDF ADVOCATE newsletter.

As 2026 state legislative sessions get into full swing, the Immune Deficiency Foundation is tracking familiar issues, like plasma donation regulations. But state vaccine legislation is increasingly a priority as well.

Easing plasma donation regulations

Regulation of plasma donation centers falls to states, and some states have enacted regulations that exceed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) plasma donation regulations. These states tend to have fewer plasma donation centers simply because it is more difficult to get them up and running. New Jersey is one example, with only 0.19 centers per 100,000 residents (states range from 0 to 0.7 centers per 100,000 residents).

New Jersey S 4338 would establish a licensing process specifically for plasma donation centers to replace the current process that lumps these facilities in with others, very different facilities. The result will be a more streamlined process that does not require blood bank or clinical laboratory licensing.

"A regulatory environment specific to plasma donation allows centers to operate efficiently with no impact on donor or patient safety,” said the Immune Deficiency Foundation's state policy director, Matt Prentice.

The hope is that a streamlined licensing process that meets the specific needs of plasma donation centers will encourage more centers to open in the state. The organization recently submitted comments in support of S 4338 and will be tracking opportunities to let legislators know the value of plasma donation to the primary immunodeficiency (PI) community.

Pushing back against antivaccine bills

Legislators in many states have taken the changes to national vaccine recommendations as an opportunity to introduce state vaccine bills.

Bills introduced in South Carolina and Tennessee would ban vaccines using mRNA as the active ingredient, effectively cutting off access to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for their residents. South Carolina’s H. 4262 bans healthcare providers from providing “certain synthetic mRNA-based gene therapies” within the state and punishes any provider who violates the ban. In Tennessee, SB 1767 targets healthcare providers as well as veterinarians. Interestingly, both bills apply only to mRNA therapies meant to prevent infectious diseases, sparing mRNA-base therapies in development for other indications.

A harsh rival bill in Tennessee, SB 1949, would designate products containing mRNA “weapons of mass destruction” and make it a felony to make, possess, or give any mRNA product to someone else. Unlike the other bills, SB 1949 would ban all mRNA-based therapies, not just vaccines.

Another slate of bills address state vaccine requirements for children attending childcare or school. Iowa (HF 2171) and West Virginia (HB 5090) are considering bills that would do away with vaccination requirements altogether. Idaho passed the first such law in 2025, which prohibits governments, businesses, and schools from mandating any medical intervention, including vaccines. However, the law contained an exemption for school vaccination requirements already in place. This year, a new bill in Idaho, H0574, would repeal those requirements specifically. All three bills embrace individual medical freedom and parental rights but do not address the impact on those who cannot be vaccinated safely or who do not respond to vaccines, like many in the PI community.

There are many other bills up for consideration that erode vaccination requirements rather than removing them outright. Some target certain vaccines like hepatitis B (New Hampshire HB 1719). Others, such as West Virginia SB26, would expand religious or personal belief exemptions and make them easier to get. South Carolina has another bill, S. 741, that would ban vaccine requirements for children under 2 years of age.

Last year, Florida grabbed headlines when the state health department announced plans to remove vaccine requirements for varicella (chickenpox), hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) through departmental rulemaking. The department has not issued the proposed rule yet and removing requirements for other vaccines, like polio, would require action from the state legislature.

The Immune Deficiency Foundation is carefully tracking these state developments and working with local advocates and coalitions to push back. In February, members of the PI community in South Carolina urged their legislators to vote against H. 4262 and S. 741. The organization is also running digital ad campaigns in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana encouraging state residents to tell legislators that they support strong vaccine policy.

“It is critical that legislators understand the importance of vaccines for our immunocompromised community,” Prentice explained. “We need your voices. Look out for our Action Alerts or reach out to groups in your state, like familiesforvaccines.org, that support strong vaccine policy.”