SHB 2402
In CommitteeHouse
Phthalates/medical equipment
Concerning phthalates in medical equipment used for intravenous purposes.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans DEHP—a toxic plasticizer linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and hormone disruption—in most intravenous (IV) bags and tubing sold or used in Washington, with phased implementation dates. It also prevents replacing DEHP with other similar chemicals and carves out narrow exemptions for blood-related equipment.
- Bans the manufacture, sale, or distribution in Washington of intravenous (IV) solution containers with intentionally added DEHP or unintentionally added DEHP at or above 0.1% by weight, starting January 1, 2028.
- Extends the same DEHP ban to intravenous tubing, starting January 1, 2035.
- Prohibits replacing DEHP with other ortho-phthalates (a group of chemicals including DBP, BBP, DINP, etc.) in revised or new products.
- Exempts human blood collection and storage bags and apheresis/cell therapy kits and bags (including their tubing) from the ban.
- Adds a new chapter to Title 70A RCW (the Washington State Toxic-Free Kids Act) to regulate DEHP in medical equipment.
Who is affected
- Healthcare providers and facilities — Hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare facilities that use IV equipment will need to switch to DEHP-free alternatives for IV bags and tubing, potentially affecting procurement and training processes.
- Medical device manufacturers — Medical device manufacturers must reformulate IV bags and tubing to remove DEHP and avoid using other ortho-phthalates as replacements, which may require new materials and testing.
- Patients receiving intravenous therapy — Patients receiving IV therapy—especially infants, pregnant individuals, and those with chronic conditions—may benefit from reduced exposure to a chemical linked to hormonal and developmental harm.
- State environmental and health agencies — The Washington State Department of Ecology gains new authority to enforce restrictions on DEHP in medical equipment under a new chapter of the Toxic-Free Kids Act.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (4)
Patients—especially infants, pregnant individuals, and those with chronic conditions or compromised immune systems—will experience reduced exposure to a known endocrine disruptor and probable carcinogen, lowering risks of developmental harm, reproductive issues, and long-term chronic disease. This is a direct public health protection with strong scientific backing.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(5), Sec. 1(6), Sec. 1(7), Sec. 1(8)By banning replacement with *any* ortho-phthalate (not just DEHP), the bill prevents chemical swapping—a common industry tactic that undermines health goals—ensuring the reduction in toxic exposure is meaningful and not superficial. This strengthens long-term public health outcomes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)Integrating DEHP restrictions into the Toxic-Free Kids Act strengthens regulatory coherence and enables the Department of Ecology to enforce and monitor compliance, potentially creating spillover benefits for other medical devices or children’s products in future legislation.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4 (new chapter in Title 70A RCW)Reducing DEHP exposure may improve cancer treatment efficacy—particularly for breast cancer patients—by mitigating DEHP-induced multidrug resistance, though this is a secondary benefit and less certain than direct endocrine protection.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(11), Sec. 1(10)
Potential Concerns (4)
Healthcare providers and facilities will face increased procurement and operational costs as they transition to DEHP-free IV bags and tubing, with the earliest impact beginning in 2028 and continuing through 2035 for tubing. While some cost increases may be passed to insurers or patients, facilities—especially small clinics and rural hospitals—will absorb upfront costs for retraining, inventory management, and supplier contracts.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3(2)Medical device manufacturers—particularly smaller firms without R&D capacity—may face compliance burdens in reformulating products to avoid DEHP *and* all ortho-phthalates, potentially limiting innovation or increasing prices. However, larger firms are likely already transitioning globally due to FDA and EU pressure, diluting the relative impact in Washington.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)The exemption for blood collection and storage bags (including apheresis/cell therapy kits) means high-risk patients receiving blood transfusions or cell therapies may still be exposed to DEHP, undermining the bill’s public health goal and creating inconsistency in protection across medical settings.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(a), Sec. 3(4)(b)Local governments and publicly operated health systems (e.g., county health departments, community health centers) may face budgetary strain from increased medical supply costs, potentially diverting funds from preventive or outreach services—though the bill does not specify cost estimates, prior similar regulations (e.g., lead or BPA bans) showed modest cost pass-throughs.
Local GovernmentRef: Fiscal Impact Summary (not in bill text)
Who Is Most Affected
Infants in NICUs and patients receiving long-term IV therapy (e.g., chemotherapy, dialysis) benefit most—reduced DEHP exposure lowers risks of developmental harm and hormonal disruption. This is a clear positive impact, especially for vulnerable populations.
Hospitals and large health systems will face procurement and training costs, but are best positioned to absorb them through bulk purchasing and supply chain negotiations. Small clinics and rural facilities may struggle more with cash flow and logistics, making the impact mixed but net negative for smaller providers.
Large medical device manufacturers (e.g., BD, B. Braun, Fresenius) are already adapting globally and may benefit from first-mover advantage in safer product lines. Smaller U.S. or domestic manufacturers face higher relative compliance costs, making the impact mixed but skewed positive for large firms.
The Department of Ecology gains new authority and enforcement capacity, strengthening its ability to regulate toxic chemicals in medical devices—this is a positive capacity-building effect for the agency.
Workers in medical device manufacturing and healthcare settings benefit from reduced occupational exposure to DEHP, which is linked to reproductive harm and cancer—this is a positive secondary effect, though not the bill’s primary focus.