317 



tions, professional societies, and other civic groups to assure the opportunity of 

 vaccination to children in priority groups. Additional plans for financing the 

 costs of vaccination programs are currently in preparation in other States and 

 communities. 



We believe, however, that Federal participation in such financing is desirable 

 in order to provide additional assurance that the opportunity for vaccination will 

 be afforded to all children in all parts of the country. We also believe that Fed- 

 eral sharing in the costs of vaccination will serve to accelerate State and com- 

 munity efforts toward this end, and will help offset variations in State and 

 local financial resources." 



Intensive questionino; of DHEW witnesses continued in the Senate 

 committee and in additional hearings in the House Committee on In- 

 terstate and Foreign Commerce. Many democratic Members of Con- 

 gress objected to the vohmtarism and ''means test" provision implied 

 in the administration bill and urged that the Federal Government 

 pro\'ide vaccine to all children regardless of income. Mrs. Hobby re- 

 jected tills as ""^^ * * socialized medicine by the backdoor * "^ *." -° 



Typical of opposition to this view was the comment by Representa- 

 tive Bennett : 



* * * Do you not think it would be better to have the Federal Government 

 take control of this program, not only as to the allocations of the vaccine, but in 

 the manner of providing rules and regulations as to the priority of its use and 

 providing all of the funds that are necessary to carry that out? 



* * * My reason for suggesting that is this : This is not a program of socialized 

 medicine. It is not a program that is of special concern to any locality or State. 

 It is a problem of great national concern. To meet it, why would it not be better 

 to have a program of complete Federal control, of complete Fedei-al financing, 

 of this program, until every child from birth through high school age has been 

 inoculated?^ 



Some ^Members of Congress criticized DHFW's distribution and 

 licensing procedures. Representative Buchanan called the distribution 

 program "a very sorry mess" and said that the lack of a plan had 

 caused confusion, fear, and distress among the parents of our country.^- 



Other ^lembers asked how DHEW might increase the supply of 

 vaccine and improve distribution. They foresaw obstacles in such cir- 

 cumstances as the different and inequitable distribution in the States 

 and the fact that State legislatures, for the most part, were no longer 

 in session. An asserted shortage of vaccine was also foreseen. Some 

 ]\Iembers, feeling that PHS had a precedent in controlling the alloca- 

 tion of important preventive biologies, inquired into the liistory of 

 PHS control of diptheria, smallpox and tetanus vaccine. Dr. Scheele 

 said the PHS had no precedents in this area.-^ Congressional attention 

 was also directed to a comparison of United States and Canadian 

 manufacturing and distribution programs. (Canada manufactured the 

 vaccine in a central-government subsidized laboratory and distributed 

 it through a Province-based operation with national direction.) On 

 this aspect, Representative Multer's comment to Dr. Scheele was that : 



The Canadians were able the day they released the vaccine, as we did 

 on April 12, at the same time to put into effect governmental regulations as to 

 the distribution of the product. They made sure that they wouldn't have to wait 

 for the head of the Government to say that "if and when * * * they hear that 



" Ibid., p, 14, 



"" Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Poliomyelitis vaccine hearings, 

 Pt. 1. June 14 and 15, 1955. op, cit„ p, 46, 



^ House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Poliomyelitis vaccine hearings, 

 Pt. 1 (May 25 and 27, 1955), op, eit„ p. 42. 



^ House, Committee on Banking and Currency, Salk vaccine hearings, op cit„ pp, 57-8, 



23 Ibid,, pt, 1, p. 21. 



