AdvaMed and Georgia Bio Send Letter to Natural Resources & Environment Committee Related to Ethylene Oxide
On behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) and Georgia Bio, we wrote to the Natural Resources & Environment Committee to share our comments on Senate Bill 426, being considered by the legislature, related to ethylene oxide. As you may know, billions of medical devices each year in the U.S. are sterilized using ethylene oxide. The direct impact of severe restriction on the ability to sterilize medical devices could compromise the medical device industry’s ability to provide a consistent, stable, and safe supply of medical supplies to patients nationwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As the threat of antimicrobial resistance to disease-causing, mutating microbes continues to rise in the U.S. and around the globe, now more than ever, we need to ensure the medical and surgical equipment health care providers use is sterile. Ethylene oxide allows sterile surgeries to happen.
Please click here to view the full letter to the committee.
In recent comments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), PULSE highlighted critical reforms to ensure that U.S. competition policies support – and do not impede – the pro-competitive mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other collaborations that drive American life sciences innovation. PULSE submitted comments in response to two joint DOJ/FTC Requests related to Guidance on Collaborations Among Competitors and Improvements to the Premerger Notification and Report Form (HSR Form). Read below for key takeaways from PULSE’s comment letters: 1. Life Sciences Innovation Depends on Collaboration “At its core, life sciences innovation is overwhelmingly collaborative. The cutting-edge medicines and cures developed by America’s life sciences industry are rarely the result of just one sole actor. Instead, they more often emerge from a calibrated sequence of partnerships… that collectively usher a biomedical breakthrough from early-stage discovery to FDA approval and delivery to patients.” – PULSE, Comments on Guidance on Collaborations Among Competitors 2. Policies that Ignore the Fundamental Role of Life Sciences M&A Risk Chilling Innovation for Patients “Against the significant challenges and pressures inherent to life sciences innovation, such policies that needlessly delay pro-competitive transactions have significant ripple effects: eroded investment incentives, disruptions in the path to launch and, ultimately, slowed or stalled development of new treatments and cures for patients.” – PULSE, Comments on Improvements to the HSR Form 3. Clear, Predictable Standards Can Support Competition and Innovation in America’s Life Sciences Ecosystem “Preserving clear and workable pathways for collaboration is therefore essential to sustain the broader ecosystem that delivers innovation and sustains America’s status as the world leader in life sciences innovation.” – PULSE, Comments on Guidance on Collaborations Among Competitors Leading business and industry organizations echoed and reinforced these priorities. Their comments highlight the unique market dynamics of life sciences innovation and the importance of collaboration and M&A – particularly with respect to early-stage R&D. “Because drug development typically takes over a decade, and the vast majority of drugs in development never make it to market, the antitrust risks associated with R&D collaborations in this space may be less than with other R&D collaborations.” – ABA Antitrust Law Section, Comments on Guidance on Collaborations Among Competitors “In the biopharmaceutical sector, for instance, R&D ventures in the pre-clinical or Phase I stages should be presumed lawful. At these early stages, about 90% of drugs never make it to market, so these collaborations are far too distant from commercialization to pose a meaningful threat to competition.” – U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Comments on Guidance for Collaborations Among Competitors “Healthy M&A activity also aids company formation and capital raising earlier in a business’s life cycle, as entrepreneurs and early-stage investors often depend on M&A for an exit opportunity. Conversely, discouraging business combinations by imposing burdensome one-size-fits-all standards on all transactions, like those imposed by the 2024 amendments, would disincentivize early-stage innovation and slow down economic growth.” – National Association of Manufacturers, Comments on Improvements to the HSR Form The bottom line: A balanced approach to antitrust enforcement policy should support life sciences M&A and other collaborations, ensuring new medicines continue to reach patients, while preserving a diverse and collaborative ecosystem. PULSE urges the agencies to adopt clear, workable and predictable standards that companies can apply with confidence. That includes preserving enforcement safety zones for low-risk, pro-competitive collaborations, as well as ensuring the HSR Form facilitates a timely, focused and fit-for-purpose screening process for life sciences M&A deals. Click below to read PULSE’s full comments: PULSE Comments on Guidelines on Collaborations Among Competitors PULSE Comments on Improvements to the HSR Form Source: PULSE Urges FTC, DOJ to Support Pro-Competitive Life Sciences Collaborations and M&A - Partnership for the U.S. Life Science Ecosystem (PULSE)
June 5, 2026 - Georgia Life Sciences is pleased to announce the promotion of Stacey Bowlin to Executive Vice President . Since joining Georgia Life Sciences in 2024, Stacey has played a central role in advancing the organization’s strategic visibility, industry partnerships, membership growth, and statewide engagement. Her leadership has helped strengthen Georgia Life Sciences’ position as a leading voice for Georgia’s biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and digital health sectors. “Stacey has made an extraordinary impact on Georgia Life Sciences in a very short period of time,” said Maria Thacker Goethe, President & CEO of Georgia Life Sciences . “She successfully led our transformation from Georgia Bio to Georgia Life Sciences, helping modernize our brand and better reflect the full breadth of Georgia’s life sciences industry. She has also strengthened our member recruitment and retention strategy, deepened engagement across the ecosystem, and brought a level of operational discipline that has helped position the organization for continued growth. I am thrilled to recognize Stacey’s leadership and contributions with this well-deserved promotion to Executive Vice President.” In her expanded role, Stacey will continue to lead key areas of organizational strategy, operational execution, member engagement, and long-term growth. She will work closely with the CEO to support financial and organizational performance, oversee key initiatives, and help translate Georgia Life Sciences’ long-term vision into actionable strategies that strengthen the state’s life sciences ecosystem. With more than two decades of experience in strategic engagement, marketing, operations, and industry development, Stacey brings a collaborative, mission-driven approach to leadership that aligns closely with Georgia Life Sciences’ vision for the future.
June 4, 2026 - Governor Brian Kemp has issued a formal proclamation convening the Georgia General Assembly in a special session, signaling the need for legislative action outside the regular session calendar. Under the Georgia Constitution, the Governor is empowered to call a special session and define the scope of issues lawmakers may consider. In this instance, the proclamation outlines the specific subject matter to be addressed, effectively limiting legislative activity to those enumerated items. The proclamation underscores the urgency and importance the administration places on the identified issues, which may include time-sensitive fiscal matters, policy priorities, or emergent statewide concerns that cannot reasonably wait until the next regular session. By setting the agenda, the Governor not only accelerates legislative consideration but also shapes the policy framework within which the General Assembly must operate. From a practical standpoint, the special session compresses the legislative timeline, requiring stakeholders to quickly mobilize, engage decision-makers, and adapt strategies in a fast-moving environment. For clients and partners, this means heightened attention to committee activity, leadership negotiations, and potential amendments, as outcomes are often determined on an expedited basis. Topspin Strategies will continue to monitor developments closely, provide real-time updates, and engage with key policymakers to ensure our clients’ priorities are effectively represented throughout the duration of the special session. Details About the Code Sections Being Discussed: Code Section 21-2-379.23 This law applies to Georgia’s electronic ballot marking devices. Key requirements: Ballots must include standard info like: “OFFICIAL BALLOT” Election date Candidates, offices, and questions Ballots must be printed on secure paper with features like a watermark. The text on the paper ballot is the official vote The human-readable text (what you can read on the ballot) = the legally binding vote This applies to: Vote tabulation Recounts Audits What S.B. 189 changed The 2024 law (Act 697 / S.B. 189) made a major shift: It prohibits relying on QR codes or machine-readable codes to count votes Instead, only the printed text must be counted The key changes to this section are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026 This code section is at the center of current election debates because: Georgia’s existing voting system relies on QR codes for tabulation The law forces a transition to text-based counting State and local officials have warned this creates: Logistical challenges Potential funding gaps Uncertainty before elections Code Section 48-8-109.52 This section (added by S.B. 33) deals with a specific type of local sales tax authority. From the bill text, it ties to: Local governments that levy certain property taxes (ad valorem taxes) And allows or governs how they can adopt an additional local sales tax via local legislation It creates a framework for certain local governments to pass a new or modified local sales tax, but they must do it through a local Act. If a county/city wants to use this new tax authority The legislature must pass a local bill (local Act) following the rules in that code section S.B. 33 (Act 461, 2026) This is the law that: Created or updated this tax mechanism Set the rules + process for how locals can implement it
