A bill for an act relating to the right to try Act.(Formerly SSB 3170.)
The bill significantly alters state laws governing patient access to investigational treatments. Under current law, only patients with terminal illnesses qualify for such access; however, the bill extends eligibility to those with life-threatening conditions. This change could potentially democratize access to cutting-edge therapies for a broader range of patients, thus fostering hope for treatment where conventional options have failed. It also aims to provide a legal framework that protects both patients and providers, ensuring that physicians will not face disciplinary actions for recommending investigational treatments that meet the outlined criteria.
Senate File 2323, known as the 'Right to Try Act', expands on the rights of patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating illnesses to access investigational drugs, biological products, or individualized treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA. This bill allows eligible patients who have exhausted alternative treatment options to request and obtain these investigational treatments based on the recommendations of their licensed physicians. The definitions have been updated to include 'individualized investigational treatment', which refers to therapies tailored to individual patients based on their genetic profiles, thus encompassing more advanced medical therapies like gene therapy and specific vaccines.
Notably, the bill has faced scrutiny regarding liability and the potential risks associated with investigational treatments. Critics argue that without sufficient regulatory oversight, patients may be exposed to untested therapies that could lead to adverse outcomes. Additionally, there are concerns about the financial implications, as the bill does not mandate that insurance companies cover the costs associated with these investigational treatments, which may leave patients and families responsible for substantial out-of-pocket expenses. Discussions around the balance between patient autonomy and safety regulations continue to fuel the debate surrounding its enactment.