Relative to the terminal patients' right to try act.
If enacted, HB701 will amend existing laws to provide clearer pathways for terminal patients to obtain exposure to drugs, biologics, and devices not yet broadly approved. It establishes that healthcare providers and facilities can conduct telehealth prescreenings regardless of the patient's location, thereby potentially expediting treatment delivery. Moreover, the bill grants these entities legal immunity from lawsuits tied to the treatment as long as they comply with the new regulations set forth in this act, which could significantly change how healthcare is delivered to patients with critical medical needs.
House Bill 701 aims to enhance a patient's right to access certain emergency healthcare treatment options, particularly for those diagnosed with life-threatening diseases. The bill introduces definitions of 'telehealth prescreening' and 'remote signing,' allowing for the remote discussion and signing of consent forms for participation in clinical trials or receiving treatments despite potential non-compliance with existing regulatory frameworks. The intent behind the legislation is to attract more clinical trials to New Hampshire and ensure that patients are not denied access to potentially life-saving medical innovations.
The sentiment around HB701 is largely supportive among healthcare professionals and organizations advocating for patient rights, as it addresses the urgent needs of patients facing terminal illnesses. However, concerns were raised by some who worry that the bill could undermine existing regulatory protections and potentially lead to unsafe medical practices by expanding access to unproven treatments. The division centers around the need to balance patient access to emergency treatments with adequate safety measures inherent in regulatory oversight.
Notable points of contention include the implications of expanding healthcare providers' legal immunity while treating patients under remote and expedited conditions. Critics argue this could dilute the accountability of providers and lead to instances where patients suffer adverse effects from experimental treatments without sufficient recourse against providers. Additionally, questions about the adequacy of telehealth prescreening protocols and how informed consent will be verified in a remote context were also highlighted as potential areas for concern.