Establishes "New Jersey Right to Try-Plus Act" permitting terminally ill patients access to certain investigational and off-label treatments.
The bill stipulates that, to gain access to these investigational treatments, patients must consult with a New Jersey-licensed physician, review all other FDA-approved treatment options, and provide written consent. While the legislation does not obligate pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide investigational treatments, it permits them to do so either at no charge or by charging the patient for the costs incurred. This flexibility aims to increase the availability of potential life-saving treatments while also clarifying that health insurers are not compelled to cover these investigational or off-label drugs, but may choose to do so voluntarily.
Assembly Bill A3487, known as the 'New Jersey Right to Try-Plus Act', empowers patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses to seek investigational drugs, biological products, and devices that are not yet FDA-approved. The Act acknowledges the desperate circumstances faced by patients with a life expectancy of less than 12 months, allowing them to explore unconventional treatments that may offer hope when traditional options have failed. The bill promotes the principle of self-determination in medical care, ensuring patients can make informed choices in consultation with their doctors, without the fear of legal repercussions.
Overall, A3487 represents a significant shift in New Jersey's healthcare policy, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of the need for patients facing terminal illnesses to access experimental treatments. By facilitating access while also establishing a framework of consent and oversight, the bill seeks to balance patient rights with the complexities of medical ethics and drug safety.
Despite its intention to expand patient access to vital treatments, challenges may arise regarding the implementation of the bill, particularly concerning the responsibility of hospitals and healthcare providers. Those assisting patients in obtaining these treatments are shielded from legal liabilities except in cases of gross negligence, which raises concerns about the potential for abuse or unregulated use of investigational drugs. Moreover, the bill's emphasis on patient autonomy may conflict with traditional medical practices and regulatory caution, which could ignite debates about safety and efficacy.