Representative Mazer champions New Hampshire bill for right to try emergency treatments

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee convened on April 23, 2025, to discuss House Bill 701, which aims to enhance the rights of patients with life-threatening illnesses to access experimental treatments. Representative Lisa Mazer, the bill's sponsor, emphasized New Hampshire's potential to become a leader in clinical trials and innovative healthcare solutions, particularly in light of advancements in gene therapy.

Mazer outlined five key provisions that differentiate HB 701 from existing laws. First, the bill proposes stronger limitations on civil liability for healthcare providers administering experimental treatments, addressing concerns that current liability threats deter providers from offering such options. Second, it introduces remote prescreening for treatment eligibility, allowing patients to consult with providers without the need for extensive travel, which is often burdensome for those in critical health conditions.

The bill also includes provisions for remote signing of consent forms, facilitating easier access to treatments. Additionally, it aims to foster an environment conducive to clinical trials and innovative drug development within the state. A significant aspect of the legislation is the right for patients and providers to seek injunctive relief against regulatory actions that may obstruct access to treatments.

Several representatives and advocates voiced their support during the meeting, highlighting the importance of patient autonomy and the need for hope in dire medical situations. They argued that the bill would empower patients to make informed decisions about their healthcare and potentially extend their lives through access to experimental therapies.

However, opposition was also present, with concerns raised about the implications of waiving civil liability and the potential for the bill to conflict with federal regulations. Critics argued that the existing legal framework already provides adequate protections and that the proposed changes could lead to unintended consequences, including the loss of essential healthcare benefits for patients who pursue experimental treatments.

The committee engaged in extensive discussions regarding the nuances of civil liability, the definition of life-threatening diseases, and the ethical considerations surrounding patient care. As the hearing concluded, the committee members were tasked with reviewing the testimonies and deliberating on the bill's implications for New Hampshire's healthcare landscape.

The outcome of this legislation could position New Hampshire as a pioneering state in the realm of experimental treatments, potentially attracting innovation and improving patient outcomes for those facing terminal illnesses. Further discussions and amendments are expected as the committee continues to evaluate the bill's provisions and their broader impact on healthcare in the state.