Lancaster council hears proposal to let people 70+ access investigational therapies

Lancaster City Council members heard the introduction of an ordinance to add chapter 8.8 to the Lancaster Municipal Code that would allow qualified individuals age 70 or older to access investigational therapies that have completed phase 1 clinical trials. The staff presentation said the proposal is meant to mirror elements of California Health and Safety Code section 111548 and would restrict access to licensed medical facilities within the city.

The staff presenter said the ordinance would change a defined term from “eligible individual” to “qualified individual” throughout chapter 8.8 and added a subsection creating a rebuttable presumption that anyone over age 70 has a life‑threatening condition “in which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will occur within a matter of months.” The presenter invited questions from the council.

A council member who spoke at length described the proposal as potentially drawing biotech companies and medical practices to Lancaster, saying city adoption could generate data and local economic activity if companies use Lancaster as a location to treat patients after phase 1 trials. The same speaker noted the clinical purpose of phase 1 trials and acknowledged unknown long‑term safety profiles for investigational therapies.

Another council member asked whether the city had projected how clinics, researchers or medical professionals might respond and what community impacts to expect; the speaker who advocated for the ordinance replied that some drugs in or just after phase 1—he cited sepsis and other urgent needs as examples—could attract interest and create a gradual buildup of companies and jobs, and that sales tax from point‑of‑sale activity could be significant.

Council discussion included clarification on terminology to be used in the code (qualified individual/patient) and procedural questions about timing. The ordinance was presented as an introduction; the presenter said, if approved for adoption at a future meeting, it would become effective 30 days after adoption unless enacted as an urgency ordinance. No final adoption vote on the ordinance appeared in the record at this meeting.

The staff presenter said they were available to answer additional questions and indicated technical edits were being made to definitions in the draft code language. The council did not take a final vote on chapter 8.8 during the portion of the meeting recorded here; the item will return for formal action at a subsequent meeting.