Minn. committee approves bill to create one-page non-opioid directive for patients

The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on March 20 adopted an amendment and voted to re-refer House File 1379, a bill that would create a one-page “non-opioid directive” a patient can place in their medical record to state a preference not to be prescribed or administered opioids except when medically necessary.

Sponsor Representative Baker said the directive is “just a 1 page legal document that a patient can fill out with their provider to be entered into their medical record stating their wishes not to be prescribed or administered an opioid unless medically necessary.” Baker and others framed the measure as a tool to promote patient-provider conversations and potentially reduce unnecessary opioid exposure that can lead to dependence.

Supporters told the committee the Minnesota Medical Association and the Department of Health had been consulted and did not object to the language. Baker said the form “can be revoked by the patient at any time,” and that providers would not be liable in situations where they cannot feasibly access a patient’s record or when an emergency or a clinician’s professional judgment makes opioid treatment necessary.

Committee discussion focused heavily on the bill’s immunity language. Nonpartisan staff member Hopkins said the bill’s immunity phrase “does mirror the immunity section in section 145 C 0.11, which is existing law.” Members asked whether the bill would change the legal standard for providers who act based on the one-page form versus an ordinary entry in a medical chart. Hopkins responded that the immunity provision specifically references having the non-opioid directive and that, as written, “the immunities provision specifically references having that non opioid directive.”

Representative Liebling and other members said the bill’s intent was not to expand or reduce existing protections, only to provide an additional, standardized tool for patients to communicate their preferences. As Baker put it: “The intent is not to change anything. It just… provides another step in a way to get to the same outcome.”

The committee first adopted the A2 amendment, which the sponsor described as clarifying which emergency situations apply in and outside of hospital settings and tightening the language on immunity for providers who administer an opioid in limited emergency circumstances when a patient has a non-opioid directive. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The committee then voted to recommend that House File 1379, as amended, be re-referred to the Committee on Health Finance and Policy.

No public testifiers were recorded for this item.

The measure will move next to Health Finance and Policy, where authors said they will continue to work with members on the immunity language.