Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Wyoming committee hears debate on bill to protect off‑label prescribing
Loading...
Summary
Sponsors told the Labor, Health & Social Services Committee House Bill 164 would codify prescribers' and pharmacists' ability to use FDA‑approved drugs for off‑label indications and shield them from disciplinary action; testimony split between patient advocates and health‑system and pharmacy representatives. No vote was taken.
The Labor, Health & Social Services Committee considered House Bill 164, a measure that would permit prescribers to lawfully prescribe U.S. Food and Drug Administration‑approved drugs for off‑label indications and authorize pharmacists to dispense those drugs under a valid prescription, committee members were told.
Representative Gary Brown, sponsor for House District 41, and former Representative Sarah Penn, who originally carried the measure, told the committee the bill updates statute to define prescribers and pharmacists, list exceptions and provide disciplinary protections for clinicians who prescribe or dispense off‑label when acting within their scope of practice.
Supporters said the change would protect clinical judgment, improve patient access and remove fear of professional retaliation that they say surfaced during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Opponents — including representatives of hospitals, pharmacies and a reproductive‑rights group — said the bill is unnecessary, could create enforcement headaches and might limit employers’ ability to manage formularies or discipline staff.
The bill text presented to the committee defines prescribers to include physicians, physician assistants, dentists, optometrists and advanced practice registered nurses and authorizes pharmacists to dispense prescribed drugs for off‑label indications “within their scope of practice pursuant to a valid prescription order.” It exempts controlled substances listed in schedule 1 and schedule 2 under federal law or the Wyoming Controlled Substance Act of 1971 from the off‑label protections. It also bars protection for prescriptions intended to induce an abortion and for treatments intended to transition minors, citing Senate File 109 (2023) and recent litigation on chemical abortion.
Sectional language would limit disciplinary action against clinicians “solely on the basis” that they prescribed or dispensed a drug off‑label, while preserving disciplinary action where conduct violates the standard of care, informed‑consent requirements or other professional duties. The bill directs the relevant licensing board — for example the State Board of Medicine — to adopt rules necessary to implement the act and sets an effective date of July 1 if enacted.
At the hearing, Sarah Penn said off‑label prescribing is common in modern practice and cited a committee figure: “20 to 30 percent of all medications that are currently prescribed are prescribed off label now.” Patient witnesses described long-term conditions for which they said off‑label use offered potential benefit. Patricia McCoy, a Laramie County resident, said HB 164 could “make a profound difference” for patients who have exhausted approved options.
Kevin Bonhamblest, executive director of the State Board of Medicine, told the committee the board has not historically taken license actions solely for off‑label prescribing and emphasized that regulatory action generally focuses on failure to meet the standard of care or lack of informed consent. “If you fail to meet the standard of care, if you don't get informed consent, things like that, that's going to be a whole different situation,” he said.
Representatives of hospitals and pharmacy groups raised concerns. Eric Boley of the Wyoming Hospital Association said hospital medical staff, pharmacy and therapeutics committees and credentialing processes protect patients and argued HB 164 could undercut those employer‑level safeguards. Melinda Carroll of the Wyoming Pharmacy Association said financial and supply‑chain pressures during the pandemic — and third‑party reimbursement and discount‑card problems — drove some pharmacies to stop filling certain prescriptions; she urged the committee not to advance the bill. Tammy Becklever of the Wyoming Nurses Association opposed language that would remove employer recourse, saying facility policy and employer discipline remain important patient‑safety tools.
Committee members asked technical questions about severability language and a drafting change on “loss of employment, hospital privileges, or credentials” that removed the word “employer” in a prior amendment. Senator Hutchings and others discussed whether to restore or otherwise clarify that line so that hospitals and employers retain tools to enforce facility policy. Representative Brown and multiple witnesses suggested the line should be clarified or reinstated; alternatives discussed included striking the line or adding back “employer.”
No formal motion or vote was recorded at the hearing. Committee leadership signaled the bill would be discussed further; the chairman urged sponsors and staff to clean up drafting issues about the license/employer language before the next consideration.
The bill drew repeated references to past pandemic experience, debates over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and the interplay between boards’ licensing authority and employers’ credentialing and employment actions. Supporters argued the bill restores clinicians’ ability to use clinical judgment; opponents cautioned it could weaken hospital safety controls and create new enforcement and liability complexities for pharmacists and employers.
