House committee approves bill shielding prescribers, pharmacists who use FDA‑approved drugs off label

House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee on Monday voted to advance House Bill 164, a measure that would protect prescribers and pharmacists who prescribe or dispense U.S. Food and Drug Administration‑approved drugs for off‑label uses from certain disciplinary actions.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Gary Brown, said the measure “codifies what is going on now” by authorizing prescribers and pharmacists to use FDA‑approved drugs for off‑label indications so long as they act within their scope of practice. The committee passed the bill, as amended with a severability clause, by a committee roll call the clerk summarized as 7 yes, 1 no and 1 excused.

Supporters said the bill protects clinicians and patient choice. Jason Caswell, a family physician who testified in favor, described cases during the COVID‑19 pandemic when pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions and doctors faced employment consequences for prescribing off‑label treatments. “If you, as a prescriber, explain the options, risks, benefits, alternatives, and then a patient chooses that therapy … who are you or anyone to stand in the way of that?” Caswell told the committee.

The bill text permits prescribers to lawfully prescribe FDA‑approved prescription drugs for off‑label indications and authorizes pharmacists to dispense such drugs pursuant to a valid prescription order. It also provides that prescribers and pharmacists shall not face adverse action from health‑related licensing boards or employers “solely on the basis” of prescribing or dispensing an FDA‑approved drug for an off‑label indication, and states that related recommendations or opinions “shall not be considered unprofessional conduct.”

Sponsor’s carve‑outs and rulemaking

Representative Brown described several carve‑outs included in the bill. The bill excludes substances listed as Schedule I or Schedule II under federal law or the Wyoming Controlled Substance Act of 1971. It also excludes prescriptions “intended to transition a minor” (as described in the bill text) and prescriptions “intended to induce an abortion,” language the sponsor said mirrors separate laws or pending litigation the Legislature has addressed in prior sessions. The bill directs the Board of Medicine, Board of Nursing, Board of Pharmacy and other licensing boards to adopt rules necessary to implement the statute.

Board of Medicine counsel and others who advised the committee characterized the proposal largely as codifying longstanding practice. Kevin Bonham, executive director of the state Board of Medicine, told the committee the board has not taken licensure action against physicians for off‑label prescribing during his tenure, including during COVID, and that the board continues to judge practice by standard‑of‑care, informed consent and patient safety principles. Bonham also flagged a provision (described in testimony as starting on page 5, subsection B) that he said was unclear in its current wording and could have unintended consequences.

Public testimony and concerns

Physicians and other witnesses largely supporting the bill described employment or pharmacy refusals during the pandemic as the rationale for statutory protections. Retired physician assistant Patrick Lucas and OB‑GYN Dr. Willard M. Woods described prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to patients and said they faced obstacles from employers or pharmacies. Tony Decklever of the Wyoming Nurses Association cautioned that employers rely on internal policies and that administrators have authority to enforce facility policy; he said employers and facilities need mechanisms to respond when staff violate internal policies.

Opponents included an on‑line witness from Wyoming United for Freedom who called the bill’s abortion‑related exclusion a political statement and urged opposition. The Board of Medicine advised lawmakers about the possibility of unintended legal consequences and the need for clearer drafting.

Amendment and action

The committee adopted a severability amendment offered by Chairman Rodriguez Williams; the amendment states that if any provision is found invalid by a court the remaining provisions remain in effect. Representative Guggenmoss moved the bill forward; Representative McCann seconded. The committee roll call on the amended bill was reported as 7 yes, 1 no and 1 excused and the bill was advanced to the House floor. The committee also directed the relevant licensing boards to promulgate implementing rules.

Why it matters

If enacted, HB 164 would change the statutory risk environment for prescribers and pharmacists in Wyoming by creating an express immunity from professional discipline for off‑label prescribing and dispensing of FDA‑approved drugs, subject to the bill’s exceptions and the scope‑of‑practice limits licensing boards may define by rule. The change would most directly affect primary‑care clinicians, specialty prescribers, pharmacists and patients who seek off‑label drug therapies.

Committee discussion and next steps

Committee members questioned the bill sponsor on why the measure was needed now, how it interacts with existing employer policies and whether carve‑outs could expose the statute to legal challenges tied to ongoing litigation over abortion and gender‑affirming care. The committee voted to advance the amended bill; sponsor Representative Brown will carry it to the House floor. The licensing boards named in the bill will be responsible for rulemaking to implement the law if it becomes statute.