Ohio hearing on HB 12 seeks to expand access to off‑label drugs while protecting pharmacist conscience rights

Representative Swearingen introduced House Bill 12, the "Jeff, David, Angie Right to Try Act," at a first hearing before the House Health Committee, saying the measure "ensures patients access to potentially life saving off label prescribed medications by their health care provider with their consent, while safeguarding the pharmacist's right to refuse dispensing any medication that conflicts with their religious or ethical beliefs."

Swearingen told the committee HB 12 would shield providers from penalties by state and local agencies for off‑label prescribing "absent gross negligence," while explicitly preserving civil malpractice liability if a patient were harmed. He said the bill was intended to restore the doctor‑patient relationship and allow clinicians flexibility in treatment choices, and noted several changes from last session's legislation, including the removal of emergency credentialing for outside physicians in hospitals. "We have removed the provision requiring an outpatient doctor to be allowed to apply for credentialing to eliminate resistance from the Ohio Hospital Association," the sponsor said.

The sponsor also described protections for pharmacists and facilities: pharmacists, hospitals and inpatient facilities may decline to dispense a drug because of religious or ethical objections, and the bill requires documentation of such objections in the patient's record to secure civil and administrative liability protection. The testimony stated the bill does not repeal or supersede existing law for drugs subject to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) or for categories the bill lists as exceptions, such as certain puberty‑blocking medications or abortifacients.

Committee members pressed sponsors on practical and safety concerns. Representative Brownlee asked what would happen if a hospital pharmacist judged an externally sourced medication unsafe; the sponsor replied that hospitals have internal approval processes and that patients could still leave "against medical advice" (AMA) regardless of the bill. Representative Deters asked whether HB 12 would require informed consent when a drug is used off‑label; the sponsor said yes and noted that, by one estimate cited in testimony, 20–60% of prescriptions in the state are written off‑label today and thus would require disclosure under the bill's consent provisions.

Several members raised safety and scope issues. Ranking Member Samani asked why the bill includes specific exceptions for certain medications if off‑label prescribing is already permitted; sponsors said some categories remain excluded because other state laws govern them (they cited the SAFE Act). Representative Simone and others pressed whether the bill limits pharmacists from objecting on clinical or scientific grounds; sponsors said pharmacists remain part of the care team, may refuse to fill prescriptions for life‑threatening contraindications or interactions, and can document conscientious objections, but the bill centers prescriber authority.

Sponsors said the bill originated as changes to last session's HB 73, which the testimony noted passed the House in June 2023 by a 75–16 vote, and that they intended additional stakeholder discussions with hospitals, the governor's office and others as the committee process proceeds. No committee vote was taken at the hearing; sponsors said they welcome follow‑up questions and further committee review.

The committee is expected to continue consideration of HB 12 in future meetings where members may seek technical amendments to clarify consent language, pharmacist authority on clinical grounds, and the scope of listed exceptions.