Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Research Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs allowing investigational ibogaine studies as doctors and agencies flag ethical and legal risks
Summary
Sponsors proposed a narrow amendment to permit investigational prescribing of ibogaine for clinical trials; DHHS and clinical leaders said properly overseen IRB processes already exist and cautioned that legislation could create misleading safety signals for vulnerable patients and that Schedule I status complicates access.
The committee held a hearing on HB 17‑72 FNA, a measure addressing investigational use of ibogaine, a Schedule I psychoactive compound derived from a Central African shrub that proponents say may aid veterans and others with PTSD, TBI and substance use disorders.
Sponsor Representative Mike Moffett framed ibogaine as a promising treatment for veterans and noted early studies showing symptom reductions in small cohorts. He and other supporters described a multi‑state consortium model and planned amendments to limit use to investigational contexts and to create an administrative fund ($1 placeholder appropriation) for future work.
DHHS staff said the department assisted in drafting a 'replace all' amendment to limit prescribing to investigational use only and to place the provision in physician practice statutes to avoid creating an unworkable new program or unfunded obligations. The department said its chief medical officer engaged clinicians familiar with IRB processes to shape language.
Clinical testimony (Dr. Mindy Asbury and the medical officers representing New Hampshire’s community behavioral health centers) urged caution. They said institutional review boards, federal rules and established research mechanisms already govern investigational studies and that legislation inserting state statutes into clinical trial governance could send an unintentional message that the state has 'approved' the medicine’s safety and effectiveness — potentially influencing vulnerable patient populations. They noted reported ibogaine‑related deaths in the literature and pharmacologic risks (cardiac arrhythmia) and recommended relying on established clinical trial pathways.
Committee members asked whether investigational studies can proceed now under current rules, and clinicians replied that properly organized IRB‑approved trials can proceed but Schedule I status and federal controlled‑substance rules complicate logistics unless statutory permission is provided. Some members said the sponsor’s proposed amendment (limiting use to investigational protocols) could be a pragmatic path forward to enable research without creating a new state program.
The committee closed the hearing and asked sponsors and the department to refine legislative language and technical details, including links to IRB and controlled‑substance processes, before any further action.
