Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Patient Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand right‑to‑try protections to chronic conditions draws fierce debate over patient access and guardrails
Summary
HB 1735 would extend New Hampshire's right‑to‑try‑style protections to people with chronic, severely debilitating conditions. Advocates say it provides access for patients and preventive uses (e.g., genetic correction); medical groups and some legislators warned it removes key safeguards and informed‑consent language, and could expose patients to exploitation.
The committee considered HB 1735, which would broaden protections established under RSA 126‑Z (right‑to‑try) from those with life‑threatening illnesses to people with chronic and severely debilitating conditions.
Sponsor Representative Brian Cole argued the change would allow New Hampshire to provide therapeutic options for patients who are not currently eligible under the life‑threatening standard, and would increase the state's attractiveness to biotech firms. He described economic opportunities and examples from firms already operating locally.
Critics, including Representative Lucy Weber and the New Hampshire Medical Society, said HB 1735 removes many of the guardrails added when right‑to‑try protections were first adopted for terminal patients. They pointed to deletions and redrafts that, in their view, eliminate safeguards such as explicit informed consent language, requirements to have tried or be ineligible for FDA‑approved therapies, and licensing board accountability. Medical society representatives cautioned the bill could give patients false hope and enable charging patients for unproven treatments without robust outcomes reporting.
Rare‑disease advocates and technology proponents described use cases that may not be terminal but critical — for example, gene‑correction before birth or personalized interventions that are preventive rather than rescue‑focused. Proponents urged including clear informed‑consent language and stronger outcome reporting in amendments.
Committee discussion focused on restoring explicit informed‑consent language, clarifying definitions (the bill's cross‑references were flagged as confusing), and confirming which authorities would remain responsible for oversight. No final action was taken; members signaled interest in redrafting certain sections to preserve patient protections while allowing access where appropriate.
