Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substance Use Research topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears emotional testimony on multistate ibogaine research plan; bill advances
Summary
Witnesses and members debated the Hope Treatment Act (HB2075), which would join states in a public-private consortium to fund clinical trials of ibogaine for opioid use disorder, PTSD and TBI; testimony highlighted personal recoveries, safety protocols, IP and funding questions.
The House Health Committee heard more than an hour of testimony and questions on House Bill 2,075, a measure to join a multistate consortium funding research and trials of ibogaine-based treatments for opioid use disorder, PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Chairman Terry described the goal as expediting clinical trials and noted the proposal would follow FDA investigational new drug procedures with strong safety standards.
Multiple witnesses described personal experiences and research plans. Sean Ryan (speaker 24), a veteran, told the committee he traveled to Mexico for a single supervised ibogaine treatment and said it transformed his life: "I did that treatment 1 time. ... I have not had any booze. I've not had any cocaine. I've not had any Adderall... in over 3 years," he said, describing intensive monitoring, EKG supervision and reintegration therapy. Research director Jeffrey Lawrence (speaker 25) explained the proposed consortium model: Texas has seeded $50 million, participating states would contribute matched funds, and a private drug developer would submit the IND to the FDA and hold technical IP while member states could receive profit-sharing if commercialization occurs.
Members questioned costs, access and state liability. Representative Clemens and others asked whether veterans would be able to afford private treatment; sponsors and witnesses said trials would run in-state so local patients could participate and that multi-state appropriations and opioid settlement dollars could be used. Representative Hill emphasized the committee was creating a public-private structure that could commercialize derivatives and asked who would own resulting IP; Lawrence said private partners would hold the IND/technical IP while states would negotiate profit-sharing terms.
After discussion and amendment, the committee recorded a vote advancing the bill; the transcript shows the measure moving to finance/ways and means. The hearing combined personal testimony, scientific references to preliminary studies, and extended questioning about commercialization, oversight and patient access.
