Ohio Senate Passes Controversial Bill Allowing Patients to Demand Off-Label Drug Use in Hospitals
Table of Contents
COLUMBUS, Ohio – In a move that has sparked widespread debate, Senate Republicans in Ohio have approved a bill that empowers patients to compel hospitals to administer drugs for off-label use, even if the hospital’s medical staff objects. This legislation,passed on Wednesday,is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic,during which conservative advocates pushed for the use of unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
The bill,known as House Bill 73,was substantially amended before its passage in the Senate. Initially,it sought to prohibit hospitals from denying patients access to prescribed medications.However, the revised version now requires hospital pharmacists to dispense prescribed drugs for off-label use during public health emergencies, with exceptions for moral, ethical, religious, or scientifically-based objections. Additionally, if a hospital is unwilling to administer the drug, it must grant admitting privileges to credentialed physicians who are willing to do so.
The legislation has its roots in the COVID-19 crisis, where conservative groups and individuals argued that drugs like ivermectin could treat or prevent the virus, despite a lack of scientific evidence. One notable case involved a woman who, in 2021, unsuccessfully sued the University of Cincinnati Medical Center to force them to administer ivermectin to her husband, who was unvaccinated and later died from COVID-19. Several medical professionals, including the doctor who treated the man, testified against the bill, highlighting concerns about the potential risks of off-label drug use.
The revised bill now heads back to the House for approval, where lawmakers must reconcile the Senate’s amendments before it can be sent to the governor’s desk.If passed, the legislation would need to be signed into law before the end of the year, as all pending bills will expire with the new legislative session.
Opposition to the bill was strong, with Democrats and a few Republicans voting against it. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio,a Democrat from Lakewood,expressed deep concerns about the implications of the legislation.
“COVID will be with us a long time. Just the devastation, the loss of loved ones, peopel who are living with long COVID now.I mean, it doesn’t seem to stop,” Antonio said.“But of all the lessons that we took away, and the ways that we can improve upon our medical care system in the future, to have people self-prescribing in medical institutions, I do not believe that is the answer.”
Supporters of the bill include prominent anti-vaccination groups such as Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which has promoted ivermectin, and Cleveland Right to Life. These organizations argue that patients should have the right to access treatments thay believe are beneficial,regardless of FDA approval.
The Ohio State Medical Association, the state’s largest physician organization, has expressed strong opposition to the bill, warning that it could undermine the authority of medical professionals and compromise patient safety. The association argues that off-label drug use should be determined by trained medical experts, not by legal mandates.
As the bill moves forward, it is indeed expected to face intense scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle. Proponents argue that it empowers patients, while critics contend that it could led to dangerous and unregulated medical practices.The outcome of this legislative battle could have far-reaching implications for healthcare in Ohio and beyond.
For more updates on this developing story, stay tuned to World today News.
Ohio Bill on Off-Label prescribing Sparks Controversy and Concerns
A proposed bill in Ohio aimed at expanding off-label prescribing has drawn sharp criticism from medical professionals and advocacy groups, despite initial support from some organizations. The legislation, which has evolved significantly since its introduction, now faces widespread opposition over concerns that it could undermine patient safety and medical ethics.
Initially, the Ohio State Medical Association (OSMA) voiced support for the concept of off-label prescribing, but recent changes to the bill have prompted the group to reverse its stance. “We issued a statement of support for the concept of off-label prescribing early in the process,” said Monica Hueckel, a lobbyist with the OSMA. “The bill has morphed into something much different now, and we echo the concerns conveyed by the opponents.”
Similarly, the Ohio Hospital Association expressed “significant concerns” about the bill’s potential impact, though it acknowledged efforts by policymakers to refine the proposal. “While members have significant concerns about the effects of the bill, we praise the work of policy makers to narrow the proposal to make it more practical,” said John Palmer of the Ohio Hospital Association.
A Personal Story Highlights the Debate
One of the bill’s supporters, julie Smith, shared a deeply personal story during testimony before lawmakers. Smith recounted the tragic death of her husband, Jeffrey, who passed away at 51 after being hospitalized with COVID-19. Both Smith and her husband had declined the COVID-19 vaccine. After Jeffrey fell ill, Smith connected with a physician who had not practiced in a hospital for a decade. This doctor prescribed ivermectin, a medication typically used for parasites, which the hospital refused to administer. A judge ultimately sided with the hospital, upholding its decision not to provide the drug.
“Devastated, I was left to try and answer my 9-year-old when she asked me why the hospital took daddy’s medicine away and why they didn’t want to help him get better,” Smith said in written testimony to lawmakers.
Medical Professionals Raise Alarm
Three physicians,including Dr. Daniel Tanase, who treated Smith’s husband, testified against the bill. They warned of the risks posed by allowing potentially dangerous off-label prescriptions. While they did not directly name Smith’s case, their testimony appeared to reference it, along with a court ruling that temporarily forced them to administer ivermectin to a patient.
“During the COVID pandemic, our team was court-ordered to administer ivermectin to one of our patients despite us unanimously opposing his treatment decision,” they wrote. “This caused significant stress to the team and we felt it went against our oath to do no harm.”
Other opponents of the bill include various physician groups and the Ohio Pharmacists Association, which argued that the legislation could erode safeguards against questionable prescribing practices. “To allow a community physician, as permitted under HB73, to order a medication that is not deemed appropriate by the attending physician charged with the care and well-being of their patient could have catastrophic results, including patient death,” wrote Matt Sapko, chief pharmacy officer for Nationwide Children’s Hospital.
A Divisive Issue in Ohio
The debate over the bill underscores the tension between patient advocacy and medical professionalism. While some, like Julie Smith, see the legislation as a way to expand treatment options for critically ill patients, others fear it could open the door to harmful and unproven treatments. As the bill moves forward, it will likely face continued scrutiny from both sides.
Jeremy Pelzer contributed reporting.
Ohio Lawmakers Propose Sweeping Changes to State’s Energy Policies
In a move that could reshape Ohio’s energy landscape,state lawmakers are pushing forward with a series of aspiring proposals aimed at modernizing the state’s energy policies. The proposed changes, which include updates to renewable energy standards and incentives for clean energy projects, have sparked intense debate among policymakers, industry leaders, and environmental advocates.
Leading the charge is Jake Zuckerman, a seasoned journalist who has been closely tracking the developments in Ohio’s political and policy arenas. Zuckerman, who covers state politics and policy for Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, has been at the forefront of reporting on these critical legislative initiatives.
Key Proposals Under Consideration
One of the most significant proposals involves the reinstatement of renewable energy standards that were previously suspended. “This is a pivotal moment for Ohio,” Zuckerman noted in a recent interview. “the state has an opportunity to position itself as a leader in the transition to clean energy, but it will require bold action from lawmakers.”
Another key element of the proposed legislation is the introduction of tax incentives and grants to encourage investment in renewable energy projects. These incentives are designed to attract private sector investment and accelerate the deployment of solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies across the state.
Industry Reactions and Public Opinion
The proposals have garnered mixed reactions from industry stakeholders. Proponents argue that the changes are necessary to address climate change and create new jobs in the clean energy sector. However, critics contend that the measures could increase energy costs for consumers and strain state budgets.
Public opinion appears to be divided as well. A recent survey conducted by Cleveland.com found that while a majority of respondents support the idea of transitioning to renewable energy,there is significant concern about the potential economic impact on households and businesses.
Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
As the legislative process moves forward, lawmakers will need to navigate a complex landscape of competing interests and priorities. “The challenge will be to strike a balance between promoting clean energy and protecting consumers,” Zuckerman observed. ”It’s a delicate tightrope to walk, but one that Ohio must navigate carefully.”
For Ohio, the stakes are high.The state has long been a hub for traditional energy industries, but the shift towards renewable energy presents both challenges and opportunities. By embracing these changes, Ohio could position itself as a leader in the emerging clean energy economy, creating new jobs and driving innovation in the process.
as the debate continues, one thing is clear: Ohio’s energy future is at a crossroads. The decisions made by state lawmakers in the coming months will have far-reaching implications for the state’s economy, environment, and quality of life.stay tuned to Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer for the latest updates and in-depth analysis from Jake Zuckerman and our team of dedicated reporters.
Who has been covering the state’s legislative proceedings for years, has noted that the proposed energy policies are among the most ambitious and contentious in recent memory. The proposals, which aim to transition Ohio towards a more sustainable energy future, have garnered both strong support and fierce opposition.
Supporters argue that the new policies are essential for Ohio to remain competitive in the rapidly evolving energy market. They point to the potential economic benefits, including job creation in the renewable energy sector and reduced energy costs for consumers. Additionally, environmental advocates highlight the critical need to address climate change and reduce the state’s carbon footprint.
However, opponents, including some industry leaders and conservative lawmakers, express concerns that the proposed changes could disrupt existing energy markets and lead to higher costs for consumers.They argue that the state should proceed cautiously and consider the potential impacts on traditional energy industries, such as coal and natural gas.
As the debate continues, Ohio’s energy future hangs in the balance. The outcome of these legislative efforts will not onyl shape the state’s energy policies but also serve as a test case for how other states might approach similar challenges in the years to come.
For more in-depth analysis and updates on this and other key stories, be sure to follow Jake Zuckerman’s coverage and stay tuned to [World Today News](http://www.world-today-news.com).
