HB 572 would change Maryland law governing opioid overdose reversal drugs, including naloxone and other FDA-approved products used to reverse an opioid overdose. The bill requires a licensed health care provider issuing a standing order to allow the individual to choose any formulation of any FDA-approved opioid overdose reversal drug. In practical terms, that means a person seeking one of these medications through a standing order could select among available formulations rather than being limited to a single product chosen by the provider or entity.
The bill also adds a new provision stating that an authorized private or public entity that prescribes and dispenses opioid overdose reversal drugs cannot be required to keep every FDA-approved formulation in stock or dispense all such formulations. This preserves flexibility for health care providers, local health departments, community-based organizations, and similar entities by preventing an inventory mandate that could be difficult or costly to meet. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 572 amends Title 13, Subtitle 31 of the Health – General Article, specifically the provisions governing standing orders and dispensing of opioid overdose reversal drugs. It changes the rules for how these drugs may be offered under standing orders by requiring patient choice among FDA-approved formulations, while also protecting authorized entities from any obligation to stock or dispense every formulation on the market. The bill affects licensed health care providers with prescribing authority, pharmacists, local health departments, community-based organizations, and other authorized public or private entities involved in overdose reversal drug distribution.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and operational rather than controversial. The measure is framed as improving access and choice for individuals at risk of overdose while also reducing administrative burdens on providers and dispensing entities. There is no evidence in the supplied context of organized opposition, amendments, or divided voting.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB 572 is between consumer choice and provider flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the requirement that individuals be allowed to choose any FDA-approved formulation under a standing order, while health care providers and dispensing organizations may favor the companion protection against being required to stock or dispense every formulation. The bill appears designed to balance access with feasibility, and no specific objections or competing viewpoints are reflected in the provided committee or voting history.