House Bill 618, the Ivermectin Access Act, would require the North Carolina State Health Director to issue a statewide standing order allowing licensed pharmacists to dispense ivermectin suitable for human use without a written prescription or consultation with a healthcare professional. The bill is framed as a disease-control measure and would create a standing order process that applies statewide rather than requiring individual prescriptions.
The bill also provides that both the State Health Director and pharmacists acting under the standing order would be immune from civil or criminal liability for actions authorized by the act. The Health Director would be required to issue the standing order by October 1, 2025, and the act would take effect when it becomes law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Chapter 130A of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new Part 2A and new sections governing a statewide standing order for ivermectin. It would expand pharmacists’ authority to dispense ivermectin without a prescription and would limit potential liability for pharmacists and the State Health Director when acting under the order. The measure would affect pharmacy practice, public health administration, and the legal framework for access to ivermectin in North Carolina.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill was controversial and did not command broad consensus. One recorded second-reading vote passed, but an amendment-related vote failed, indicating division over the bill’s details or scope. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment can be described as mixed: supporters appear to favor easier access to ivermectin, while opponents likely object to bypassing standard prescription and consultation requirements.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the state should authorize pharmacists to dispense ivermectin without a prescription or healthcare consultation. Supporters likely view the bill as improving access and giving the State Health Director a clear mechanism to issue a statewide order, while critics may be concerned about safety, medical oversight, and the appropriateness of using a standing order for this drug. The liability immunity provisions for both the Health Director and pharmacists are another likely source of debate, since they reduce legal exposure for actions taken under the act.