House Bill 618, titled the Ivermectin Access Act, would require the North Carolina State Health Director to issue a statewide standing order allowing licensed pharmacists to dispense ivermectin for human use without a written prescription and without consultation with a healthcare professional. The bill directs that the standing order be issued by October 1, 2025, and it applies statewide once the act becomes law.
The measure also creates legal protections for the State Health Director and pharmacists acting under the standing order by granting immunity from civil and criminal liability for actions authorized by the bill. In effect, the bill would change North Carolina law to create a new statutory pathway for over-the-counter-style access to ivermectin through pharmacies, while reserving future codification space in Chapter 130A for related provisions.
HB618 would amend Chapter 130A of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new part on statewide standing orders to control the spread of disease and by specifically authorizing pharmacist dispensing of ivermectin without a prescription. It would impose a mandatory duty on the State Health Director to issue the standing order and would shield both the director and participating pharmacists from liability for conduct authorized by the statute. The bill would directly affect pharmacists, the State Health Director, and consumers seeking ivermectin, and it would alter existing prescription and dispensing rules for this medication.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to expand access to ivermectin and to reduce legal risk for providers who dispense it under the standing order. The absence of voting history or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s clear pro-access framing.
The main points of contention likely concern whether ivermectin should be available without a prescription, whether a statewide standing order is an appropriate mechanism for dispensing it, and whether granting immunity to the State Health Director and pharmacists is warranted. Potential supporters would likely emphasize access and pharmacist discretion, while opponents may question medical necessity, patient safety, and the bypassing of traditional prescribing safeguards. No specific objections or endorsements are documented in the provided transcripts or votes.