To enact section 3792.08 of the Revised Code regarding prescribing, dispensing, and administering drugs and to name this act the Jeff, Dave, and Angie Patient Right to Try Act.
SB209 would create a new section of Ohio law governing when physicians, pharmacists, hospitals, inpatient facilities, outpatient health care facilities, and pharmacies must allow the prescribing, dispensing, and administration of drugs, including off-label use. The bill states that, when a physician prescribes a drug to a consenting patient, the drug generally must be dispensed unless a narrow set of exceptions applies, such as a pharmacist or facility having a moral, ethical, or religious objection, or a documented patient-specific safety concern like a life-threatening allergy, contraindication, or interaction. It also requires hospitals and inpatient facilities to allow certain patient-owned medications to be brought in and identified for use when prescribed by an in-house physician and not otherwise stocked or on formulary.
The bill further provides that, in outpatient settings, patients must be told when a drug is not covered by insurance or prior authorization is delaying access, and they must be given the option to pay out of pocket with an estimate of the cost. It also directs that, in disputes over off-label or other drug use, the physician’s clinical judgment and the patient’s consent are central, while requiring documentation of objections and discussions in the medical record. The act would be named the Jeff, Dave, and Angie Patient Right to Try Act.
SB209 would add a new statutory framework in the Revised Code that limits when state licensing boards, the Department of Health, and other state agencies may treat prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug as unlawful, unethical, unauthorized, or unprofessional. It would also create protections for scientific disagreement and patient counseling, while preserving existing law for controlled substances, REMS drugs, certain cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers used in violation of state law, abortifacients for patients believed to be pregnant, and drugs intended for euthanasia. The bill does not grant broad civil immunity to physicians, and it preserves liability except in the narrow immunity provision for certain dispensing decisions under the bill.
The bill’s framing and title suggest a strong pro-patient-access and pro-physician-discretion approach, emphasizing the right to try prescribed treatments and off-label uses. Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, there is no recorded formal debate or vote history to indicate support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to patients seeking treatment options and providers who favor clinical autonomy, while also acknowledging safety and conscience-based limits.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s requirement that pharmacies and facilities dispense prescribed drugs even when they have scientific objections, and its statement that the physician’s decision controls once objections are discussed. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of off-label prescribing and its limits on regulatory discipline, which could be viewed as reducing oversight by licensing boards and health agencies. At the same time, the bill preserves conscience-based refusals and carves out several categories of drugs from its coverage, including controlled substances, REMS drugs, abortion-related drugs, and gender-affirming medications used contrary to existing law, which may reflect attempts to narrow the bill’s scope and avoid conflict in those areas.