Mifepristone tablets. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)
A bill to regulate certain drugs, which could include abortion drugs, cleared an Ohio House committee on Wednesday, heading to a vote of the full House. That same day, the House passed the measure 59-28.
Although there was some testimony opposing Ohio House Bill 324, it didn’t take long for the House Health Committee to approve the measure.
An amendment by one of the bill’s sponsors, state Rep. Meredith Craig, was intended to clarify that drugs covered by the measure would not be immediately banned, an amendment she said was encouraged by the Ohio Retail Trades Council.
During a previous hearing, Lora Miller, the council’s director of government affairs, said the bill’s “extremely broad definitions” could impact access to medications such as blood thinners and antibiotics, causing unnecessary costs and delays in care for Ohioans.
The bill is an overarching drug regulation bill that tasks the Ohio Department of Health with identifying drugs that cause “serious side effects” in more than 5% of users.
Data will be collected from insurance claims, FDA information and patient reports.
If a drug is found to have grave effects in more than 5% of users, the drug will need to be prescribed in person rather than by mail order or telehealth.
A follow-up meeting would also be required under the bill.
Opponents of the bill say the availability of some drugs, including abortion drugs, could be restricted by studies that were not peer-reviewed and were self-published by special interest groups that may have had biased opinions seep into the studies.
Two amendments introduced by Democratic committee members were quickly tabled without explanation by committee chairman Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland.
It would require that any medical research cited to determine grave adverse drug effects be peer-reviewed, evidence-based, and come from a medical journal or academic institution.
Another proposed amendment would exempt drugs already classified by the FDA from state control.
All testimony was taken in writing and no one spoke in the committee on Wednesday. The statements included 12 votes in opposition, one in support of the Dayton-based Right to Life organization and two statements from “interested parties.”
Margie Christie, policy director of an anti-abortion group in Dayton, specifically mentioned abortion drugs in her testimony in support of the bill.
She said the bill would provide “necessary protections” regarding abortion pills and the complications they can cause.
Mifepristone and misoprostol, a popular two-drug combination used in medication abortion, have been approved by the FDA for utilize for decades.
The safety of the drugs has been studied in studies conducted for decades, showing statistically uncommon cases of grave complications.
He cited these studies, among others: doctors and scientists who spoke against the bill at the previous meeting.
The drug was the subject of another bill that was considered at Wednesday’s hearing.
Ohio Senate Bill 309 would require health care providers to provide a declaration signed by each patient before prescribing mifepristone.
The statement informs patients that they can take legal action against doctors, medical facilities and other people if complications occur after taking the drug and the patient has not been informed about it.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, said the evolution of FDA drug approvals to include fewer in-person visit requirements shows the need for more regulations requiring doctors to inform patients of their rights.
In 2021, the FDA allowed the distribution of abortion drugs through telehealth visits, which state lawmakers tried to ban in the state but is now the practice the lawsuit goes further.
Although Koehler denied that the act violated Art the right to access medicinestated that the novel regulations represent “an opportunity for abortion pill providers to ensure that their patients are properly informed and reassess their willingness to be held legally responsible for offering this drug.”
“Every drug I take has warnings and information about what it can do to help me get better. It’s a drug used in a different context,” Koehler told the Senate Health Committee.
“I think people still need to know that complications can come from this.”
Doctors argue that the bill is unnecessary because patients are required to hear about the potential risks associated with the utilize of any medications as part of their medical training.
According to some expertsthe bill may have a chilling effect on doctor-patient relationships and make doctors more cautious when prescribing medicines, which will impact access to them.
Committee member state representative Beth Liston, R-Columbus, asked whether Koehler had any peer-reviewed evidence regarding the drug’s risks, “given that you are essentially denying what health care providers otherwise do.”
Koehler said more medical testing will take place as legislative work continues on the bill.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
