The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that telehealth access to abortion drugs can continue under current U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
An Ohio House bill establishing a personal administration requirement for “high-risk” medications is currently before an Ohio Senate committee after passing the House last year. Supporters question the bill’s parameters and say it is a backdoor way to attack access to abortion pills.
Ohio House Bill 324 was introduced by Republican sponsors to create “greater oversight” of drugs deemed to have a “high risk of serious side effects,” according to Republican Adam Mathews, who sponsored the bill.
The bill passed the Ohio House in November on a 60-28 split.
Using insurance claims data, patient reports and “applicable data” from the FDA, the bill would require in-person visits for drugs that have caused complications requiring hospitalization, such as sepsis or hemorrhage, cases of organ failure, or death in more than 5% of users.
“The growth of mail-order medications and telehealth has changed the way Ohioans access prescription and over-the-counter medications,” Mathews told the Ohio Senate Health Committee.
“While telehealth is often beneficial because it provides greater access to care and convenience, it may not be sufficient when high-risk medications are involved.”
The measure’s co-sponsor, state Rep. Meredith Craig, R-Smithville, said the bill’s requirement for in-person consultations and mail-order sales ban on “dangerous drugs” “protects Ohioans from the risks associated with inadequate oversight of mail-order and telehealth systems.”
The bill does not name a specific drug, but it has been criticized in the House for the implications it could have on doctors’ access to vital medications such as prescription drugs and blood thinners, as well as data that can only be used to report a drug in person.
Even before the national battle over the abortion drug Mifepristone came to Congress and United States Supreme CourtHB 324 heard from reproductive rights advocates who said the bill could create a path to: disproved or medically unjustified tests it can be used to argue that abortion drugs have too many side effects. The drug has been approved by the FDA for decades and has been the subject of dozens of peer-reviewed medical studies that have shown that stern complications are statistically uncommon.
If mifepristone and its companion drug, misprostol, were to be prescribed only for in-person visits, abortion access could be narrow in low-income areas and in areas of the state where the number of clinics and medical facilities is narrow, supporters told members of the House Health Committee last year.
Anti-abortion groups spoke out in support of the bill while it was in committee, saying the bill would provide “necessary protections,” particularly for abortion pills.
During a recent Ohio Senate hearing, physician and state senator Beth Liston, D-Dublin, pointed to national drug safety data collection and peer-reviewed journals “that do broad analysis of drug safety.”
“But you exclude them from being used (in the bill),” she told co-sponsors.
Craig said there were ongoing discussions as the bill was being considered in the House and “ultimately the language in the bill contains strong measures,” including the operate of insurance claims data and patient reports.
“Honestly, I think the most concrete data we’ll find in this case is by looking at actual insurance claims,” Craig said.
She added that 30 other states operate insurance data to “determine and try to determine the value of care.”
“You have to look at what the cost of care is,” she told Liston. “A big part of that is insurance claims.”
Liston rejected this argument, saying that insurance claims did not directly point to the drugs’ effects and safety.
“No one is using insurance claims to check health outcomes when there are other mechanisms specifically designed for that purpose, especially when there is no public transparency of Medicaid and Medicare data…,” Liston said. “But there is a national drug safety database and surveillance system that records this.”
The senator noted data on blood thinners and diabetes medications that show they can cause stern side effects, as the bill’s co-sponsors noted, and asked whether regulating these types of drugs was part of the bill’s goals.
“You have very powerful drugs that treat very difficult situations,” Mathews said. “But you want to have in-person checkups, not just telemedicine without an in-person evaluation.”
HB 324 will now be open for hearings in the Senate Health Committee to hear from supporters and opponents of the bill. No next hearing on the bill has been scheduled.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
