House panel revives bill to give Ivermectin special status
The worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is in the rearview mirror, but a House Republican-led panel revived legislation Wednesday to allow for residents to receive without a prescription ivermectin, a controversial but very popular, anti-parasitic used by many to treat the virus.
The amended language would allow doctors, advance nurse practitioners and physician assistants to issue to patients a 'standing order' that would allow them to receive ivermectin without a prescription.
State Rep. Yuri Polozov, R-Hooksett, convinced his Republican colleagues on the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee to attach this proposal to a Senate passed bill (SB 119) state Medicaid officials requested to save taxpayers money by allowing clients to get the lowest-cost available medication.
'It is one of the safest medicines available so allowing physicians to do this makes sense,' Polozov said. 'I understand there are strong feelings on both sides. No one is forcing physicians or any of them to do anything they don't want to do.'
But Gary Woods, D-Bow and a retired physician, said it would be unwise for lawmakers to wade into medical care decisions.
'Let's really follow the science in this situation. I understand the emotion behind it. I would like to do something that is simple,' Woods said. 'If your doctor wants to, he or she can write a prescription. We do it all the time, off label. We don't need to or should legislate that.'
Several supporters charged that during COVID doctors were pressured not to give their patients ivermectin since COVID-19 vaccines got emergency approval because there were no other safe alternatives.
'Doctors will not prescribe the medicine, pharmacies will not fill the medicine and that's why this legislation is needed,' said Rep. Linda McGrath, R-Hampton, who worked for decades in the pharmacy field.
In 2020, two elite journals, Lancet and the Journal for American Medicine retracted two reports critical of ivermectin and other alternative drugs over questions regarding integrity of the data.
Then in August 2021, the Centers for Disease Control issued a warning about the 'alarming' increased use of ivermectin to treat the virus.
The House panel approved this amendment, 10-8, with all Democrats on the panel in opposition.
'Making this the equivalent of an over-the-counter medication without the usual reviews is very unwise,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Lucy Weber of Walpole.
Similar standing orders are rare
Currently, the only drugs given a standing order are smoking cessation products, treatment for sexual assault and the EpiPen to treat allergic reactions such as bee stings and contraception.
That's why former Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed a similar bill (HB 1022) the GOP-led Legislature passed in 2022.
In that veto message, Sununu wrote the others given a standing order met 'all the necessary protocols.'
'All drugs and medications should be subject to the same rigorous process if they are to be dispensed by standing order,' Sununu wrote.
A few months later, the GOP-led House failed to override Sununu's veto.
The same panel wasn't as accommodating to a different standing order HHS requested and the Senate endorsed.
This would allow the HHS chief medical officer the power to issue a standing order for 'over-the-counter (non-legend) medications, medical supplies, or laboratory tests' given to Medicaid patients.
McGrath said that it was too open-ended.
'It might save the state money but put all the burden on your neighborhood pharmacy that is overworked,' McGrath said. 'Pharmacies lose money dispensing over the counter standing order medications.'
What's Next: The full House of Representatives will vote later this month on the committee recommendation.
Prospects: The future may come down to whether Gov. Kelly Ayotte agrees with Sununu and blocks this legislation, should it get to her desk.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US Close to High-Speed Rail Breakthrough
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When the great and the good of the American high speed rail industry gathered in Washington, D.C. over May 13-15 for the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's (USHSR) 2025 annual conference, there was tremendous excitement tinged with anxiety. Several attendees told Newsweek they believe the U.S. could be on the verge of a high-speed rail breakthrough, setting the stage for the kind of comprehensive national system enjoyed in the likes of China, Japan and Western Europe. Ray LaHood, a Republican who served as Transportation Secretary under President Obama from 2009 to 2013, said if one of the two high-speed rail lines currently under construction is completed, it will prove "wildly popular" and boost support for high-speed rail across the nation. Other insiders agreed, but argued permitting reform and more explicit federal support will be needed first. There has been concern over the Trump administration's attitude toward high-speed rail. The conference took place one month after Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy announced $63.9 million in funding for a proposed Dallas to Houston route had been scrapped, and amid rumors that the California High Speed Rail line under construction between Los Angeles and San Francisco could lose federal support. This week, Duffy said there is "no viable path" to complete California High Speed Rail on time or on budget and warned the federal government could pull billions in funding. State of U.S. High-Speed Rail At present there aren't any high-speed rail networks—defined by the International Union of Railways (UIC) as operating at a minimum of 250 kilometers per hour (155 miles per hour) along specially built tracks—that are operational in the U.S. This compares unfavorably with the likes of Spain, Japan and France, which have around 2,460 miles, 1,830 miles and 1,740 miles of track respectively currently in use. Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Most impressively, China, the chief geopolitical rival of the U.S., has gone from having virtually no high-speed rail lines to nearly 30,000 miles over the past couple of decades. Construction is currently underway on two high-speed rail lines in the U.S.—Brightline West, which will connect Las Vegas to Southern California, and California High Speed Rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A range of other projects have been proposed around the country, including plans to link Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. in the Northeast; Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth in Texas; and Chicago to East St. Louis in Illinois. Obstacles When asked why the U.S. had failed to build a high-speed network comparable to other advanced economies, industry experts told Newsweek there are major issues with permitting, financing and cross-party political support. California High Speed Rail has sparked particular controversy, with its cost ballooning from $34 billion to over $128 billion, while the completion date has been pushed back. Terry Hynes, an attorney specializing in rail infrastructure projects, argued planning issues in particular have bottled up capital investment. He is currently part of a team investigating how the permitting process could be sped up for USHSR. Addressing Newsweek, he said: "I've been in the business 46 years, making railroads, and I've been frustrated as hell representing the high-speed just takes forever. And there's private money that could be brought in. Wall Street's got a lot of money looking for infrastructure investments. "This is a wonderful infrastructure investment, the trouble is they see those permitting times. Eight years for environmental review, then you build for four years and in year 13 you're finally going to see some money. Nobody's going to invest in that." Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. James Bickerton/Newsweek Hynes added: "The biggest issue to my mind is this permitting issue. The review period takes so long, the cost goes up and the more expensive it is for people doing a cost-benefit analysis, the analyses looks less beneficial." Brandon Wheeler, a senior program manager at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, a local government-based voluntary association, said a lack of national leadership has undermined high-speed rail construction across the U.S. Speaking to Newsweek, he said: "We don't have a national single point of leadership on that single point of leadership it really is a little bit hopscotch and we're making the best we can of it. "Until there is, like the interstate highway system, there's a national vision to create and you have a vision around the ability to move military and goods and those kinds of things. Until our airports get bad enough, until our roads get bad enough, until people have this massive outcry and we're able to concentrate them on something, we're going to have to find what that single vision is to rally around or we will fall behind the rest of the world." LaHood agreed, saying: "I think the success of these projects in Europe and Asia is largely due to the national government making investments but then encouraging the private sector. Once the national government makes a commitment, it's easier for the private sector then—they know it's going to be a stable project, they know their investment is going to be good." If You Build It They Will Come In 2023, Brightline, the first privately built rail line in the U.S. to open in nearly a century, began operations between Miami and Orlando in Florida and has since seen passenger numbers surge. While Brightline runs below the high-speed standard, LaHood said it showed Americans are ready to embrace new rail networks, and argued one successful project in the U.S. could turbocharge the whole industry. "If you look at the Brightline project in is wildly popular," he said. "They're putting more and more trains on that track every day because people like the idea that they don't have to get on the I95 and they don't have to travel on highways that are crowded with big trucks and cars... The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. James Bickerton/Newsweek "If you build it they will come, if you build it it will be successful and I think that will be the case with Brightline West, Las Vegas to L.A., and I think it will be true San Francisco to L.A. I think they will be wildly popular. I really believe at this point if you build it they will come and the proof of that is Europe and Asia—their trains are wildly popular." Speaking to Newsweek, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, who is advocating for a "Cascadia" high-speed rail line linking the city to Seattle in Washington and Vancouver in British Columbia, said: "Our system continues to be compacted and stagnant. "The great cities from around the world are all tending to go towards high-speed rail and we need an opportunity to unlock our economic renaissance, which is what's missing in our country right now, and high-speed rail would move us forward and get us completing again with the world." Trust Fund A number of industry insiders told Newsweek the formation of a federal government trust fund could provide the financial muscle for a major U.S. high-speed rail expansion. Asked what one development would most speed up U.S. high-speed rail, Jim Derwinski, executive director of Chicago rail system Metra, replied: "A trust fund so it's national, it's bipartisan so it doesn't change from administration to administration and it can be supported through the states as a national effort. "If you're going to build something, to compare it to Europe and Asia right now, it's got to have a national campaign right now." Arthur Sohikian is executive director of High Desert Corridor, a proposed high-speed rail line that would link Brightline West to the California High Speed Rail line. He expressed a similar view to Derwinski, telling Newsweek: "We have to energize the public to make that been trying to get a trust fund for rail since I started my career, it seems. "For whatever reason why the politicians won't grab onto that and won't do that, especially when you realize the Highway Trust Fund keeps diminishing as cars get more efficient, we're paying less in gas taxes, that fund is have to invest in this infrastructure as a nation, and until that happens, seriously, we're all going to be trying to do our little pieces." The U.S. High Speed Rail Association paid travel and hotel expenses for Newsweek reporter James Bickerton to attend its 2025 annual conference.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Patience With Putin Leaves Senate Sanctions Push on Hold
President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may let Russia and Ukraine keep fighting has left US lawmakers in an awkward spot over their plan to force a ceasefire with 'bone-crushing' sanctions against Moscow. The Senate bill has more than 80 co-sponsors, an all-but-unheard-of level of bipartisan support. Yet although that kind of veto-proof backing is enough for the Senate to press ahead without White House backing, supporters show no sign they're ready to challenge the president.
