Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
relative to the right of licensed health care providers to freely communicate with patients, colleagues, and the public about medical information, emerging therapies, and treatment options.
repealing the refugee resettlement program in the department of health and human services and prohibiting expenditure of state funds on refugee resettlement.
Warybach presents testimony on behalf of the bill's sponsor, a pharmacist with 40 years experience, highlighting historical public health failures due to suppressed dissenting voices rather than free speech, such as tobacco ads, thalidomide, and COVID-era suppression of off-label prescribing like ivermectin. He argues the bill protects physicians' rights to engage in informed consent and shared decision-making, preventing corporate and governmental overreach that silences independent medical judgment.
HB1117
Oppose00:10:00.000 - 9:09:26 AM
Weber opposes the bill, stating providers already have rights to discuss options and use off-label treatments, citing her husband's successful off-label cancer treatment. She argues the bill prioritizes subjective good faith over scientific evidence, removes regulatory authority from boards and agencies, and creates private rights of action that could shield bad advice, potentially harming patients by allowing unproven treatments like ivermectin for cancer.
HB1117
Oppose00:16:05.257 - 9:15:31 AM
Woods opposes HB1117, arguing it could protect malicious actors unintentionally. He references existing statutes and AMA codes of ethics that already allow physicians freedom in patient care and conscience, suggesting the bill conflicts with current laws and the AMA's ethical guidelines on professional conduct.
HB1117
Support00:20:00.000 - 9:19:26 AM
Bernardi, a co-sponsor with 39 years in pharmaceuticals, supports the bill as it memorializes physicians' rights to practice medicine independently, countering erosion from government pressures via insurance and grants under Obamacare. He notes it restores original intent allowing judgment in treatment, though it won't fully eliminate corporate pressures.
HB1117
Oppose00:25:00.000 - 9:24:26 AM
Weston opposes on behalf of 2,000 physicians, arguing the bill erodes evidence-based standards, shields providers from accountability for non-standard therapies, and eliminates licensing boards' oversight, risking patient harm and trust. It creates private rights of action leading to litigation and views the three related bills as a problematic framework deviating from scientific processes.
HB1117
Information Only00:31:05.257 - 9:30:31 AM
Juris provides neutral information, noting ambiguities in the bill's language between protections from discipline and retaliation, and how it shifts from standard-of-care guardrails, potentially barring discipline even for actions beyond bounds. She also observes existing appeal rights to Supreme Court, making the new civil action duplicative and litigious.
HB1117
Support00:46:05.257 - 9:45:31 AM
The speaker supports the bill, arguing it allows doctors to practice without fear of license loss for following rules or discussing treatments, emphasizing trust in physicians over regulatory overreach.
HB1117
Support00:48:00.000 - 9:47:26 AM
Polizov supports as a clarification bill, maintaining licensing board authority for bad faith actions while protecting reasonable beliefs in beneficial treatments. He addresses concerns of board capture by financial or political interests.
HB1117
Support00:50:00.000 - 9:49:26 AM
Biederman supports, emphasizing needs of rare disease patients (100,000 in NH) where 95% lack FDA-approved treatments. She shares experiences of doctors self-censoring due to insurance or organizational constraints, advocating removal of handcuffs to allow innovative options like non-FDA treatments that relieved her daughter's pain.
HB1734
Support00:51:52.362 - 9:51:18 AM
Kesslering, prime sponsor, introduces HB1734 to create experimental treatment centers for Phase I-completed investigational drugs/biologics/devices under DHHS authorization, expanding access for rare diseases based on Montana's model and lessons from HB701. He distributes bipartisan testimonies and notes IRB involvement for oversight.
HB1734
Oppose00:55:00.000 - 9:54:26 AM
Weber opposes, highlighting risks of Phase I trials (small sample, no long-term data), vague definitions, minimal oversight (one medical director, three-person board), patient payment requirements, short record-keeping, and potential for manufacturer dominance, calling it the 'wild west' exploiting vulnerable patients.
HB1734
Oppose01:00:00.000 - 9:59:26 AM
Lucas opposes, arguing the bill lacks ethical research requirements (respect for persons, beneficence, justice) from the National Research Act, ignores IRB standards, and endangers subjects by allowing financially motivated experimental treatments without proven safety/efficacy, violating physician-patient trust.
HB1734
Support01:06:52.362 - 10:06:18 AM
Gocy supports, detailing NH biotech companies raising $40M for advanced therapies seeking a U.S. home due to high trial costs abroad. He sees HB1734 creating infrastructure for innovation, attracting talent/capital from Boston/NY/SF corridors for patient-centered advanced care.
HB1734
Support01:10:00.000 - 10:09:26 AM
Peterman supports for rare disease community (100,000 NH residents, 1 in 10 Americans), sharing family stories of delayed diagnoses and ignored symptoms. She notes limited newborn screening and advocates treatment centers for zebras (rare cases) where patients become experts, emphasizing need beyond FDA approvals.
HB1734
Oppose01:15:00.000 - 10:14:26 AM
Weston opposes, arguing Phase I focuses on safety/dosage, not efficacy, bypassing FDA input. On-site manufacturing risks harms like opioids; charging for unproven treatments raises ethics issues outside DOI oversight, removing Board of Medicine liability protections.
HB1734
Support01:21:52.362 - 10:21:18 AM
Clemente supports personally, motivated by mother's death from breast cancer. He views the bill modernizing NH to FDA's high approval of compassionate use/INDs, easing access for therapies like TIL for breast cancer without relocation, and enabling AI/biologics/med devices.
HB1734
Support01:25:00.000 - 10:24:26 AM
White supports, highlighting ecosystem for biotech (diagnostics, care teams) upskilling NH practitioners economically. For small patient groups ignored by big pharma, it provides affordable access via CAR-T-like therapies and post-care support.
HB1734
Support01:30:00.000 - 10:29:26 AM
Goff supports, addressing Las Vegas biolab concerns by noting DHHS licensing, scientific review board (physician/clinician oversight) exceeds unregulated informal markets. He criticizes $2B FDA costs excluding rare diseases, positioning NH as innovation hub without wild west risks.
HB1734
Support01:33:00.000 - 10:32:26 AM
The speaker supports right-to-try for chronic diseases like MS, arguing patients' decades of experience outweigh brief academic knowledge, allowing access to novel treatments beyond FDA processes.
HB1734
Support01:35:00.000 - 10:34:26 AM
Polizov supports the Experimental Treatment Centers Act, citing meeting with cancer patient Michael Yakubovich facing barriers in federal/NH right-to-try programs. He endorses review board/DHHS procedures against bioweapon risks and longer record-keeping.
HB1734
Support01:38:00.000 - 10:37:26 AM
Livingston supports, noting patients travel abroad to lower-standard clinics for unavailable U.S. treatments; bill offers safer NH options. It aids biotechs post-Phase I with promising data stalled by funding, accelerating access/data collection to save lives, open to changes.
HB1734
Support01:51:52.362 - 10:51:18 AM
Rachel Lambert, a New Hampshire resident from Portsmouth with experience in startup cities, testified in support of the bill. She highlighted New Hampshire's unique advantages like freedom, safety, and proximity to Boston for biotech startups. The bill signals openness to innovation, attracting companies to create jobs and expand patient care. She addressed safety concerns, noting treatments are post-phase one, physician-supervised, and consent-based. Wealthy patients already seek treatments abroad, but this could make them more accessible and affordable locally, benefiting chronic illness patients and accelerating FDA trials through first movers.
HB1734
Support02:00:00.000 - 10:59:26 AM
Ryan Lambert, a New Hampshire entrepreneur, supported the bill by arguing it allows innovation unhampered by Big Pharma's regulatory capture. Post-phase one treatments are safe, and patients already seek them abroad; the bill brings this activity and economic benefits back to New Hampshire.
HB1734
Support02:03:00.000 - 11:02:26 AM
Noah Keating from EpiBone, a biotech company manufacturing in Manchester under Air Force grants, supported the bill. Their personalized bone and cartilage implants face FDA classification challenges, nearly bankrupting them until relocating to UAE. States like New Hampshire can compete with federal stalls, enabling them to deliver products to patients. He noted Boston's inertia due to Big Pharma, positioning NH for small innovators. Real-world data from these laws can expedite FDA approvals using AI tools.
HB1734
Support02:05:00.000 - 11:04:26 AM
Joshua Berg, a researcher at Pensary Biosciences developing Parkinson's treatments, supported the bill for positioning New Hampshire as a biotech hub. It attracts young researchers in longevity biotech, building on NH's momentum for aging diseases and creating collaborative ecosystems.
HB1734
Information Only02:06:52.362 - 11:06:18 AM
Eric Morgan, COO of BioAge Labs pursuing FDA routes, spoke impartially but positively about the bill's benefits for patients and NH. It enables small companies to test therapies in patients via self-funded trials, providing critical data to raise funds for larger trials, boosting innovation near Boston's biotech hub.
HB1734
Support02:10:00.000 - 11:09:26 AM
Stephen Martin from Infinita explained the economics: full FDA approval costs ~$1B, leading to high per-patient costs (~$4,889), but post-phase one access reduces it to ~$24, a 200x decrease. In Montana, they source oncology and aging treatments cheaply under right-to-try laws. NH could see similar, including personalized cancer vaccines for non-terminal patients, filling federal gaps. He offered insights on safety and biolab concerns.
HB1735
Support02:15:00.000 - 11:14:26 AM
Rep. Brian Cole introduced HB1735 to expand right-to-try from terminal to chronic/debilitating illnesses, building on RSA 126-Z. It attracts biotech innovation and jobs, as seen in today's testimonies. The bill removes some guardrails but enables economic growth and better quality of life without waiting for FDA.
HB1735
Oppose02:22:00.000 - 11:21:26 AM
Rep. Weber opposed, noting the bill removes guardrails like FDA-approved treatment requirements, clinical trial eligibility, informed consent, phase one success, and limits on physician payments. It allows abuse, charges beyond costs, and has poor drafting for 'severely debilitating' definition, preying on vulnerable patients.
HB1735
Oppose02:25:00.000 - 11:24:26 AM
Rep. Lucas opposed due to 'double dipping' risks for physicians paid by centers and manufacturers, against AMA ethics. It prevents medical board discipline, allows telemedicine across states creating regulatory conflicts, and removes informed consent.
HB1735
Support02:28:00.000 - 11:27:26 AM
Aiden Gokcha supported, explaining their IVF-like process corrects genetic variants in prospective parents to prevent chronic diseases in children. Current laws exclude non-terminal cases; HB1735 extends access, offering preventive options before irreversible damage.
HB1735
Support02:31:00.000 - 11:30:26 AM
Aubrey Friedman supported expanding to chronic patients for better quality of life. Doctors, not bureaucrats, should decide access when no alternatives exist. Patients should pay if they choose, prioritizing health over money.
HB1735
Support02:36:52.362 - 11:36:18 AM
The parent representative supported for rare diseases with fatal comorbidities like cold allergy causing anaphylaxis. Many undiagnosed for years, leading to chronic issues and death risks from procedures or feeding tubes. Agrees informed consent should be added; notes delays in US vs. Asia for treatments like islet transplants.
HB1735
Oppose02:40:00.000 - 11:39:26 AM
Maura Weston opposed on behalf of 2,000 physicians, emphasizing patient safety, evidence-based practice, and ethics. Shifting to chronic illnesses risks false hope, exploitation, high costs for untested treatments. Removes liability and board authority, questions informed consent, diverts from trials, lacks outcome tracking. Recommends inexpedient, building on opposition to related bills.
HB1735
Support02:45:00.000 - 11:44:26 AM
Gretchen Wade clarified informed consent remains on page 3 for minors/incapacitated. Removed redundant language simplifies; 'investigational' omitted to broaden beyond FDA definitions, benefiting patients seeking various therapies. Federal anti-kickback statutes prevent abuse; patients still bear malpractice burden.
HB1735
Support02:51:52.362 - 11:51:18 AM
Trey Goff supported, sharing a story of a patient with 95%+ health span preserved via early access vs. 70-80% if delayed. Enables treating earlier for longer quality of life, with profound human impact.
HB1706
Support03:00:00.000 - 11:59:26 AM
Rep. Matt Drew supported repealing the state refugee program, arguing it facilitates influx straining housing, jobs, healthcare, education in Manchester and statewide. Without state office, flow would cease like in other states; current allocation favors NGOs without effective guardrails. Refugees compete with young NH residents, driving up costs; influx from MA is self-attracted, unlike paid federal refugee program.
HB1706
Oppose03:03:00.000 - 12:02:26 PM
Rep. Horrigan opposed, calling data slanted and anti-immigrant. All Americans descend from immigrants; refugees face real perils unlike Free Staters. Bill poorly drafted; past issues like lead paint not refugee-specific. Vote no.
HB1706
Oppose03:06:52.362 - 12:06:18 PM
Rep. Tellez, former Health Equity overseer, opposed; program 100% federal pass-through to NGOs for existing NH refugees' self-sufficiency (ESOL, employment). Won't stop resettlement (federal); dismantling loses efficiencies, funding streams. Refugees net positive economically, entrepreneurial; humanitarian effort with loans repaid.
HB1706
Oppose03:21:52.362 - 12:21:18 PM
DHHS reps opposed repeal; program integrates services, 100% federal-funded ($4.5M total), maximizes resources via NGOs/state coordination. Repeal loses $1.1M funding, increases local strains (housing, schools, health). Robust fraud prevention with monitoring, audits; low fraud rates. Federal prefers state control for oversight; refugees vetted, contribute positively. NGOs funds verified; no state/local costs for core services.