Dear Chair Huffman, Vice Chair Johnson, and Members of the Committee:

My name is Jeffrey A. Singer. I am a Senior Fellow in Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. I am also a medical doctor specializing in general surgery and have been practicing that specialty in Phoenix, Arizona, for over 40 years. The Cato Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Cato scholars conduct independent research on a wide range of policy issues. To maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. Cato receives approximately 80 percent of its funding through taxdeductible contributions from individuals. The remainder of its support comes from foundations, corporations, and the sale of books and other publications. The Cato Institute does not take positions on legislation.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on SB 170 with the Committee. This bill extends Ohio’s 2016 Right to Try law.

As I write in my recently published book, Your Body, Your Health Care, “The right to self-medicate is integral to self-ownership and autonomy.”1

Ohio’s 2016 Right to Try statute was a significant step toward empowering terminally ill patients to have more control over their care. Senate Bill 170 further enhances this initiative by acknowledging that individuals with severe, chronic, or debilitating illnesses—though not at the end of life—may also reach the limits of standard treatments. It upholds individual autonomy and the principle of self-ownership by permitting patients, in consultation with their physicians, to pursue promising investigational therapies. I believe that opening up these options is both medically sensible and ethically valid.

SB 170 expands access to individualized investigational treatments, custom-designed for specific patients, particularly through genomic analysis. Examples include individualized gene therapies, neoantigen vaccines, and other “one-patient, one-treatment” therapeutics. Unlike the current Right to Try law, which removes obstacles to potentially lifesaving treatments that have completed Phase I clinical trials, many of these treatments might not yet be in clinical trials and may not conform to the traditional FDA pipeline.

The bill also respects autonomy by including robust safeguards for the doctrine of fully informed consent, which involves honoring patients’ decision-making capacity and their right to make their own choices about their care, regardless of practitioners’ recommendations.

As a practicing physician, I’ve seen how federal regulations can hinder timely care for patients who have exhausted conventional treatments. The FDA’s expanded access program is frequently criticized for being slow, complex, and inconsistent. In contrast, Right to Try laws offer a more practical pathway, allowing patients and their doctors to collaborate and make informed choices based on the risks they understand.

SB 170 surpasses current state and federal Right to Try laws by allowing patients to access custom-made experimental therapies, rather than just investigational drugs that are already in development. It aims to position Ohio at the forefront of genomic-based, patient-specific medical innovation, establishing a pathway where the federal system currently offers none.

This approach aligns with the broader principles of informed consent and personal autonomy. Both the ability to consent to treatment and the right to pursue individualized therapies reflect the belief that patients should play a significant role in decisions regarding their own care. While informed consent and the right to self-medicate are distinct, they are rooted in the same respect for individual choice, and supporting one often indicates a commitment to the other.

SB 170 reflects a broader trend in health policy: empowering patients to take ownership of their care, reducing centralized barriers, and trusting the doctor-patient relationship as the foundation of ethical medical practice.

Thank you once again for considering my perspective on this important issue. I am pleased to provide additional information at the Committee’s request.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS
Senior Fellow, Department of Health Policy Studies
Cato Institute