Do Hospital Profits or 'We The People' Run Ohio's Legislature? Medical Freedom Bill Delayed by Healthcare Industry-Funded Senate Chair
"HB 73 would save lives," says 30-year emergency room doctor.
In a series of steps toward safeguarding patient healthcare liberties, the ‘Dave and Angie Patient and Health Provider Protection Act,’ House Bill 73 (HB 73), has been making significant headway through Ohio’s legislative channels, spearheaded by Republican State Representatives Jennifer Gross (District 45) and Mike Loychik (District 65).
Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood
The pro-patient rights legislation would allow Ohio citizens to freely collaborate with their doctor to choose treatment options they believe are right for them, instead of being forced to select only medications that profit hospitals and big pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Hospitals and related groups are incentivized to oppose the bill because it would give patients access to cheap, effective drugs.
For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated the average Medicare payment at $13,297 for a less severe COVID-19 hospitalization and $40,218 for hospitalization in which a patient is treated with a ventilator for at least 96 hours.
As a result of the ‘CARES Act’ enacted in March 2020, Medicare paid hospitals a 20% “add-on” to standard medical treatment payment for COVID patients.
The Oregon Health Authority confirms the median payment per day for remdesivir, the most common hospital COVID treatment in 2021, “was $5,506, with the middle half of payments ranging from $4,167 to $7,631.”
On the other hand, alternative drugs like budesonide and ivermectin are not only effective but cost patients only a fraction of those prices.
The bill is named after two Ohioans, Dave and Angie, who died in the hospital after being refused alternative medical treatments for COVID.
You can listen to heartwrenching testimony about their and others’ stories below, which may never have transpired if legislation like HB 73 had been law at the time:
Crystal Boles, seen in the first video above, is Angie’s sister and Dave’s sister-in-law.
She believes HB 73 would have saved Dave and Angie’s lives and wonders why the legislation is being stalled in the Senate after passing the House so swiftly.
“If Ohio HB 73 had been law, when my sister, Angie, and brother-in-law, Dave, were in the hospital, I truly believe they would still be with their loving children and grandbaby today,” she told this website.
“I cannot imagine any reason for the Senate not to pass a bill that could save so many lives here in Ohio. We are so thankful that the House of Representatives heard our voices last year, and can only pray that the Senate will do the same.”
Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood
ER Doctor Says HB 73 ‘Will Save Lives’
Dr. Richard Bartlett is a 30-year Texas emergency room (ER) physician and recipient of the Meritorious Service Award from the Texas Department of Health and Human Services.
He tells this website that HB 73 “will save lives” because it gives sick patients access to drugs like budesonide.
“Lives should not be cut short by purposely withholding readily available medicine,” Bartlett argues. “For instance, patients who were on death’s door during COVID were refused budesonide nebulizer treatments in Ohio hospitals and died.”
“Budesonide rescued COVID patients off ventilators in other states,” he explains, pointing out Oxford University’s STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials confirming budesonide’s safety and effectiveness against COVID.
He also cited Brazil’s TOGETHER trial, which similarly confirmed: “Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care.”
Bartlett also mentioned a January 2017 publication in the Saudi Journal of Anesthesia finding that nebulized budesonide improves oxygenation, significantly reduces inflammatory markers, and alleviates swelling, among other benefits.
The publication confirmed budesonide is a safe and effective treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a severe and life-threatening form of respiratory failure that can occur in COVID patients.
Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood
Slow-Walk Through the Senate
HB 73 already passed the Ohio House of Representatives in a vote of 75-17 back in June 2023, with support from both Republicans and Democrats.
Despite the bill moving quickly through the House, it’s reportedly being delayed in the Senate.
The legislation can only be eligible for the Senate President, Senator Matt Huffman (R), to call it to a vote on the Senate floor if Senate Chairman Stephen A. Huffman (R) allows it to be voted out of committee.
The two senators are cousins.
According to campaign watchdog website OpenSecrets.org, Sen. Stephen Huffman receives donations from—but not limited to—the following healthcare industry groups who may have financial reasons to oppose HB 73:
CareSource Ohio, one of the largest Medicaid-managed care plans in the U.S.
Molina Healthcare, another Medicaid-managed care plan that provides coverage to Medicaid-eligible individuals and families in Ohio
The Ohio Hospital Association
CVS Caremark, the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) subsidiary of CVS Health
Some of the top industries contributing to Huffman’s campaign are listed on OpenSecrets as “Health Professionals,” “Health Services/HMOs,” and “Pharmaceuticals/Health Products.”
These represent groups whose profits could be significantly impacted if HB 73 is signed into law.
It’s worth noting that President Matt Huffman also receives campaign donations from the healthcare industry.
Stephanie Stock is President of Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF), an all-volunteer nonprofit dedicated to fighting for Ohioans’ right to accept or decline any medical treatment, including vaccination without discrimination.
OAMF focuses on connecting citizens with local government and empowering people to advocate for medical freedom through legislation by directing them in effective ways to interact with their representative government to help bills move.
Stock, who partnered with Reps. Gross and Loychik to bring forward HB 73, emphasizes Ohio’s need for laws ensuring access to crucial drugs during health crises and prioritizing doctor-patient relationships over hospital profits.
“Ohioans desperately need legislation to protect their right to access life-saving drugs during times of pandemic or whatever health crisis lies ahead,” she told this website. “The doctor-patient relationship has been sidelined for the benefit of hospital profits and must be restored.”
The OAMF president questions Sen. Stephen Huffman’s motives for slow-walking HB 73 through the Senate.
She underscored the bill’s speedy passage through the House and Rep. Gross’ willingness and action taken to amend her bill per Huffman’s concerns.
“House leadership understood this, and brought HB 73 through the entire hearing process and to a floor vote in 6 months, yet this bill has been sitting in the Senate Health Committee for 7 months without even an introductory hearing,” Stock said.
“We also worked with Representative Gross’ office to ensure the bill was amended to accommodate the majority of the Chairman and interested party concerns, without changing the intent of the bill. His office received it on April 4, but we aren’t getting an intro hearing until May 8,” she added.
“At this point, it is difficult not to question whether Chairman Steve Huffman’s alliances rest with the Ohioans he represents, or with the hospitals who financially benefit from HB 73 dying in his committee.”
Nevertheless, Stock remains hopeful that the will of Ohio citizens will prevail.
“The Chairman has an opportunity to put the needs of the people of Ohio ahead of the pocketbooks of Ohio hospitals,” she said. “We pray he will act on behalf of the people.”
When this website reached out to Stock regarding HB 73, she indicated that she had just sent a letter to Chairman Huffman pressing him to “act swiftly” to move the bill through to a vote in the Senate “before the summer recess.”
You can read that letter below:
Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood
More About HB 73
Introduced with the aim of enshrining four key protections for healthcare providers and patients alike, HB 73 has been described by Rep. Gross as a pivotal measure to “protect providers and patients’ access to effective treatments without fear of retribution.”
Among its principal objectives, the legislation seeks to:
Ensure Ohio citizens’ access to potentially life-saving off-label use medications.
Safeguard the ability of healthcare providers, pharmacies, or pharmacists to fill off-label prescriptions.
Uphold the free speech of health providers to express independent medical opinions, especially when they diverge from the perspectives of health and licensing agencies.
Prevent patients from being denied essential nutrition or standard daily medications in hospital settings if they opt out of certain protocol treatments.
During its second hearing in the House Health Provider Services Committee, the bill received compelling endorsement through testimony from 24 proponents, highlighting its broad support.
“Reducing barriers is key to our health strategy and the well-being of our state,” Gross emphasized, acknowledging the collaborative efforts of Rep. Loychik and OAMF in championing this cause.
The subsequent progression of HB 73 was marked by a notable milestone on June 21, 2023, when it “favorably passed out of the Ohio House of Representatives with bipartisan support,” a development Gross hailed as a testament to the legislature’s commitment to protecting the liberties of constituents and healthcare providers.
“Our healthcare providers should not fear retaliation for providing medication they deem best for their patients,” she stated.
The legislation’s journey continued as it was introduced in the Ohio Senate on September 15, 2023, with a referral to the Senate Health Committee.
The move signified another crucial step toward enacting the protections envisaged by Gross and colleagues.
“I look forward to seeing this important legislation continue to move through the legislative process,” Gross remarked, underscoring the ongoing need for safeguards against retaliation within the healthcare sector.
Below is a breakdown of key provisions and protections offered by the bill:
Prescribing Off-Label Drugs
Permits prescribers to issue prescriptions for off-label drugs, given that informed consent is obtained from the patient or their health care power of attorney.
Eliminates the necessity for prescribers to have test results before prescribing, for patients to have a positive screen for a particular disease, or to have been exposed to a disease before prescribing the drug for prophylactic use.
Dispensing Off-Label Drugs
Pharmacists and hospitals/inpatient facilities are generally required to dispense prescribed off-label drugs, barring moral, ethical, or religious objections or documented patient allergies/contraindications.
Provides immunity from liability for pharmacists and facilities that object to the administration or dosage based on good faith, or scientific objections.
Special Circumstances for Dispensing
If an off-label drug is not in stock or listed on the hospital’s formulary, efforts must be made to obtain it from another source, and it may be offered to the patient at an upfront cost.
Hospitals and facilities must allow patients to use their externally obtained off-label drugs, under certain conditions.
Inpatient Use of Off-Label Drugs
If a patient cannot be safely transported and an in-house prescriber is unwilling to prescribe an off-label drug, the patient’s outpatient physician may apply for temporary privileges to administer the drug, following specific procedures.
Dispensing Procedures
Similar to prescribing, dispensing the drug does not require the patient to have had a positive screen or exposure to a disease for prophylactic use.
Professional Conduct and Public Expression
Actions taken under this bill shall not be deemed unlawful, unethical, unauthorized, or unprofessional by health-related licensing boards or other regulatory agencies.
These entities are also prohibited from taking action against healthcare professionals for expressing medical opinions that diverge from official stances.
Prohibitions and Patient Rights
The bill denies the World Health Organization (WHO) any jurisdiction in Ohio. “Therefore, no political subdivision, public official, or state agency shall enforce or use any state funding to implement any guideline, mandate, recommendation, or rule issued by the World Health Organization that prohibits issuing a prescription for or dispensing an off-label drug,” it reads.
Additionally, it ensures patients in hospitals or inpatient facilities are not denied fluids or nutrition, except under clearly stated conditions in an end-of-life directive or as necessary for medical procedures.
As the Dave and Angie Patient and Health Provider Protection Act awaits further hearings in the Senate Health Committee, its proponents remain optimistic about its potential to reshape Ohio’s healthcare landscape by ensuring that providers and patients can navigate treatment options with confidence and without fear of undue consequences.
It remains to be seen whether the Ohio legislature will prioritize patient health and medical treatment freedom or healthcare and pharmaceutical industry earnings.
You can download HB 73 in its current form here:
Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood
OK, yeah, HB 73 would probably save lives. However, CV-19 wouldn't have "happened" in the first place if we didn't have a huge & hugely-profitable for-profit medical-industrial complex in the first place & if THE RICH had to pay for everyone's healthcare w/out being poised to profit from their ownership of it all. We can keep applying (or trying to apply) tiny Band-Aids, or we can deal with the root of the problem.
Playing God AND profiting from murder! Not good.