In a veto message, DeWine said he struck down the language “as it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”
In that message and to journalists a week prior, DeWine argued that the provision would have completely kneecapped the state’s ability to punish doctors for medical malpractice, as those doctors could merely claim that the malpractice was their sincere medical opinion.
“All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine told reporters when he promised to veto the provision in late December. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”
DeWine’s administration has opposed the idea ever since it was first proposed within House Bill 73, legislation championed by area Rep. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, that would allow patients to receive off-label prescriptions from their doctors and grant qualified immunity to pharmacists who fill those prescriptions, according to the legislature’s nonpartisan analysis of the House-passed version of H.B. 73.
Gross, a licensed nurse practitioner, testified in the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee that Ohio ought to ensure both patients and health professionals that there will be no retribution for using “life saving treatments.”
Note: This article was updated to clarify the qualified immunity provisions proposed under H.B. 73.
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It’s free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
About the Author
