Arizona Expands the Right To Try New Medical Treatments
It’s a small step toward breaking down barriers between patients and innovative medicine.

Arizona has made headlines for school choice and occupational licensing reform, but it's also a leader in allowing terminal patients access to promising treatments that have yet to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Such Right-to-Try laws are now in place in about half of all states, but they don't address advances in medical technology creating treatments that can't pass through traditional regulatory channels because they're tailored for specific patients. Last week, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation expanding the right to try to include personalized medicine.
"The governor signed S.B. 1163, which will help Arizonans get the care they need sooner," Ducey's office announced on August 9. "The legislation builds on 'Right to Try'—a historic, national policy that was developed in Arizona at the Goldwater Institute. The policy ensures that individuals with terminal illnesses are able to seek out investigational medication when their approved treatment options have been exhausted."
The original Right-to-Try legislation was and is groundbreaking, giving desperate patients hope of help from treatments that are still working their way through the FDA's interminable clinical trials.
"Right-to-try laws are state-level reforms that aim to allow terminally ill patients to gain access to experimental drugs without the permission of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Under the current model, access to experimental drugs is controlled by the FDA, which must give its approval after it receives an application from a patient's physician," notes BallotPedia. "Right-to-try laws allow patients and physicians to approach a drug manufacturer directly to ask for access to the drug."
Right to Try was adopted by 27 states by mid-2016, adds BallotPedia. Counterpart federal legislation became law in 2018. The legislation doesn't guarantee patients access to treatments, but it partially gets the government out of the way of patients and physicians seeking to try medications that have passed Phase I clinical trials.
But medical technology is taking an increasingly customized approach, seeking to address ailments as they appear in individual patients and not across populations. The legacy regulatory system isn't really set up to deal with customized modern medicine.
"Rapid medical innovations have made it possible to take an individual's genetic information and create a treatment for that individual person," notes the Right-to-Try website, sponsored by the Goldwater Institute. "More patients, especially those with rare and ultra-rare illnesses, will pursue these treatments when they have exhausted other options. Unfortunately, the FDA's current regulatory scheme is not designed to handle these kinds of individual treatments, and that will keep life-saving medication out of the hands of patients unless reforms are adopted."
Goldwater highlights the Riley family of Ahwatukee, Arizona, two of whose daughters, Olivia and Keira, were diagnosed with Metachromatic Leukodystrophy, a rare and degenerative brain disease that robs victims of their abilities before taking their lives. The condition of Olivia, now three, was rapidly progressing and beyond the reach of even experimental treatments. However, newborn Keira was still asymptomatic and could potentially benefit from newly developed gene therapy. But that personalized treatment doesn't qualify for the FDA's usual approval process or for the original Right-to-Try shortcut. That left the family scrambling.
"This treatment for gene therapy is only available in Milan, Italy, because it wasn't yet FDA approved," Kendra Riley, the girls' mother, comments in a video about their plight. "Unfortunately, we had to gather the community to help us and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to move to Italy for six months during the global pandemic."
Not every experimental treatment works, of course. But when you're out of options and trying to rescue your children from a terminal illness, you do what you can.
"They literally took her as an individual, looked at her DNA and how they could help change it and modify it to make it better so that her body would then function as it should have to begin with," Kendra adds.
Now back home in Arizona, the Riley family reports that Keira is developing normally, having apparently benefitted from the therapy. Her older sister, Olivia, unfortunately, is not expected to survive childhood.
While Right to Try 2.0 expands patients' options, it's far from perfect. Both the original legislation and the updated version are limited carve-outs from a vast regulatory apparatus that slows the approval of medical treatments to a crawl, with the cost measured not only in money, but in lives.
"Drug lag costs lives because people suffer and die from disease that might be treatable, if only there were more investment in finding a cure," argued Jessica Flanigan, an associate professor at the University of Richmond, in her 2017 book, Pharmaceutical Freedom: Why Patients Have a Right to Self-Medicate. "Requirements that raise the cost of development make it less likely that they will succeed. Premarket testing conditions also cost lives because patients with conditions that could be treated or cured by unapproved drugs suffer and die while they are waiting for approval."
Like others, Flanigan recommends restricting the FDA and other regulatory agencies, if they are permitted to have any role at all, to informational certification. Patients and physicians could follow or disregard such guidance as they please.
But that's a major reform for another day, though not too far in the future, we can hope. In the meantime, we're limited to nibbling away at barriers regulators place in the way of desperate patients seeking treatments for intractable illnesses. Right-to-Try laws, both versions 1.0 and 2.0, are part of that effort to give patients just a little more leeway. So are efforts by Sens. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) and Rand Paul (R–Ky.) to allow patients limited access to Schedule 1 drugs, including MDMA and psilocybin, that have been through Phase 1 trials.
"As a physician, I know how important Right to Try is for patients facing a life-threatening condition." comments Paul. "Unfortunately, the federal bureaucracy continues to block patients seeking to use Schedule I drugs under Right to Try."
The federal bureaucracy continues to block hopeful patients from doing a lot of things they would do if free to exercise their discretion. Right to Try 2.0 is only a small improvement. But a small improvement is better than none, and the Riley family is strong evidence that such reforms are worth the effort.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But if a few people die because the FDA can’t get off the dime, that’s just collateral damage in the fight for more bureaucracy.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article:……>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-29) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://workofferweb24.pages.dev/
"But if a few people die because the FDA can’t get off the dime, that’s just collateral damage in the fight for more bureaucracy."
For sure>
Government logic is this:
You: You are suffering and will eventually die from your disease. Your quality of life is terrible. But, there is a drug that might help reduce your suffering and, in some, can even reverse the course of your disease.
Ticks in Government: But the drug might harm or kill you.
You: I want to kill myself everyday. My quality of life on a scale of 1 to 10 is ranked as suffering, ok a 1. And this disease will likely kill me in the next 12 months.
Ticks in Government: But the drug my cause harm to you or even kill you.
You: But the drug's worst side effect is the same destination that I am guaranteed to reach without it. The drug might also help reduce my suffering or even cure me.
Ticks in Government: But the drug may cause harm to you or even kill you.
Welcome to the world of the collective where, at the same time, you are responsible for quite a number of things that you actually cannot really control while also having little ability to make decisions regarding your own body when it really matters. Want to cut your genitals off and become a woman, go for it. Want to try a drug or treatment that might save your life. Not gonna happen.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lap-62) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Big news after 2 years of forcing people to take experimental medical treatments.
I don't see anything about a right to NOT try experimental medicine.
The legislation builds on 'Right to Try'—a historic, national policy that was developed in Arizona at the Goldwater Institute.
Actually, I believe "the right to try" was developed by the first monkey that learned to walk upright and continued right up until the founding of the FDA. Our Founding Fathers didn't include the Right to Try in the Constitution only because somebody denying you the right to try seemed an absurdity, the same reason they didn't include wearing shoes, eating an apple, or lighting candles in the Constitution.
Actually even the state and federal statutes and regulations affecting treatments other than controlled substances don't deny any right to try anything either. They affect only the right to sell them. When Congress passed the FDCA, they said specifically they weren't taking away any consumer rights, but those don't do much good if nobody's allowed to sell you the goods.
They always find workarounds, don't they?
These Right to Try initiatives misconstrue both the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and state pharmacy laws. They attempt to secure a patient right that already exists, which does no good against prohibitions on businesses' marketing of products.
Yet more laws trying to fix a problem that legislatures created in the first place.
I imagine liability and malpractice lawsuits are a much bigger obstacle. Better to hide behind FDA skirts than risk bankruptcy or loss of your medical license.
TWO ARIZONA ARTICLES IN ONE DAY!
I believe the "Right To Try" is the wrong approach. I worked on it and helped get it passed thinking it was the best way to get early access to experimental drugs for hopeless diagnoses, but it failed mainly because of lack of insurance coverage. For brain cancer, there are 2 treatments available under Right To Try now, and they are about $200,000 each and not covered, so few use them.
The next attempt at fixing the problem is the "Promising Pathway Act" which is in congress now. It creates a new conditional approval pathway for drugs, with the requirement that all patients who use the drugs be followed in a virtual trial. Insurance won't be allowed to reject these treatments based on them being experimental.
This differs from Right To Try in that the FDA still has oversight - if safety problems pop up they can remove the conditional approval; and insurance is likely to pay for the treatments.
It differs from Accelerated Approval in that the bar to approval is set lower - no phase 3 trials needed. To make up for the lack of research before approval, all patients are followed afterwards. The level of confidence that the drug works is like allowing patients to enter a phase 2 trial.
With accelerated approval, after approval a confirmatory study has to be done - these are usually poorly designed and run, and only collect data on a select group of patients to make the treatment look better. In many (maybe most) cases, the research done after approval is a waste of time - we never get full results and learn from each patients' experiences. Under Promising Pathway we quickly learn from every patient - tracking not only the conditionally approved drug but whatever combinations they added to it and the results. Doctors can analyze the ongoing data and make the best decisions based on live up to date data which they would never get under standard pathways.
We need help getting it passed. Contact me for details musella@virtualtrials.org
I forgot to mention - the Promising Pathway Act takes the decision making out of the hands of the FDA and puts it in the hands of the doctors who treat actual patients. Where it belongs. Just because a drug gets conditional approval doesn't mean doctors will prescribe it. They need some level of proof that it helps - that level will differ for different doctors - some will be comfortable with this approach and prescribe it right away, and others won't be - they will wait for others to try first then use it if it looks good. That is ok.
And lastly - doctors and the drug company can't be sued for using these drugs - the patient has to consent to trying them after informed consent as if they are joining a phase 2 trial.