• The North Carolina House passed HB 618, the 'Ivermectin Access Act,' permitting pharmacists to dispense ivermectin without a prescription, sparking debate over its safety and efficacy.
• The bill is supported by Republicans who argue for increased access to the drug, while Democrats express concerns about its unproven effectiveness against COVID-19 and potential health risks.
• The legislation grants civil and criminal immunity to pharmacists dispensing ivermectin under the standing order, raising ethical questions about liability and patient safety.

The North Carolina House has passed House Bill 618, also known as the 'Ivermectin Access Act.' This bill mandates the state to issue a standing order by October 1, enabling licensed pharmacists to dispense ivermectin for human use without requiring a doctor’s prescription or consultation. Proponents argue it increases access to a safe and affordable drug, while opponents cite safety concerns, the lack of FDA approval for treating COVID-19, and the potential for adverse side effects. The bill's passage reflects a broader debate about medical freedom, trust in scientific institutions, and the role of government in healthcare decisions.

• What: The 'Ivermectin Access Act' (HB 618) aims to allow pharmacists in North Carolina to dispense ivermectin without a prescription or doctor's consultation.
• Who: Key individuals involved include Rep. Jonathan Almond (primary sponsor), Rep. Tracy Clark (opposed the bill), and state health director (tasked with issuing the standing order).
• When: The bill passed the NC House on May 6, 2025, and is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2025, if signed into law.
• Where: The legislation affects the state of North Carolina, specifically pharmacies and residents seeking access to ivermectin.

The passage of the 'Ivermectin Access Act' in the North Carolina House underscores a significant divide in perspectives regarding medical authority, scientific consensus, and individual freedom. Supporters of the bill emphasize increasing access to a medication they believe is safe and effective, particularly in light of perceived restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, opponents highlight the lack of FDA approval for using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19, potential health risks associated with its misuse, and the ethical implications of granting immunity to pharmacists dispensing a drug without a prescription. The debate also reflects a broader trend of distrust in mainstream medical institutions and the influence of political ideologies on healthcare decisions.

It is mind-boggling to me that here we are discussing the dispensing of ivermectin, an unproven, non-FDA-approved drug in pharmacies across our state, without a prescription, and protecting pharmacies from liability, from whatever will happen to people who take this dangerous drug.

It’s a safe, affordable drug with minimal side effects.

I'm really pretty aghast at this amendment, frankly. We don't make medical policy off anecdotal evidence and what we hear on the internet. Let's really follow the science in this situation.

Ivermectin is safer than aspirin.

North Carolina's 'Ivermectin Access Act' highlights a deep divide regarding public health, governmental authority, and individual liberties. Proponents of the bill emphasize ivermectin's accessibility and affordability, asserting its safety and citing instances of perceived relief from COVID-19. They also argue for patient autonomy, suggesting the bill would prevent people from seeking potentially dangerous veterinary formulations. However, concerns persist around the lack of FDA approval for COVID-19 treatment, potential side effects, and the risk of inappropriate use without medical supervision. Critics also point to the overwhelming scientific consensus that ivermectin is not effective against the virus, and highlight the dangers of substituting legislative judgment for medical expertise. As the bill moves to the Senate, the debate is poised to intensify, raising fundamental questions about the role of government in safeguarding public health versus individual rights in healthcare decisions. The outcome will likely set a precedent for similar legislative efforts in other states.