• Several state legislatures, including Louisiana and New Hampshire, are debating bills to make Ivermectin more readily available, often without a prescription.
• The push for easier access is fueled by claims of Ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID-19 and concerns about restrictions on its use during the pandemic, despite the lack of FDA approval for this purpose.
• Opponents of the bills cite safety concerns, the absence of scientific evidence supporting Ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19, and potential risks of self-medication, setting the stage for legislative clashes and potential vetoes.

Multiple states are considering legislation to expand access to Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic due to unsubstantiated claims of its effectiveness against the virus. These legislative efforts aim to allow easier access to the drug, potentially without a prescription, sparking debate among lawmakers, medical professionals, and the public. Proponents argue for patient choice and physician autonomy, while opponents raise concerns about safety, lack of scientific evidence, and the potential for misuse. The FDA has not approved Ivermectin for use against COVID-19.

• What: State legislatures are considering bills to make Ivermectin more accessible, potentially allowing pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription or through standing orders from medical professionals.
• Who: Key individuals include Sen. Michael Fesi and Surgeon General Ralph Abraham in Louisiana, and Reps. Yuri Polozov, Linda McGrath, Lucy Weber, and Gary Woods in New Hampshire. Organizations involved include the FDA, World Health Organization, and state health committees.
• When: The legislative actions are occurring in 2025, with ongoing debates and votes expected. The initial push for Ivermectin's use gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Where: The events are taking place in the state legislatures of Louisiana and New Hampshire.

The renewed push for Ivermectin accessibility reflects a broader distrust of established medical institutions and a desire for alternative treatments, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The debate highlights the tension between individual autonomy and public health concerns, with proponents emphasizing patient choice and opponents stressing the importance of evidence-based medicine. The legislative efforts are likely to face strong opposition, as evidenced by previous vetoes and ongoing concerns from medical experts and regulatory agencies. The differing opinions and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding Ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19 suggest a complex and potentially protracted political and public health debate.

I look at it as a patient-freedom-type-choice...if they are going to take it, I want to be part of that conversation.

It is one of the safest medicines available so allowing physicians to do this makes sense.

Let’s really follow the science in this situation. I understand the emotion behind it...We don’t need to or should legislate that.

The news media and the government agencies were telling people that if you used ivermectin, it was a horse medicine and you were an idiot. And I thought, that’s not right.

We don’t make medical policy off of, you know, anecdotal evidence. And what we hear on the internet. Let’s really follow the science in this situation.

State legislatures are grappling with bills to expand access to Ivermectin, a drug whose use has been highly controversial, particularly in the context of COVID-19. While proponents advocate for patient choice and highlight perceived restrictions on access during the pandemic, opponents raise concerns about safety, lack of scientific evidence, and the potential for misuse. The future of these bills remains uncertain, with potential for legislative clashes, gubernatorial vetoes, and ongoing public debate.