A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the "Right to Treat Act." It states that federal agencies, such as the FDA, NIH, and CDC, do not have the power to regulate the practice of medicine. It also prevents federal laws or policies from stopping the prescription or disbursement of FDA-approved drugs for unapproved uses. However, it does not change existing laws or policies regarding abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, coercive family planning, female genital mutilation, or gender transition medical interventions.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
By removing federal authority over medical practice, it shifts that power back to the states and practitioners.
- Scored +4
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Increases physician autonomy to prescribe approved drugs for unapproved uses, potentially expanding treatment options.
- Scored +2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors with complex conditions may benefit from expanded off-label drug use options.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -8
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill explicitly removes the authority of federal agencies to regulate the practice of medicine.
- Scored -4
Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak?
Removing the authority of the CDC and FDA to regulate medical practice could hinder coordinated public health responses.
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Reducing federal oversight of medical practice may decrease consumer protections regarding standard of care.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Freedom in Medical Treatment: Section 2(a)(1) removes the authority of federal agencies to regulate the practice of medicine, which limits federal oversight of how doctors treat patients.
-
Expanded Medication Options: Section 2(a)(2) ensures that federal laws or regulations cannot stop the prescription or disbursement of FDA-approved drugs for uses that are not officially approved.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Lack of Federal Oversight: Section 2(a)(1) removes the authority of agencies like the FDA, NIH, and CDC to regulate the practice of medicine, which removes federal-level regulation of medical practices.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Potential for more tailored medical treatment through off-label drug use. Would retired people be better off under this? — Potential for expanded treatment options for age-related chronic conditions. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — May allow rural doctors more flexibility in prescribing when specialized care is unavailable. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors with complex conditions may benefit from expanded off-label drug use options.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Reducing federal oversight of medical practice may decrease consumer protections regarding standard of care.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By removing federal authority over medical practice, it shifts that power back to the states and practitioners. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill explicitly removes the authority of federal agencies to regulate the practice of medicine.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases physician autonomy to prescribe approved drugs for unapproved uses, potentially expanding treatment options. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Allowing off-label use of approved drugs may expand treatment options for mental health. Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Removing the authority of the CDC and FDA to regulate medical practice could hinder coordinated public health responses. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Less federal oversight on the practice of medicine could potentially impact the regulation of prescription patterns.
- 3/19/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
- 5/21/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Introduced in Senate