According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3219 would pose no anticipated significant fiscal implications for the state. The analysis assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill can be absorbed using existing resources within the relevant state agencies. These agencies include the Board of Pharmacy, the Health and Human Services Commission, and the Department of State Health Services. This suggests that the administrative tasks related to issuing the statewide order and implementing protocols for dispensing ivermectin would not require additional funding or personnel beyond current allocations.

Similarly, there are no significant fiscal implications expected for local government entities. This indicates that the bill’s implementation would not impose additional financial burdens on local health departments or pharmacies. The lack of significant fiscal impact reflects the bill’s design, which primarily involves issuing an order and establishing dispensing guidelines rather than creating new programs or requiring substantial infrastructure changes.

In summary, HB 3219 is projected to be fiscally neutral, with any related administrative or regulatory costs being manageable within existing budgets. This assessment likely made the bill more favorable from a budgetary perspective, as it does not necessitate new funding or impose costs on local governments.

HB 3219 aims to increase public access to ivermectin by allowing licensed pharmacists to dispense the medication without a prescription, under a statewide order issued by the Commissioner of State Health Services. The bill's intent is rooted in emerging studies suggesting ivermectin’s potential benefits as an antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent, particularly in the context of COVID-19 and malaria. The bill provides pharmacists with liability protection if they act in a reasonably prudent manner and also protects the commissioner from criminal or civil liability related to issuing the order. This increased access is designed to support individual liberty and personal responsibility by allowing Texans to make more autonomous healthcare decisions.

The bill aligns well with liberty principles. By reducing regulatory barriers to obtaining ivermectin, it upholds individual liberty and personal responsibility, enabling individuals to make healthcare choices without requiring a prescription. It also aligns with free enterprise by allowing pharmacists to supply a medication that consumers are seeking. Moreover, the bill supports the principle of limited government by reducing state interference in personal medical decisions. However, the inclusion of broad liability protections, particularly the absence of exceptions for willful misconduct or gross negligence, may lead to a lack of accountability and potential public health risks if ivermectin is improperly dispensed.

To maintain a balanced approach, an amendment is recommended to clarify that the liability protection for pharmacists does not cover instances of willful misconduct or gross negligence. This adjustment would ensure responsible dispensing practices while preserving the bill’s primary goal of facilitating access to ivermectin. Additionally, requiring pharmacists to provide patients with clear, evidence-based information on the drug's efficacy and potential risks would further support informed decision-making.

With the proposed amendment to address liability concerns, HB 3219 represents a prudent policy change that respects personal freedom while safeguarding public health, and therefore merits a favorable vote. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 3219.

• Individual Liberty: HB 3219 significantly supports the principle of individual liberty by granting Texans greater autonomy over their healthcare decisions. By allowing pharmacists to dispense ivermectin without requiring a prescription, the bill reduces regulatory barriers and empowers individuals to access medication directly. This change respects the right of adults to make personal health choices without excessive government intervention.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by placing the decision to use ivermectin directly in the hands of consumers. Individuals must take ownership of their health decisions, including understanding the potential benefits and risks of the medication. However, to strengthen this principle, it would be beneficial for the bill to mandate that pharmacists provide comprehensive information about ivermectin’s efficacy and safety, helping consumers make more informed choices.
• Free Enterprise: By authorizing pharmacists to dispense ivermectin without a prescription, the bill enhances free enterprise. It allows pharmacists to meet consumer demand more efficiently, fostering a market-based approach to healthcare delivery. This increased flexibility benefits both pharmacies, which can expand their service offerings, and consumers, who gain easier access to the product. The absence of restrictive prescription requirements aligns with the free-market ethos of minimizing unnecessary regulation.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly affect private property rights. However, by facilitating more pharmacist-driven healthcare services, it indirectly supports business owners’ rights to conduct commerce with fewer government-imposed restrictions.
• Limited Government: HB 3219 aligns with the principle of limited government by reducing state control over the distribution of ivermectin. Instead of imposing strict prescription requirements, the bill allows pharmacists to dispense the drug based on a statewide order. While it introduces some regulation through standardized dispensing protocols, it ultimately minimizes government oversight in personal healthcare choices. Nevertheless, the broad liability protections for both pharmacists and the commissioner may reduce accountability, which could be seen as inconsistent with the principle of a restrained government. An amendment to refine liability standards would better uphold limited government by ensuring responsible use of regulatory authority.

• HB 3175 (Same As)