Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Allows terminally ill patients to try experimental treatments not yet approved by the FDA.
The problem
Patients with terminal illnesses have limited options when standard treatments fail. They cannot access experimental drugs still being tested, even if they might help.
The proposal
The bill would let terminally ill patients try experimental medications and treatments outside normal FDA approval processes, with informed consent and physician oversight.
The impact
Terminally ill patients gain access to experimental treatments. Drug companies, doctors, and the FDA face new procedures. Patient autonomy and medical innovation may increase.
Gives terminally ill people a chance to try treatments that might help them. Patients and families get more options when standard medicine fails. Respects patient choice in life-or-death situations.
Experimental treatments reach patients sooner without waiting for full FDA approval. Could speed up discovery of which treatments actually work. Real-world data helps improve future drug development.
Respects individuals' right to make their own medical decisions. Reduces government control over end-of-life care choices. Empowers patients to pursue hope when facing terminal diagnosis.
Companies may invest more in experimental treatments knowing patients can access them. Encourages research into rare diseases and conditions. Provides real-world testing data.
Untested drugs could cause harm or speed up death. Patients desperate for hope might overestimate benefits. Lack of full safety data creates unknown dangers for vulnerable people.
Creating bypass routes undermines the approval process that protects public health. Other patients might push for access to unproven treatments. Could reduce pressure for companies to complete safety testing.
Companies could profit from desperate patients without proving treatments work. False hope might lead families to spend money on ineffective drugs. Vulnerable people facing death could be taken advantage of.
Uncertain who is responsible if experimental treatments cause harm or death. Patients and families might have trouble suing for injuries. Creates legal confusion for doctors and drug makers.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.