By Emma White | UM Legislative News Service, University of Montana School of Journalism
HELENA – A bill that would allow for the creation of experimental treatment centers in Montana has perked the ears of venture capitalists and biotech companies nationwide, but legislators on both sides of the aisle remain skeptical.
Senate Bill 535 is an extension of the federal Right to Try Act, which allows terminally ill patients to try experimental treatments that have passed phase one of clinical trials but are not yet accepted medical practice. Patients are also only eligible if they have exhausted all FDA-approved treatment options.
The bill follows efforts across the nation to expand the standard Right To Try law at the state level. Montana expanded the state Right to Try Act in 2023, and SB 535 follows that law to set up a regulatory framework for experimental treatments and licensing of treatment centers.
The bill flew through the Senate with little opposition, but when it hit the House last week, its path got rocky. SB 535 passed through committee easily enough, but narrowly passed its first vote in the full House after a heated debate and then failed on its third vote. Lawmakers then voted to revive it, and it squeaked through by one vote. It now heads back to the Senate, which will vote on the House’s amended version.
Other state legislatures have expanded on the federal law using the model of what experts call “Right to Try 2.0,” according to a 2025 report from the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center. Right to Try 2.0 favors individualized treatment plans, and it differs from the original law by changing the terminally ill requirement to a “severely debilitating illness” requirement. It also changes the language from “exhausted all other treatment options” to “considered all other treatment options.”
Right to Try 2.0 has been passed in six states since 2022, according to the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center, citing Goldwater Institute data.
In Montana’s last legislative session in 2023, Sen. Kenneth Bogner, R-Miles City, used a different approach to extend Right to Try by carrying Senate Bill 422, which removed the terminally ill requirement and extended eligibility to all patients in Montana.
Bogner said the intention of the new bill, SB 535, is to create a better environment for Montana’s expanded law to really take effect. He said he’s interested in preventative medicine and keeping people healthy for longer, and he sees the legislation as a way to give people access to these cutting-edge therapies sooner.
“Senate Bill 422 expanded Medical Right to Try, and got some interest from around the country, the healthcare industry, very excited about maximizing that law,” Bogner said in a committee hearing, “and they wanted some clarity in regulations around implementation so they feel comfortable investing and providing those medical options here in Montana.”
Many of the proponents at the House committee hearing for the bill were national organizations studying longevity, or doing cutting-edge medical research aimed at increasing lifespan. According to Dylan Livingston, founder and CEO of the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, the 2023 Montana Right to Try bill provided the “best framework in the nation” for new forms of longevity-based, preventative-focused care.
Still, the law needs more clarity for experimental treatment providers, Livingston said, which SB 535 would provide.
“SB 535 would not only enable Montanans access to therapies, it could also be a compelling economic opportunity,” Livingston said at the hearing. “By embracing Right to Try, Montana can become the nation’s premier hub for medical tourism.”
But the idea of ”medical tourism” is not a welcome one for some lawmakers, and the phrase became a pejorative last week during the lengthy debate on the House floor. Rep. Brian Close, D-Bozeman, and Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion in particular both objected to the idea of “medical tourism,” questioning whether it is something that the Legislature would like to allow in the state.
“The proponents actually used that term – medical tourism,” Millett said. “That’s what this is. They’re going to – they want to bring people in, their own doctors, their own patients, into the facilities in Montana, and do medical tourism here, they’ll go see the sights when they aren’t being treated.”
Rep. Kathy Love, R-Hamilton, chimed in, saying the bill has too many ethical concerns for her.
“In the committee, also, the proponents were the biotech industry,” Love said. “It was not private citizens. So our job, again, is to protect private citizens.”
And Rep. Melody Cunningham, D-Missoula, said several areas of the bill raised “grave safety concerns” for her, particularly a language change from the 2023 law. In current law, it is required that a patient “considers all” other treatment options before choosing an experimental treatment. In the 2025 bill, however, the wording is changed to “evaluates other” options.
“It’s fundamental to ethical research that patients are told of all approved treatment options,” Cunningham said. “I’ve been part of lots of those discussions over the years.”
Bogner discussed the wording change in an interview after the debate, saying that while “all” was stricken, “evaluates” provides more weight.
“‘All’ is removed, but ‘evaluated’ is a little stronger,” Bogner said. “You actually have to have evaluated other options, [rather] than just considered them.”
Cunningham, who worked in oncology research, said there were a number of sections of the bill that worried her, particularly in regards to bypassing the second and third clinical trial process, informed consent and liability for physicians, though she said an amendment striking the prohibition of liability clause did assuage her fears a bit.
SB 535 was amended twice in the House Human Services Committee before it hit the full House for debate. One amendment struck the qualified immunity language that would have protected experimental treatment providers who recommended or provided treatment and another established the Health Freedom and Access Requirement, which requires experimental treatment centers to give 2 percent of their annual profits to either provide free experimental treatments to Montanans or to the insurance premium support account, which funds premiums for Montana residents on the lower end of income averages. The latter also removed exemptions from licensure requirements, which means experimental providers must meet the same requirements as all other providers statewide.
Rep. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, who carried the bill on the House floor, said in his rebuttal that these drugs and treatments have already been through phase one FDA trials, and experimental treatment physicians were held to the same liability standards as any other physician in the state. The bill would allow Montanans to receive the care they need within the U.S., Buttrey said, rather than being forced to travel elsewhere.
“This bill strengthens Montana’s leadership role in innovation and quality healthcare, and empowers Montanans to make informed decisions about their own health, and it gives every Montanan the opportunity to access promising, life-changing care when they need it most,” Buttrey said.
Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, spoke in support of the bill as well, saying a closer look and the discussion in committee did much to assuage their concerns. Howell said this is a question of choice, even if there is something “fairly capitalistic” about the bill.
“If an individual, an adult, wants to choose to blow their money on biohacking to try and extend their life, that is their choice,” Howell said. “Personally, I’m gonna spend my money on whiskey and baseball to try and stay young.”
Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu.
