Nevada Constitutional Amendment: Right to Try Medical Innovation Push
- Las Vegas, Nevada – A proposed constitutional amendment in Nevada is seeking to establish the state as a haven for medical treatments not yet approved by the U.S.
- The proposal, quietly filed in mid-November 2025, would grant Nevadans the right to make decisions regarding their medical care and treatment, expand legal immunity for medical providers offering...
- Currently, “Right to Try” laws, enacted in a majority of U.S.
Las Vegas, Nevada – A proposed constitutional amendment in Nevada is seeking to establish the state as a haven for medical treatments not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), igniting a debate over patient access, medical innovation, and regulatory oversight. The initiative, backed by a political action committee titled Freedom to Try Medical Innovation for Nevada, aims to significantly broaden existing “Right to Try” legislation.
The proposal, quietly filed in mid-November , would grant Nevadans the right to make decisions regarding their medical care and treatment, expand legal immunity for medical providers offering experimental products, and prevent further regulatory requirements at the state and local levels. This move comes as the biotech industry increasingly seeks more flexible environments for testing and deploying novel therapies.
Currently, “Right to Try” laws, enacted in a majority of U.S. States including Nevada in under then-Governor Brian Sandoval, and at the federal level during the Trump administration, allow terminally ill patients to access investigational drugs. However, Dan Montano, founder and CEO of Zhittya Genesis Medicine and the driving force behind the Freedom to Try PAC, argues these existing laws are largely ineffective. They all say, ‘Oh we’re going to give you a right to try, but here’s a bureaucracy that’s going to say no,’
he told the Nevada Current.
Montano points to FDA reporting indicating that between and , fewer than two dozen investigational drugs were made available to patients through Right to Try mechanisms. He believes Nevada can foster a more dynamic environment for medical innovation, potentially attracting biotech and healthcare companies to the state. He plans to invest upwards of $2 million in the campaign to achieve this.
The proposed amendment expands the scope of access beyond terminally ill patients, aiming to include individuals with chronic, life-shortening diseases. This distinction is crucial, as the current Right to Try laws are limited to those facing imminent death. The initiative, dubbed “Freedom to Try,” seeks to address the needs of a broader patient population struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s disease and Type 2 diabetes, where early-stage treatments might offer a chance to slow or even reverse disease progression.
Zhittya Genesis Medicine, Montano’s company, is itself developing a treatment utilizing Fibroblast Growth Factor-1 (FGF-1) to stimulate blood vessel growth and improve circulation. The company believes this approach holds promise for managing chronic diseases. The ballot initiative is, in part, intended to create a favorable regulatory landscape for such innovations.
To qualify for the general election ballot, the Freedom to Try PAC must gather 148,788 signatures by . If approved by voters, the amendment would then need to be re-approved in the general election before going into effect. This dual-approval process is a requirement for constitutional amendments in Nevada.
The initiative is reportedly banking on Nevada’s libertarian tendencies to gain traction. The state has a history of embracing individual freedoms and limited government intervention, a sentiment that could resonate with voters considering the proposal. However, the move also raises concerns about patient safety and the potential for unproven treatments to be marketed without rigorous FDA oversight.
The debate highlights a broader tension between the desire to accelerate medical innovation and the need to protect public health. While proponents argue that the FDA’s approval process is overly burdensome and delays access to potentially life-saving treatments, critics warn that bypassing established regulatory safeguards could expose patients to significant risks. The outcome of the Nevada vote could have implications for other states considering similar measures, potentially reshaping the landscape of medical research and patient access in the United States.
The proposed amendment’s impact extends beyond Nevada’s borders. If successful, it could position the state as a leading center for medical innovation, attracting investment and creating jobs. However, it could also lead to legal challenges and scrutiny from federal regulators, potentially creating a complex regulatory environment. The initiative represents a bold experiment in medical freedom, one that could have far-reaching consequences for patients, the biotech industry, and the future of healthcare.