WeVote
Log In

Bill

SB

Bill

HR 9421

To prohibit a REMS-certified provider from prescribing mifepristone without an in-person visit and a medical license in the State in which the patient resides, and for other purposes.

119th Congress Introduced by Sheri Biggs and 5 co-sponsors

Prohibits REMS-certified providers from prescribing mifepristone without an in-person visit and a medical license valid in the patient’s state of residence.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9421

Bill Overview

  • Bill: HR 9421
  • Session: 119
  • Jurisdiction: United States
  • Title: To prohibit a REMS-certified provider from prescribing mifepristone without an in-person visit and a medical license in the State in which the patient resides, and for other purposes.
  • Introduced: June 24, 2026
  • Referred to: House Committee on Energy and Commerce (June 24, 2026)
  • Sponsors: Co-sponsors Ralph Norman, Russell Fry, Harriet Hageman, Sheri Biggs

Purpose and Intent

The bill aims to restrict the prescription of mifepristone by REMS-certified providers to scenarios that include:
- An in-person medical visit, and
- A valid medical license in the state where the patient resides.

The stated objective is to ensure that mifepristone prescriptions are issued only after direct in-person assessment and within the patient’s own state licensure framework.

Key Provisions

While the full text is not provided here, the core elements suggested by the bill’s title and summary include:

  • Prohibition on REMS-certified providers prescribing mifepristone without:
    • An in-person visit between patient and provider, and
    • A medical license that is valid in the patient’s state of residence.
  • Likely alignment with REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) requirements for mifepristone, adding a state-licensure and in-person visit condition as prerequisites for prescription.
  • Meant to create a compliance framework for providers who dispense mifepristone, potentially including enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or civil remedies for violations (exact details would be in the text).
  • Possible implications for telemedicine practices involving mifepristone, given the in-person visit requirement and state-licensure constraint.

Affected Parties and Impacts

  • Affected Providers: REMS-certified healthcare providers who prescribe mifepristone. They would be required to:
    • Conduct an in-person visit before prescribing.
    • Ensure they hold a medical license in the patient’s state of residence.
  • Patients: Individuals seeking mifepristone treatment who would be subject to:
    • Access limitations if they cannot have an in-person visit or if their provider is not licensed in their state.
    • Potential geographic constraints on where they can receive prescriptions.
  • States: The bill reinforces state licensure boundaries, potentially affecting cross-state telemedicine arrangements and patient access in states with differing licensure or telehealth policies.
  • Healthcare System: Could impact telehealth services, prescriptions, and REMS program administration by introducing tighter state-licensure compliance and in-person requirements.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction: June 24, 2026
  • Procedure: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, indicating the bill will undergo committee review, potential amendments, and, if advanced, consideration on the House floor.
  • Timeline: No further dates are provided in the summary; typical steps would include committee hearings, markup, and floor votes, followed by potential passage, Senate action, and presidential signature to become law.

Considerations and Context (nonpartisan overview)

  • The bill intersects with debates over mifepristone access, telemedicine, and state-by-state licensure.
  • If enacted, the bill could complicate or restrict remote prescribing of mifepristone and require providers to navigate both in-person care standards and multi-state licensure requirements.
  • The measure may face considerations linked to patient access to abortion care, telehealth policy, interstate medical practice, and Federal vs. state authority on abortion-related treatments.

Note: This summary reflects the information available in the bill’s title and action history. For a complete understanding of all provisions, definitions, penalties, and exceptions, the full text of HR 9421 would be required.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.