There is hope, and some early tentative evidence, that chloroquine and hydroxyclhoroquine might possibly be effective, especially in combination with other drugs. So of course the Governor of Nevada thought it was a bright idea to ban new prescriptions for these drugs for use against the Coronavirus.
Today, I signed an emergency regulation limiting the prescription & issuance of two drugs that have unproven results with treating COVID-19. While these drugs serve necessary medical purposes, this regulation protects the Nevadans who need them and prevents unnecessary hoarding. pic.twitter.com/dGMDJfdNAW
— Governor Sisolak (@GovSisolak) March 24, 2020
However, it was subsequently clarified that those already on either of the drugs, or “inpatient[s] in an institutional setting” as it applied to a “chart order” (i.e. someone who is already so bad that they’ve been admitted to a hospital can still be proscribed them). In other words it isn’t a full blanket ban, but a partial infringement on a doctor’s prerogative to treat their patient under their guidance with a legitimate medicine.
3.24 RX Regulation by ThePoliticalHat on Scribd
Governor Sisolak suggested that Texas had gone further, when it did not since according to the article the Governor linked there was no proscribing limitation to chart orders of inpatients in a hospital.
While hoarding and a shortage hurting those who needed these drugs for other purposes is a legitimate concern, a blanket ban on non-hospital prescription to help fight the Coronavirus because there is no “concensus” about their efficacy is still a restriction that leaves the decision in the hands of the government, and not with actual doctors—troubling ineed.. Even if their efficacy is overstated, to outright ban outside of crowded hospitals is troubling.
