Summary#

SJ 50, “Interim study of the medical response to COVID-19,” was a Montana Senate joint resolution requesting a legislative study; it failed and is not law. It would have asked the Legislative Council to assign an interim or statutory committee, or staff, to study the effects of specified COVID-19 treatments and the outcomes of Montana’s Right to Try Act in certain COVID-related cases. Its stated goal was to report the study’s results to the 70th Legislature.

• The requested study would cover the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines, remdesivir, dexamethasone, and “other questionable drugs and treatments.”
• It would specifically ask the study to examine ivermectin’s benefits as a COVID-19 treatment.
• The study would also examine Right to Try Act outcomes involving experimental or innovative treatments for active COVID-19, long COVID, and claimed negative impacts of vaccines and federally recommended treatments.
• If assigned to staff, findings or conclusions would go to a committee chosen by the Legislative Council for review. The resolution set a September 15, 2026, deadline for completing the study and review.

What it means for you#

• Patients and providers: The resolution would not change treatment rules, patient rights, or eligibility for care. It would not require patients or providers to take part in a study.
• Montana residents: The proposal was for legislative research, not a new medical service or treatment program. Because it failed, it creates no study assignment or reporting requirement.
• Right to Try Act: The resolution would study outcomes related to the Act; it would not amend the Act. The Act’s text was not supplied, so its current rules cannot be verified here.

Money#

No cost estimate or funding source is provided.

• The resolution asked the Legislative Council to assign a committee or direct “sufficient staff resources,” but gave no staffing level or cost estimate.
• Because the resolution failed, it creates no study spending or staffing requirement.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set study methods, evidence standards, or rules for choosing which treatments count as “other questionable drugs and treatments.”
• It does not say who would conduct the research beyond a committee or staff assignment, or how patients, providers, or researchers would be involved.
• It does not specify a budget, staff hours, or how the study would be paid for.
• The resolution’s introductory statements make claims about federal actions and harms. The requested study would not itself establish those claims as facts.

Case for#

• The proposal appears intended to give lawmakers information about short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.
• A legislative study could examine the named treatments and the experience of people seeking experimental or innovative treatments under the Right to Try Act.
• Reporting findings to the next Legislature could give lawmakers material to consider when discussing future policy.

Case against#

• One concern is that the resolution asks the study to examine ivermectin’s “benefits,” rather than neutrally specifying that it assess both benefits and risks.
• The terms “other questionable” treatments and “negative impacts” are not defined, leaving the study’s scope open to interpretation.
• The proposal does not specify methods, evidence standards, or participation rules, making it unclear how broad or reliable the findings would be.