A new constitutional amendment proposal in Nevada, backed by a group called Freedom to Try Medical Innovations for Nevada, would allow patients and providers to use experimental medical treatments with minimal FDA oversight, while shielding them from additional state or local regulations. Supporters hail it as a fast track for innovative care, but critics warn it raises serious concerns about safety, oversight, and consumer protection.
The initiative was filed with the Nevada Secretary of State as C‑05‑2025 in November 2025, and the campaign has submitted a financial impact statement and a notice of intent to circulate petitions, according to the Nevada Secretary of State. If proponents gather enough signatures, the measure would land on the November 2026 ballot.
Leading the charge is Dan Montano, who identifies himself as founder and CEO of Las Vegas‑based Zhittya Genesis Medicine, a company whose website describes long‑running work on an FGF‑1 product for vascular and neurologic conditions. Zhittya’s website lists Montano as CEO and details ongoing U.S. research. As reported by the Reno Gazette‑Journal, Montano is behind the political action committee, has said he plans to spend "upwards of $2 million" on the campaign and has talked about hoping to have tens of thousands of people dosed before the 2028 election.
Where this fits in Nevada law
Nevada adopted a state right‑to‑try law in 2015 under then‑Gov. Brian Sandoval, aimed at terminally ill patients seeking access to investigational therapies. Proponents of the new amendment say it would dramatically broaden that pathway to cover more types of medical decisions. The 2015 statute and the initiative process are a matter of public record in the Legislature and state filings.
At the federal level, the FDA describes Right to Try as a narrow route meant for patients with life‑threatening conditions who have exhausted approved options, and the agency collects annual summaries from manufacturers about investigational drugs provided under the law. According to the FDA, only a small number of investigational products were supplied under Right to Try from 2018 through 2022, a point regulators and some experts highlight when questioning how much broader access a state‑level amendment can realistically deliver.
Arguments from both sides
Supporters frame the measure as a response to what they call an overly slow and expensive federal system. Academic estimates often cited in this debate put the capitalized cost of bringing a single successful new drug to market in the low‑to‑mid billions, with timelines stretching over many years. A widely referenced study by DiMasi and colleagues at Tufts produced cost estimates in that range and is frequently invoked by advocates pushing for alternative access pathways. The analysis, available via Tufts, is one of several scholarly assessments that show just how pricey and protracted drug development can be.
Legal implications
According to summaries of the ballot language, the amendment would grant broad civil immunity to medical providers and others who use or supply experimental products, and it would bar state and local governments from imposing added regulatory requirements. Those provisions raise immediate questions about who is on the hook if something goes wrong and how much oversight the state could realistically exercise. The same reporting notes the committee must submit roughly 148,788 valid signatures by June 24, 2026, to qualify for the 2026 ballot and that, if voters approve it in November 2026, the amendment would have to go back on the ballot in the 2028 general election before taking effect, according to the Reno Gazette‑Journal.
What comes next
For now, the campaign’s job is logistics. Proponents must gather the required signatures statewide and follow the Secretary of State’s rules for circulating constitutional initiative petitions, including filing all necessary paperwork and meeting circulation deadlines, as laid out in the office’s petition guidance. If the campaign clears that bar and survives any procedural challenges, the measure would appear on the November 2026 ballot and, because it is a constitutional amendment, would need a second voter sign‑off in 2028 before it could actually take effect.
Whether Nevadans buy into this expanded route for experimental therapies is poised to spark a high‑octane public fight between those who say regulatory delays cost lives and those who warn the proposal risks swapping federal safety checks for unproven hope. Expect local health officials, patient‑advocacy groups and legal observers to scrutinize the signature drive and be ready to jump in as the campaign shifts from paperwork to full‑blown politicking and, potentially, courtroom battles.
