Which specific state statutes (text) authorize OTC ivermectin and how do they define covered products?
Executive summary
A patchwork of recent state measures—some enacted, some proposed—either expressly authorize over‑the‑counter (OTC) sale of ivermectin or empower pharmacists to dispense it without a traditional physician prescription; the laws differ in precise wording and in how they define which ivermectin products are covered, but the reporting available does not include full, verbatim statutory texts for every state (limitation noted) [1] [2] [3]. Key recurring definitions in the sources are phrases such as “ivermectin suitable for human use,” authorizations to dispense “pursuant to a standing order,” and statutory protections for pharmacists who dispense ivermectin without a prescription [1] [4] [5].
1. Tennessee: the earliest enacted OTC language and the phrase “ivermectin suitable for human use”
Tennessee’s 2022 law is repeatedly cited as the first state to make ivermectin available OTC, and its statutory language—summarized in reporting—authorizes “ivermectin suitable for human use” to be sold or purchased over the counter “without a prescription or consultation with a pharmacist or other healthcare professional,” a formulation that directly defines the covered product as human‑use ivermectin rather than veterinary formulations [1].
2. Louisiana: Act 464/SB 19 — standing orders and pharmacist screening requirements
Louisiana’s SB 19, which became Act 464 effective June 20, 2025, authorizes pharmacists to dispense ivermectin to adults but ties the dispensing to a standing order issued by a health care professional with prescriptive authority and imposes requirements such as providing patients with information on indications/contraindications and a screening risk assessment tool—language that frames covered products as FDA‑approved human ivermectin dispensed under a standing order rather than free‑for‑all shelf items [1] [4].
3. Texas: statutory authorization for pharmacists and liability protections (HB 25 / HB 3219 / related bills)
Texas measures reported (including HB 25 and bills to authorize a statewide standing order via the commissioner of state health services) authorize pharmacists to dispense ivermectin “without requiring a prescription order from a licensed health care practitioner” and explicitly shield pharmacists from criminal, civil or professional discipline when acting “in a reasonably prudent manner,” language that defines covered ivermectin as a pharmacist‑dispensable human product and focuses on scope and liability for dispensers [6] [5] [7] [8].
4. Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma and other pending or proposed statutes — varying definitions and statuses
Florida’s HB 29 is described on the Florida House site as authorizing sale and purchase of “specified ivermectin as over‑the‑counter medication without prescription or consultation,” with an effective date listed as July 1, 2026—indicating the statute will define covered products by cross‑referenced “specified ivermectin” but the source does not reproduce the statutory text [3]. Arkansas proposals (e.g., SB189 descriptions) explicitly amend state law to define “over‑the‑counter medication” and permit sale of human‑use ivermectin OTC, but coverage in the reports indicates a bill text change rather than supplying the verbatim statute [9]. Oklahoma reporting flags SB 1186 to allow OTC sale starting November 2026 if enacted, signaling more states are proposing statutory changes to define covered ivermectin products [10].
5. What common definitional patterns emerge — and what the sources do not provide
Across the reporting, three definitional patterns recur: statutes or bills specify “ivermectin suitable for human use” or “specified ivermectin,” some statutes permit dispensing pursuant to a standing order issued by a prescriber rather than unconditional shelf sale, and several measures include liability and licensing‑discipline protections for pharmacists who dispense ivermectin without a prescription [1] [4] [5] [2]. The sources, however, do not consistently provide full statutory text for every jurisdiction; where bill pages (South Carolina bills intending to add Section 44‑53‑150) or legislative summaries appear, the exact statutory wording is not reproduced in the reporting excerpts supplied here, so a line‑by‑line legal citation cannot be given from these sources alone [11] [12].
6. Political and practical context implicit in the statutes and reporting
Reporting indicates legislative aims often invoke increased access in rural or underserved areas and protection of pharmacists from discipline, while health‑care organizations warn about safety and dosing concerns—an inverse motive structure that helps explain why definitions emphasize “human use” and standing orders in some states and broader pharmacist discretion or OTC labels in others [3] [5] [2]. Notably, national summaries disagree on the exact count of states with enacted OTC ivermectin measures (some cite four states as of mid‑2025, others list different states), underscoring that statute status and text vary rapidly and require checking primary state statute pages for final, enacted language [2] [1].