Right to Try Law Sees Limited Use in Cancer Care

After nearly 8 years, the pathway appears to be rarely used in oncology, raising questions about its impact.

Apr. 17, 2026 at 8:27am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A translucent X-ray photograph showing the intricate internal structure of a medical device, conceptually representing the complex ethical and safety considerations surrounding the Right to Try law.The limited use of the Right to Try law in cancer care raises concerns about patient safety and the potential for false hope.Indianapolis Today

The Right to Try Act, passed in 2018, aimed to provide patients with life-threatening conditions faster access to investigational treatments. But available data suggests limited uptake of the pathway, especially in oncology, where most oncologists prefer the more robust expanded access program that includes FDA and institutional review board oversight.

Why it matters

Critics have expressed concerns about the ethics of forgoing FDA and IRB oversight and potentially giving patients false hope that drugs at such an early stage of development will have any meaningful benefit. Oncologists also worry about the time and resources required to navigate the Right to Try process, often uncompensated, and the potential to mislead patients about the risks and benefits.

The details

While Right to Try and expanded access pathways overlap, expanded access is much more popular. FDA officials have allowed more than 99% of expanded access requests for individual patients to proceed in recent years. Gauging how often physicians have used Right to Try is more challenging, as publicly available information on its use remains limited. A brief online summary reveals that a total of 21 drugs or biological products have been provided between 2018 and 2024, but the number of patients involved is unclear.

  • The Right to Try Act was passed in 2018.
  • In fiscal year 2023, 1,318 of the 1,326 nonemergency expanded access requests were given the go-ahead, as were all 634 emergency requests.

The players

Anita Turk, MD

An assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis who has used the Right to Try pathway in one case.

Christopher Robertson, JD, PhD

A professor of health law, policy, and management at the Boston University School of Law and a member of the Working Group on Compassionate Use and Preapproval Access at NYU Langone Health.

Naomi Lopez

A senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, which advocated for the Right to Try legislation.

Julie R. Gralow, MD

The chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Zubin Master, PhD

An associate professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and a bioethicist who has researched oncologists' understanding of the Right to Try law.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Right to Try 'has been mostly a nothing burger.'”

— Christopher Robertson, Professor of health law, policy, and management, Boston University School of Law

“It 'is not my go-to practice to use Right to Try.' But in this case, it was 'probably our only option.'”

— Anita Turk, MD, Assistant professor of clinical medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine

“Right to Try doesn't equal right to receive.”

— Julie R. Gralow, MD, Chief medical officer and executive vice president, American Society of Clinical Oncology

What’s next

Leaders at the Goldwater Institute are lobbying for another federal law, dubbed Right to Try 2.0, which they say would improve access to highly individualized treatments, such as a cancer vaccine based on a patient's genetic mutations.

The takeaway

While the Right to Try law aimed to provide faster access to investigational treatments, its limited use in oncology, especially compared to the more widely used expanded access program, raises questions about whether it has meaningfully helped patients with life-threatening diagnoses or largely created a symbolic alternative with fewer safeguards.