HB1734

Dear Chair and Members of the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, My name is Dr. Ronald A. Primas, and I am a board-certified internist and preventive medicine physician with a clinical and professional focus on longevity, metabolic health, and innovation in age-related and chronic disease care. I currently practice in the Northeast and work closely with emerging biotechnology, diagnostics, and translational medicine initiatives. I am writing in strong support of HB 1734 and HB 1735 and respectfully urge the Committee to recommend both bills favorably. These bills represent thoughtful, patient-centered policy that balances safety with innovation. By modernizing New Hampshire’s experimental treatment framework and expanding right-to-try access beyond terminal illness to include serious chronic and debilitating conditions, the state sends a clear signal that it welcomes responsible biomedical innovation and compassionate care. From a practical standpoint, legislation such as HB 1734 and HB 1735 meaningfully lowers barriers for early-stage biotech and clinical innovators who are currently concentrated in Boston and other major hubs. New Hampshire is well positioned to attract these companies by offering a regulatory environment that supports ethical experimentation, translational research, and rapid iteration—while maintaining appropriate oversight. As a physician working at the intersection of clinical medicine and innovation, I see firsthand how patients with chronic, progressive conditions often exhaust standard options long before their disease is considered “terminal.” Expanding access in a structured and lawful manner is not only humane—it accelerates learning, data generation, and therapeutic advancement. Importantly, these bills also enhance New Hampshire’s competitiveness. If enacted, they would make the state more attractive for biotech startups, clinical research operations, and affiliated professional services seeking proximity to Boston’s talent pool without Boston’s regulatory and cost constraints. I would personally be interested in exploring the possibility of locating portions of clinical, advisory, or innovation-related work in New Hampshire should this legislative framework move forward. In summary, HB 1734 and HB 1735 promote innovation, patient autonomy, and economic development simultaneously. They reflect forward-looking leadership and would position New Hampshire as a national model for responsible biotech policy. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service. Respectfully submitted, Ronald A. Primas, MD, FACP, FACPM Board-Certified Internal Medicine & Preventive Medicine

Chairman and Members of the Committee, My name is Dr. Kris Barnes. I am the CEO and founder of Lento Bio, a preclinical-stage biotechnology company developing treatments for age-related diseases. I submit this written testimony in strong support of HB 1734 and HB 1735, and respectfully ask the Committee to give both bills a favorable recommendation. Lento Bio is developing LB-01-ME, an eyedrop treatment for presbyopia—the universal loss of near vision that affects every human being by middle age. Our asset has demonstrated the ability to restore lens flexibility in both mouse models and, notably, in isolated human lenses. We are currently advancing through IND-enabling studies with clinical trials planned for 2027. I write to you today because bills like HB 1734 and HB 1735 address a fundamental challenge facing small biotechnology companies: the "valley of death" between early clinical safety data and the prohibitively expensive late-stage trials required for full approval. For a company like ours—with a safe, low-cost therapeutic targeting a chronic but non-life-threatening condition—traditional financing pathways for Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials are extraordinarily difficult. These bills offer a pathway to continue generating meaningful clinical evidence while serving patients who wish to access promising treatments. New Hampshire is well-positioned to become a hub for biotech innovation, particularly given its proximity to the Boston-Cambridge corridor, which houses one of the world's densest concentrations of life sciences talent and capital. By establishing frameworks that enable responsible access to experimental treatments, New Hampshire can attract companies seeking regulatory environments that balance innovation with patient safety. HB 1734's adaptation of Montana's experimental treatment center model and HB 1735's expansion of right-to-try to chronic conditions represent precisely the kind of forward-thinking policy that would draw biotechnology operations northward. I can speak to this directly: if New Hampshire were to pass these bills, Lento Bio would seriously consider establishing operations in the state. Our therapeutic is particularly well-suited to frameworks like these—LB-01-ME has low manufacturing costs, a straightforward clinical trial structure, targets a condition that is debilitating but not deadly, and is derived from a GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) parent compound with decades of human safety data. A pathway allowing paying patients to access LB-01-ME following Phase 1 safety studies, with data collection that could inform future development, would be enormously valuable to our program and to the patients who currently have no disease-modifying treatment options. I believe these bills represent sound policy that will accelerate therapeutic innovation, provide hope to patients with unmet needs, and position New Hampshire as a leader in the emerging bioeconomy. Thank you for your consideration. I am happy to provide additional information upon request. Respectfully submitted, Kris Barnes, PhD CEO and Founder, Lento Bio, Inc.

Members of the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, My name is Andy DeMeo, and I am writing in support of HB 1734-FN. I run a New Hampshire–based media project focused on optimism and progress, telling stories about people working constructively on hard problems. From that perspective, I pay close attention to how policy can either enable responsible progress or unintentionally stall it. After reviewing HB 1734, I believe the opportunities it creates clearly outweigh the risks it introduces. For some patients, existing treatment options are simply not enough. In those situations, patients and physicians should have room to act responsibly when considering experimental care. This bill creates that room while keeping important guardrails in place. It requires physician involvement, informed consent, scientific review, and authorization by the Department of Health and Human Services. That balance matters. I also see this legislation as a genuine opportunity for New Hampshire. It offers a path to attract research activity, clinical talent, and investment without mandating participation by providers, insurers, or patients. This is an opt-in framework designed to expand choice, not override existing systems. Finally, I appreciate that the bill connects innovation to public benefit through its requirement that experimental treatment centers contribute to free care or public health funds. That reflects a belief I share: progress should be paired with responsibility. For these reasons, I urge the committee to recommend HB 1734-FN as Ought to Pass. In my view, the potential benefits to patients and to the state meaningfully exceed the risks, which are well managed by the bill’s safeguards. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Andy DeMeo New Hampshire

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.