2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB670

SB670 creates a Texas-law route for certain patients to obtain investigational sun protection products with a physician’s written recommendation or prescription and informed consent.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to patient authorization to access certain investigational sun protection products.

Became law without signatureSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Hughes. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

SB670 creates a Texas-law route for certain patients to obtain investigational sun protection products with a physician’s written recommendation or prescription and informed consent.
The physician must consult with the patient, consider all other FDA-approved sun protection products and determine that those products are less effective than the investigational product.
A manufacturer may supply its product to an eligible patient who provides the required consent, but is not required to do so.
The act became law without the governor’s signature on June 20, 2025, and took effect immediately.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

SB670 creates a Texas-law route for certain patients to obtain investigational sun protection products with a physician’s written recommendation or prescription and informed consent. The product must contain an ingredient that has successfully completed phase one of a clinical trial, is not yet FDA-approved for general use and remains under investigation in that trial. It is not an unrestricted authorization for every unapproved sunscreen. New Health and Safety Code Chapter 491.

The physician must consult with the patient, consider all other FDA-approved sun protection products and determine that those products are less effective than the investigational product. Before recommending or prescribing it, the physician must require signed written informed consent. A parent or legal guardian may consent for a minor or a patient who lacks capacity. The Texas Medical Board may adopt a consent form by rule; the law does not make that rulemaking mandatory. Sections 491.051–.052.

A manufacturer may supply its product to an eligible patient who provides the required consent, but is not required to do so. It may provide it free or require payment of manufacturing costs or associated costs. State officials, employees and agents may not block eligible access under this chapter. The Medical Board may not discipline a physician solely for the recommendation or prescription if it meets both the medical standard of care and the chapter’s requirements. This is not blanket protection for unsafe practice or unrelated misconduct. Sections 491.053, .055 and .151; Existing disciplinary grounds.

The act became law without the governor’s signature on June 20, 2025, and took effect immediately. The final votes were 29–1 in the Senate and 115–27 in the House, with two present and not voting in the House. Official history; Section 3 and vote certifications.

What changed along the way?

The introduced, Senate committee, engrossed, House committee and enrolled operative texts match. Both committees reported the bill without amendments, and the amendment index lists no floor amendments. There is no abandoned substitute or adopted floor change to present as final law. Introduced text; All text versions; Amendment index.

The act adds a new access chapter rather than replacing the general physician-discipline system. It says the chapter creates no new private or state cause of action for harm from the product; that wording should not be expanded into a claim that it abolishes every existing remedy. It also leaves coverage for clinical-trial enrollees under Insurance Code Chapter 1379 unaffected. That existing chapter has its own eligibility, routine-care definitions and limits, including exclusion from routine patient-care costs of an investigational new drug or device that is not FDA-approved for any indication. SB670 does not promise insurance payment for the product. Sections 491.054, .101 and .151; Existing routine-care definition; Existing trial-coverage requirements.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Eligible patients and willing physicians and manufacturers gain a state-law access option before general FDA approval. That is the intended benefit, not proof that a particular product is safer, more effective or available. The bill’s legislative findings favor earlier access, but the act does not supply clinical outcome data or establish FDA approval. This briefing does not determine the federal regulatory status of any product. Patients may face manufacturing charges, and manufacturers retain the choice not to supply a product. Legislative findings, definition and access conditions.

Both fiscal notes—March 3 on the introduced bill and May 1 on the engrossed bill—anticipate no significant state fiscal impact, with costs absorbed using existing resources, and no local-government fiscal impact. They do not estimate patient charges, insurer spending or health benefits. The act makes no appropriation or guarantee of free access. Introduced fiscal note; Engrossed fiscal note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.