Work Requirements Unfairly Burden Medicaid Applicants

Great story (“A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” July 21). However, a key point was missed. The wrongly denied recipients have the burden of proving their entitlement. This can cost thousands. They have no money with which to finance the carrying of that burden of proof. Additionally, how does one prove that they cannot do any work? Doctors generally say: I will just provide their work restrictions (e.g., 10-pound lifting restrictions), but I’m not a vocational expert, so I’m not going to opine on “employability” or “non-employability.” Moreover, it takes many months to go through reconsiderations and appeals, so even if the worker wins, they will have lost everything by then. Finally, under the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies,” the recipient must suffer through the administrative steps before asking a court to help. And even then, the court will defer to the administrative agencies’ findings of fact (i.e., the department’s hired doctor over the treating doctor).

Bottom line: Once there is an incorrect/wrongful denial, it is an unjust horror show that literally destroys lives 鈥� all because far-right politicians have stereotyped Medicaid recipients, painting them all as presumptively people who could work but would rather just unjustly receive benefits 鈥� a totally false and ignorant paradigm. A partial solution would include placing the burden of proof on the state to prove the recipient can work and that suitable work is available, and to enact a presumption that when a treating doctor has credibly explained a substantial disability, the department must presume qualification absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.

鈥� N. Dean Nasser Jr.; Sioux Falls, South Dakota

A Reckless Data Grab?

The Office of Personnel Management has already suffered massive data breaches affecting millions of employees and their families.

I am a retired federal civil servant and one of the many whose data was .

The (“Trump’s Personnel Agency Says It Will Remove Some Identifying Info as It Sweeps Up Medical Records,” July 22) raise the question of how the requested massive dump of health data any better than the personnel records previously affected.

鈥� Kathryn Edgecomb; Vancouver, Washington

States Need More Than Money To Fight the Opioid Crisis

New Mexico offers a compelling case study in the national conversation about opioid settlement accountability (“Leadership Vacuum: Agencies in New York and Beyond Pass the Buck on Opioid Cash Oversight,” July 21). While much of the public attention has focused on whether settlement dollars are being misspent, the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor’s review of local governments found a different problem: Large amounts of opioid remediation funding remain unspent years after settlements were reached and funds were distributed. The state auditor’s transparency review identified more than $100 million in opioid settlement funds held by local governments, with many entities reporting little or no expenditures as of fiscal year 2025.

That outcome does not point to widespread misuse. Instead, some local officials repeatedly cited workforce shortages, provider capacity constraints, procurement hurdles, and long-term sustainability concerns as barriers to moving dollars into prevention, treatment, and recovery programs.

While these barriers are significant, New Mexico has built structures that may be worth watching. A state law established dedicated opioid settlement funds and a framework intended to ensure resources are used for opioid remediation purposes. State agencies, local governments, behavioral health providers, and policymakers are now working through how best to coordinate spending, measure outcomes, and communicate progress to the public. The New Mexico Office of the State Auditor will continue to provide transparency, reporting on who is spending, what is producing results, and where bottlenecks exist.

The lesson for other states is clear: Securing settlement dollars creates an unprecedented opportunity to remediate harms resulting from the opioid crisis, but it is only the first step. States also need the workforce, infrastructure, and coordination to turn that money into treatment, recovery services, prevention programs, and fewer overdose deaths.

The core question is no longer just where the money is. It is whether states have built the systems to translate settlement dollars into measurable public health gains.

鈥� New Mexico State Auditor Joseph Maestas; Santa Fe, New Mexico

Progress on the Prior Authorization Front

Health plans continue to make steady progress implementing the to simplify prior authorization. The article “Insurers Hedge on Trump-Backed Pledge To Improve Denials Process” (July 17) paints an incomplete picture of this ongoing work, particularly related to supporting for patients and for prior authorization requests.

Participating health plans committed to implementing aimed at reducing administrative burden and accelerating access to care on a transparent timeline, and that work is on track. In April 2026, participating health plans announced and a for submitting electronic prior authorization requests for most medical services starting in 2027.

Health plans will continue adopting common data standards on a rolling basis as the standardization commitment is fully implemented, starting in 2027. As more providers move away from manual, error-prone processes and adopt electronic prior authorization, this standardized approach will mean faster answers, a more consistent experience, and less friction for everyone.

in place to support member transitions between insurers during an active course of treatment. Under the voluntary commitments, when a patient with an approved authorization for in-network care switches health plans, the previous plan’s authorization is honored for 90 days. Health plans can implement several data exchange options to support patient transitions, and plans are not required to use a specific method to meet the commitment.

The series of voluntary commitments made by the industry requires substantial work, meaningful investment, and strong partnerships. Health plans are making steady progress in meeting these commitments and will continue to do so until they are fulfilled.

鈥� Mike Tuffin; AHIP president and CEO; Washington, D.C.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Last year, Baltimore had three in the span of three months in its Penn North neighborhood.

In one incident, more than two dozen people were hospitalized after many were , lying in the streets or on sidewalks. No one died, but some came close.

Follow-up that the street drugs of N-methylclonazepam, a benzodiazepine that operates similarly to Xanax or Valium. Like opioids, benzodiazepines suppress breathing. When they’re combined, the goes up. And benzodiazepines don’t respond to opioid overdose reversal drugs.

Afterward, the created test strips specifically for benzodiazepines. The group distributed them 鈥� along with test strips that identify other harmful adulterants, such as fentanyl, , and medetomidine 鈥� at clinics and neighborhood events. The strips, available at no cost, can also be found in bars and spread out on street corners. People testing drugs mix a small amount with water and then dip a test strip into the liquid. The strip will change color if it identifies an adulterant.

“Nobody really knows what they’re getting whenever they’re getting stuff off of the street,” said Candy Kerr, a spokesperson for the coalition. “Having the test strips available for the general public gives them the option to move slower if they’re going to use whatever they’re going to use.”

But a new federal policy could make it harder for organizations such as Kerr’s to give out the test strips, and they’re worried that overdoses could increase. In late April, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration banned the use of federal grants for distributing strips to the public and for some other harm reduction practices that have been credited with saving lives. Test strips have been used for to identify adulterants.

sent to local health departments and nonprofits that provide addiction services explained that the Trump administration believes those harm reduction practices “facilitate illicit drug use and are incompatible with Federal laws.”

According to the letter, grants from the Department of Health and Human Services also cannot be used for programs that support the use of clean needles or drug paraphernalia such as pipes, or to fund a type of that people can , so someone is aware and can call for help if they overdose. 

The Trump administration wants to focus more on other techniques, such as giving out naloxone, an overdose reversal drug available as a nasal spray, according to Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson.

“It is critical that federal funding provided by the American taxpayer goes to effective, common-sense solutions that鈥痟ave been proven to鈥痵ave lives and keep people out of an endless cycle of addiction and moves them into a life of recovery,” she said.

The new policy does not prohibit federal funds from being used to purchase test strips for use by law enforcement officers, public health officials, EMTs, or other medical professionals.

That creates an important exception for government agencies that test drugs and send out on what adulterants are saturating the drug supply in certain locations.

Still, , who oversaw SAMHSA’s in the Biden and Trump administrations, says there is a substantial body of evidence giving test strips to people who use drugs can change behavior.

“There’s some people deciding not to use the substances, some people deciding to reduce, to use less, or take other types of precautions, including naloxone, and making sure that there are people around that can actually then help in the case of an overdose,” Olsen said.

Kerr said the best approach would be to continue to promote the use of test strips while also continuing to give out lifesaving medications like naloxone. She believes that working on all fronts has helped lead to Baltimore’s decline in overdose deaths, which more than 40% since 2023.

Under the new policy, nonprofits will still be able to hand out test strips, but they will have to find other funding for that work, which Kerr finds worrisome.

“We’ve been making these strides forward because we’ve had these things, because we’ve been funded,” she said. “We’re going to have to pull money from other places.”

To pay for the test strips, Kerr said, the Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition will have to cut back on services such as giving out hygiene and wound care kits. But she said that option is better than risking another mass overdose in Baltimore 鈥� or allowing even just one preventable fatality.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and 吃瓜不打烊.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

For years, Washington, D.C., has paid for Medicaid 鈥� the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people 鈥� out of its general budget. But next year, the city is shifting part of that recurring multimillion-dollar cost to a new funding source: opioid settlement dollars.

That’s raising red flags for addiction recovery advocates, people directly affected by the crisis, and the commission in charge of recommending how the city uses its share of the settlement money.

The come from a host of companies that made or distributed prescription painkillers and were accused of fueling the overdose crisis. State and local governments nationwide are set to receive more than $50 billion over almost two decades. Washington, D.C.’s cut is expected to .

The money is meant to remediate the addiction crisis, often by increasing services or funding new programs.

But many states are facing increasing fiscal pressures as they are squeezed by inflation, federal funding cuts, and rising costs. Some officials have been tempted to turn to opioid settlement cash as a budget stopgap 鈥� an idea that can trigger opposition and outrage from recovery advocates and people who have struggled with opioid addiction and their family members.

“These funds were awarded to D.C. for very specific reasons and with a specific mandate, which are to remediate issues related to the opioid crisis in new and innovative ways,” said Queen Adesuyi, a partner at , a consulting group for community-based organizations, who is crying foul over the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget.

A document provided to 吃瓜不打烊 shows line items in the district’s fiscal 2027 budget that would direct about $2.3 million in opioid settlement funds to help pay for the city’s Medicaid contribution and at least $5.5 million to support addiction treatment centers previously funded through the general budget. Substituting opioid settlement dollars for general funding keeps overall spending on treatment flat instead of increasing.

“Opioid settlement dollars are not meant to be a rainy-day fund for existing government obligations,” said , associate director of the Center on Addiction and Public Policy at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute.

More than 80 individuals and 30 city organizations protesting this use of settlement dollars, saying the district’s planned to spend opioid cash to “pay off its own debts.” The letter was sent to DBH Director Barbara Bazron; the chair of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Health, ; and Attorney General .

Chad Jackson, himself in recovery, chairs the district’s , which was created to advise the city on how to spend its settlement dollars. Jackson called the latest move supplantation, a budgeting tactic that shifts money from one fund to another to free up dollars.

“If the opioid settlement funds were not there, I feel pretty confident that these things would have been funded, because they have to be funded,” Jackson said.

What’s happening now is against the district’s opioid litigation law, he said.

The that money from the district’s opioid abatement fund “shall supplement, and not supplant.”

“It’s a pretty tightly written law where the intent is very clear: Do not supplant,” Weizman said.

Adesuyi, an advocate for programs that help people who use drugs, said the council is flouting that law and that it’s a “slap in the face.”

Councilmember Henderson and Attorney General Schwalb weighed in too.

“We are also concerned that DBH may be using the settlement monies for other unauthorized purposes,” they wrote in a to the department. They highlighted the $2.3 million used to cover the city’s Medicaid contribution and asked the department to explain by July 31 how it determined that was legal.

It’s unclear whether the Department of Behavioral Health met that deadline. DBH, Henderson’s office, and the attorney general’s office did not respond to that specific question.

However, DBH spokesperson said in a statement that the department is “committed to compliance with all statutory requirements governing opioid settlement funds.” The department’s general position has been that its budget was approved by the council, and that the funding supports efforts that counter opioid addiction.

The council “passed a legally-certified budget for the next fiscal year that makes the best use of all local resources, including the opioid settlement fund, to award grants to 17 community-based providers who last year served nearly 9,800 residents including 3,500 in medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction,” Reed told 吃瓜不打烊.

The district’s budget is pending a 30-day “congressional review,” which is the last step in its .

Still, some residents like Adesuyi want more accountability for how the opioid money is spent.

“The drug supply is getting a lot more unpredictable, which calls for some nimbleness, and it calls for interventions that are more courageous. Unfortunately, DBH is not meeting the mark when it comes to that,” Adesuyi said, adding, “It’s frustrating, it’s disappointing, and it’s enraging because people are dying unnecessarily in the district to overdose.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Nearly half of that money is , to be distributed by county commissioners and city councilors. The idea is that local leaders know their communities best and can do justice to these payouts, often described as “blood money” by people who’ve lost loved ones to an overdose.

But many local leaders have little to no training in addiction policy and may lack robust local health departments and policy guardrails to assist them.

That has resulted in spending decisions that many clinicians, researchers, and addiction recovery advocates say are unlikely to save lives or treat substance use disorders.

In New York, where is directly controlled by local governments, counties have spent tens of thousands of dollars on surveillance cameras, technology to help police access data on locked cellphones, and goggles that simulate being drunk, according to public records obtained by the nonprofit advocacy group and shared exclusively with 吃瓜不打烊. Though the purchases were likely legal, many people consider them a slap in the face because they don’t directly help people struggling with addiction or their families.

Without oversight, counties have the chance “to go rogue” with this money, said , director of drug policy at VOCAL-NY, an advocacy organization that is tracking settlement money as part of its mission to serve people affected by the war on drugs.

When advocates and families of overdose victims raise concerns to the various state agencies that could hold localities accountable, those agencies often punt to one another, Budnella and other local advocates said.

It feels “like the where it’s like everybody’s pointing at each other,” Budnella said. “Somebody needs to be able to have the stick and slam their hand on the table and be like, 鈥榊ou’re doing this wrong and this is the consequence.’”

The experience in New York provides a microcosm of regulators evading oversight responsibility nationwide while varied interests vie for the financial windfall.

Years of data collected by 吃瓜不打烊, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the addiction nonprofit Shatterproof have found that settlement money was spent on law enforcement gear, such as night-vision goggles and bulletproof vests; unproven prevention initiatives, such as a drug-awareness magician for kids; and budget stopgaps.

It’s unclear who should 鈥� or will 鈥� take action on such expenditures that many people harmed by the crisis consider questionable.

In each state, control of the money is split among various entities, creating a leadership vacuum. The federal government . Advocates and families who’ve lost loved ones have pushed for accountability but have limited power. A few states have passed new laws, but change is slow and uneven.

The require the majority of the money to be spent on “opioid remediation,” with . But the list is broad and open to interpretation. Further complicating the issue, many states 鈥� including New York 鈥� designate some portion of the settlement dollars as unrestricted, which allows for general spending.

Meanwhile, federal budget cuts have threatened addiction-related services and created more demand for funding. And though overdose deaths have decreased since , they still claim about 186 lives per day.

“We really are wasting this opportunity to use these funds to turn the epidemic around,” said , a Binghamton, New York, resident, whose 28-year-old son, Jeff Dugon, died of a heroin overdose in 2014.

He was a chef who loved to rib Pleus about her bad knife skills. She thinks of him and smiles every time she peels garlic the way he taught her. If the money could spare other families such heartache, that would give her solace.

“We need oversight,” said Pleus, who runs a nonprofit that is receiving opioid settlement cash from her county to serve people who use drugs and provide support groups for families.

In New York, there are three prime watchdog contenders: the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, the attorney general, and the comptroller.

The Lead State Agency

New York’s opioid settlement documents designate the as the “.”

It distributes a portion of settlement dollars via grants, according to recommendations from the state’s . It also has the power to “engage in oversight and audits of projects and programs” funded by settlement cash and “may withhold future funds” from local governments that do not comply with certain requirements, according to the agreement.

Agency spokesperson Jerry Gretzinger told 吃瓜不打烊 the office has not yet exercised its power to withhold funds but understands its oversight role.

“OASAS has a duty to ensure these funds are used responsibly and strategically to build programs that will have a lasting impact in reversing this crisis,” Gretzinger wrote in a statement.

The office is currently auditing 19 local governments’ use of the money to ensure compliance with “reporting and recordkeeping requirements,” he said. However, that may not encompass the broader question of whether money was spent on appropriate uses, which many advocates want addressed.

Some people are frustrated with the narrow role OASAS has carved out.

For example, required local governments for the first time to publicly report how they spent settlement money. OASAS on its site. But it does not review the accuracy or detail of that data, instead relying on “the information as it is provided” by localities, Gretzinger said.

“That doesn’t feel like oversight,” said , a deputy director at the Legal Action Center, which obtained public records about local spending in New York.

Members of the state’s Opioid Settlement Fund Advisory Board have also to provide more data and evaluation of how dollars are being used. But at a , OASAS Commissioner Chinazo Cunningham deflected.

“OASAS has no oversight over these portions of dollars,” she said of the 46% of settlement money that goes directly to counties and cities. “In terms of what kind of data each county collects,” she added, “we cannot dictate exactly what that information is.”

Click for Examples of spending decisions Local Spending That’s Fueling Calls for Oversight in New York

To uncover how opioid settlement cash is being spent, the nonprofit advocacy group filed public records requests with 56 New York counties and New York City, all of which are to disburse as they see fit.

Many of the responses showed spending on addiction treatment, recovery, and prevention initiatives that researchers and clinicians agree are a good use of money. Others surfaced questionable expenditures.

, for example, showed $150,000 in settlement cash directed to “Sheriff Jail” with no further description. The county did not respond to repeated inquiries for more details.

Sullivan County spent more than $30,000 on Cellebrite technology, used to extract data from cellphones, and more than $37,000 on Tasers. Though county officials didn’t respond to requests for comment, explained that those purchases came from unrestricted funds.

Such justifications rankle some families affected by the crisis, who say even if there aren’t legal restrictions on those dollars, there should be moral ones.

“Anything that is not directly tied to people who are struggling with opioid addiction or the loss of someone is a poor use of funds,” said , who lost a son to an overdose and now runs a nonprofit aimed at helping families dealing with addiction. Her organization has received settlement funds from Broome County, New York.

Records also revealed that many jurisdictions have yet to spend a significant portion of their money 鈥� a other .

Local officials say thoughtful planning takes time. But some advocates suspect ulterior motives. Millions of settlement dollars in bank accounts can generate sizable interest.

In March, it came to light that Nassau County had in interest accrued from unused opioid settlement funds to the county’s general fund, where it could be used for any purpose. County officials didn’t respond to requests for comment. The money was following public backlash.

Advocates suspect such attempts are happening elsewhere but are difficult to identify within complex budgeting documents.

It feels like “it’s up to us all 鈥� the organizers, the advocates, the service providers” 鈥� to be constantly watching, said , director of drug policy at the advocacy organization VOCAL-NY. “It’s frustrating.”

That’s why state agencies are being called on to step into an oversight role.

The Top Law Enforcement Officer

New York has been one of the leading national voices on prosecuting pharmaceutical companies that fueled the overdose crisis. Her office has issued on the topic, touting her role in securing billions of opioid settlement dollars for the state.

But when asked about the attorney general’s role in ensuring this windfall is spent appropriately, her office passed the buck to other agencies.

“While our partners in state and local governments distribute and oversee these funds, we will continue our work to hold accountable the companies responsible for fueling the spread of addictions and overdoses,” spokesperson Grant Fox wrote in a statement.

That stance contrasts starkly with many people’s views of the office’s responsibility.

A state senator, a member of the opioid settlement advisory board, and several advocates named the attorney general’s office as a key enforcement entity.

“The money is here because of their efforts,” said Democratic state , who chairs the committee on alcoholism and substance use disorders and has introduced of related to settlement funds. “I believe it is under the Office of the Attorney General to enforce.”

Budnella, the advocate with VOCAL-NY, agreed, saying, “It would be a shame for all of their work that they have done to secure all this funding for it to be misspent.”

Attorneys general in and have taken more active roles, issuing lists of ways opioid settlement money cannot be spent. The lists include many law enforcement expenditures that have raised concerns for advocates in New York.

James’ office did not respond to a specific question about whether she’d consider creating a similar list.

The Fiscal Watchdog

Some people have suggested that the state comptroller, as a steward of New York’s finances, could play an oversight role, perhaps by conducting or requiring audits.

Early this year, the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, that would create audit requirements for organizations receiving settlement cash. The blueprint suggests recipients of more than $1 million in opioid settlements be required to undergo an independent review of financial statements and transaction testing to determine whether funds were used for their intended purpose. Smaller grantees, receiving less than $1 million, could simply provide an unaudited accounting of the funds.

It’s “not telling states what is and what isn’t an appropriate use,” said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation plan. “We’re simply trying to ensure recipients follow through with their promises.”

No state has adopted the model law yet. But the office of New York told 吃瓜不打烊 it is already conducting an audit.

The process, which began in February, “is looking at OASAS’ oversight” of the opioid settlement money, said spokesperson Mary Mueller. It includes settlement money controlled by the state and local governments.

Mueller said any future enforcement action “will depend on the results of our current work and our ongoing monitoring.”

The office is following in the footsteps of comptrollers and auditors in , , and , Tennessee, who have taken action on settlement cash.

These initial steps have given some advocates and researchers hope for the future of opioid settlement dollars, which are expected to flow for more than a decade.

“We’re already years in and we’ve seen the craziest stories” of this money and a , said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation’s model law. “If we can prevent that at least a little and have these funds be a bit more focused, I don’t think it’s too late.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Her earliest memory is of standing on the passenger seat of her dad’s car as a toddler, wearing a peach-colored blouse, while he drove from their Kentucky home to Florida to pick up drugs. On a stop for a burger, she met Ronald McDonald.

“I grew up with the impression that that’s how you paid your bills,” Madden said. “That’s how your kids got things.”

By 16, she was addicted to pain pills. By 30, methamphetamine. She lost custody of two children and gave up two more for adoption at birth. She served time in the county jail and state prison.

Pregnant again at 40, Madden resolved to stop using. It was then that she learned of The Hub in Whitesburg, a town of 1,575 residents, her hometown.

Over the past two years, the state of Kentucky has sent hundreds of thousands of opioid settlement dollars to the rural eastern region of the state to help minimize the ramifications of drug misuse. The Hub, a program that oversees a network of community centers offering a range of services from recovery peer support to canned food to sterile syringes, is part of that effort.

In April, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman announced $320,000 would be awarded to the Kentucky River District Health Department’s . There are now Hubs in four rural eastern Kentucky counties 鈥� Knott, Lee, Letcher, and Owsley, all of which are among the nation’s 鈥� addressing substance use disorders, housing, hunger, employment, and other challenges. The program also operates The Hub on Wheels, which provides services throughout the district.

In 2025, The Hub received $545,000 from the same source, facilitating expansion from two to five counties. (The fifth Hub will be in Perry County.) The new $320,000 is a two-year grant to develop a program to help women who’ve been incarcerated reintegrate into society.

Both grants are from Kentucky’s approximately $1 billion share of the $57.8 billion for state and local governments from the to resolve litigation for their role in fueling the opioid overdose crisis.

Madden believes investment in harm reduction services is money well spent. She’s witnessed them work in her own life. She’s found solid footing for recovery at The Hub.

But the Trump administration is cutting federal funding for such efforts, disputing their benefits. A told programs across the country that they could no longer expect federal funding. The order stipulated that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should not be spent on “so-called 鈥榟arm reduction’” efforts, claiming they “only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.”

Advocates for these services in this rural region, which cast its ballots for President Donald Trump in all three elections, beg to differ.

Meeting Folks Where They Live

Whitesburg 鈥� home to a lively cultural scene, including 鈥� is a town residents are fiercely proud to call home. The Hub is housed in a storefront on Main Street, neighboring City Hall, Hazard Coffee Company, Cut-Away Barber & Beauty Shop, and the fire station. Like the other Hubs, it provides a range of services targeted to the needs of the community.

The inaugural Hub, launched in 2022 in Beattyville, the Lee County seat, two hours northwest of Whitesburg, offers breakfast and lunch, a food pantry, a clothing closet, a laundry room, and a computer lab. Also: , a medication that can quickly reverse an opioid overdose; drug test strips; hepatitis C treatment; sterile syringes; and wound care.

The program’s motto is “Meeting you where you are but not leaving you there!” It’s founded on the principles of . Harm reduction services are designed to minimize the effects of drug use, keep people safe, and treat them with respect, until they might be ready to enter recovery. The support includes housing, food, healthcare, and overdose prevention tools.

JoAnn Fraley is Kentucky River’s harm reduction program coordinator and its Hub initiative director. “In order for anybody to sustain recovery, they have to have financial stability, they have to have transportation, and they have to have a home,” she said. “We try to fill those gaps.”

While critics suggest that exchanging clean syringes for used ones abets drug use, research published in the Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment indicates that people who participate in syringe services programs are more likely than those who don’t to or stop using drugs altogether, and that they are more likely to enter and remain in treatment. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, syringe services programs also by about half.

In 2025, Kentucky River’s Hub model was named one of 19 award winners by the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

“What jazzes me about it is it’s a community approach to harm reduction,” said Lauren Carr, who advises the Kentucky Association of Counties on how best to utilize opioid settlement funds. “Whether that’s feeding a hungry stomach, or putting clothes on somebody’s back, or giving them clean [syringes], you’re meeting that person’s needs.”

“It can be that lifeline,” Carr said.

Paying Back for Good

Becky Todd, who leads the Beattyville Hub’s team, is a community health worker and peer support specialist. In April 2024, she was released from jail, having served multiple sentences on drug-related charges. She walked 3 miles from jail to The Hub with nowhere else to go. She’s working toward her bachelor’s degree in social work at Eastern Kentucky University.

“I could not have done it without this place,” Todd said. “It’s my saving grace.”

Amber McDaniel recalls the first time she entered The Hub, after more than a decade of addiction, having lost her home, her kids, and her family’s support. “I didn’t know where to turn, didn’t know what to do,” she said. “I mean, I was about to lose my mind.” She’s now a Hub staff member .

Hannah Stamper was placed in foster care and began using meth at 14. She was drawn to dealing drugs because “I loved for people to need me.” She’s now on staff as a member of , a program that trains AmeriCorps members to work in the recovery field. “People today need me in a good way, and I love that.”

Fraley has witnessed a transition in Lee County. A half-dozen years ago, conversations in public meetings about addiction and homelessness were strained “because nobody wanted to talk about it or acknowledge it.”

The community sees The Hub’s impact, she said, “and now they’re, like, 鈥榃hoa. We love you.’”

Scott Lockard, the district’s public health director, said a combination of data and anecdotal observations substantiates the initiative’s success, including an increase in the number of people entering treatment and a decline in reported communicable diseases.

“I’ve been in public health for 36 years, and it’s one of the most effective interventions I’ve seen,” Lockard said.

The Kentucky River team worked to educate the community about the potential outcomes of the Hub model, and Fraley said there was little resistance, just concern that the money be well spent. She said the planning has always included people who have lived with addiction.

“Their voice needs to be at every table,” she said.

Lockard agrees. To ensure the community is investing this money wisely, he said, “we’ll talk to those people who are experiencing the problem, find out what they think would help them best, and then look for those evidence-based interventions.”

Jannie Gatlin and Mandy Parker, who both are in recovery, attended a recent crafting class at the Whitesburg Hub. Gatlin, who started taking fentanyl in Colorado after her first son died at 2 months old of a digestive disorder, comes almost every day with her toddler, Hunter.

Parker was prescribed opioids for pain from a kidney disorder. When those pills became less available, she turned to street drugs. “That’s just the nature of the beast,” she said.

She believes The Hub is helping break the stigma of substance use disorder in her community. When people see “real change happening,” she said, there’s a ripple effect. “It makes a difference.”

She appreciates that The Hub is here on Main Street 鈥� right, she firmly believes, where it should be.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The sweeping 195-page , published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.

Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.

But accomplishing such goals will be difficult in the face of the administration’s , and community grants, that serve people who use drugs, and , the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people that is the largest payer for addiction and mental health care nationwide.

Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said , who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.

But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released , is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.

Since 2000, have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have , the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.

The strategy document published this week is the first of President Donald Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” 鈥� the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels 鈥� and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

It also to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.

The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.

In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.

In December, Trump signed a , which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the , including a to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.

However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly within a frantic 24-hour period.

That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said , a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.

That insecurity was exacerbated by the , which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.

The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.

Increasing Access to Treatment

One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.

National data underscores the necessity: More than who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.

The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.

Medicaid is the for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from with substance use disorders.

The last time Medicaid rolls were purged 鈥� after 鈥� many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a .

Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”

the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.

People with private insurance may be affected, too.

The Trump administration has Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.

Prioritizing Prevention

The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.

“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing about of such programs.

Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.

The White House’s proposes cutting roughly $220 million from SAMHSA’s and nearly $40 million from the program.

Since the new administration started, SAMHSA has , and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is . 

“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.

Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.

However, just two weeks ago, the White House medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to to do the same for marijuana broadly.

“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”

“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.

Stopping Overdose Deaths

One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.

“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.

However, SAMHSA announced in that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”

The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an and its budget . It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.

, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in : “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Who Really Collects in the Wage Garnishment Game?

I was a consumer bankruptcy attorney for years during the global financial crisis of 2008 (pre-Affordable Care Act). Around 40% of the bankruptcies were caused by medical debts uncovered by insurance. With the effectiveness of the ACA, the number of bankruptcies in Colorado plummeted.

My comment on “State Lawmakers Seek Restraints on Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt” (Feb. 20)? BC Services acts as if it is garnishing these wages to keep rural hospitals, medical providers, etc. in business. The likely reality is that BC Services (and other collection operations) takes “90-day-overdue” bills 鈥� which may or may not have ever been delivered to the patient; usually disregards whether the hospital has offered the patient a reasonable repayment schedule; and then keeps 50% or more of the debt, along with its attorneys’ fees and costs. The medical provider receives very little of the money sent to collections.

鈥� Bill Myers, Denver

On Work Requirements: Working Out Solutions

Eighty hours a month works out to about 20 hours a week, and I think if people can work or study from home, they should be able to meet the requirements (“New Medicaid Work Rules Likely To Hit Middle-Aged Adults Hard,” Feb. 11). More importantly, though, “navigators” will help people get exemptions if they qualify. I wonder why there is so much moaning about the law and nothing about the means to fix the problems it creates. It seems like a lot of hot air. We know it’s a problem. So how about exploring solutions?

鈥� Therese Shellabarger, North Hollywood, California

The Flip Side of a Drug’s Benefits

I read Phillip Reese’s report on anti-anxiety medications, adults who take them, and their concerns about this administration’s policies regarding them (“As More Americans Embrace Anxiety Treatment, MAHA Derides Medications,” Feb. 23). If the anti-anxiety medications provide solace to adults such as Sadia Zapp 鈥� a 40-year-old woman who survived cancer 鈥� then she should be able to continue them. Unfortunately, the same is not true for many other people, particularly patients such as myself.

When I was 16, I went through an unnecessarily painful and traumatic year. I was sent away from home three times, sent to a wilderness therapy “troubled teen industry” camp that has now been shut down, sent to a new boarding school that I hated, and was away from my family for many months. Of course, I felt depressed and anxious, so my psychiatrist at Kaiser prescribed citalopram. At first, it caused extreme agitation and violent ideation, stuff that is commonly reported to the point it has an . Thankfully, it calmed down. And when I lowered the dose, my life was calm, stable, and productive.

Unfortunately, that did not last long. Over time, the effects wore out, so I tried to go off. I was not given any safety instructions on how to taper slowly and safely, so I went off multiple times. Each time caused extreme withdrawal symptoms, including self-harm, crying spells, and worse depression than ever before. Also, the sexual “side effects” persisted and even worsened upon cessation to this day. It is a , and it is very rarely covered. While the worst symptoms of withdrawal went away, I still live with a worsened sexuality than a young adult my age is supposed to have.

Back to the article, which seems to focus on adults. Its only named profile is Zapp, and when it cites statistics, it begins at age 18. Solely showing statistics of adults is unethical because it obscures the high and rising prescription rates among minors. Minors are also more likely to suffer permanent developmental damage to their sexualities and experience suicidal ideation. This is a major problem that warrants further conversations.

When covering the downsides of SSRIs, the article mentioned only mild side effects, like upset stomach, decreased libido, and mild discontinuation effects, without covering the major concerns of suicidal ideation, akathisia, PSSD, and severe withdrawal. I believe that framing antidepressants as an unequivocal good is equivalent to framing them as an unequivocal evil; both misguide patients through harm and deception.

Lastly, I want to finish on this by the brilliant psychiatrist Awais Aftab.

鈥� Eli Malakoff, San Francisco

A Rigged System?

Insurers pay these exorbitant amounts because they set them in the first place (Bill of the Month: “Even Patients Are Shocked by the Prices Their Insurers Will Pay 鈥� And It Costs All of Us,” March 3). They have been doing this for years. I learned this over 15 years ago, when I dislocated and broke my elbow. I had no insurance and, as a “self-pay” patient, paid the surgeon, hospital, and radiology center myself. They set the prices high enough that people will buy insurance out of fear, ensuring they make a profit.

The first thing I learned was that there is not a set price for all; for the insured, it is a fixed system controlled by contracts and codes. As a self-pay patient, the cost may vary.

It was late in the evening and I tripped over a snow shovel, slammed my arm up against a gate post, and it was hanging like a puppet without a string! I called an ambulance and, at the hospital, they strapped me up and told me that I must see the orthopedic surgeon the next day. He sent me to a radiology facility for an X-ray; I paid for it and took it to the surgeon. When I received a bill from the radiology center, I called to say that I had paid. They said it was for the radiologist (who, as far as I knew, never analyzed it). The contract with the insurance company required that every patient had to be billed, whether or not a radiologist reviewed scans. If not, they would lose their contract.

My elbow was dislocated, with a fracture, and I needed surgery. The surgeon’s office called the hospital for pricing, and he told me it would be about $2,000 for outpatient surgery. I called the hospital to confirm the appointment for outpatient surgery, and they wanted $8,000! When I objected, and told them what the surgeon had quoted, they checked. “Oh, you are a self-pay!” Cost would be $2,000. I gave them my card number and prepaid it before they could change their minds.

I had a friend in New Jersey who had the very same injury and surgery. She had insurance through her employer, and she paid more in copays than I paid when paying directly.

Insurance companies are SHARKS!

鈥� Stephanie Hunt-Crowley, Chamberet, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France (formerly Frederick, Maryland)

US vs. Canada

Re: the article about nurses moving to Canada (“鈥榊ou Aren’t Trapped’: Hundreds of US Nurses Choose Canada Over Trump’s America,” Feb. 26). You neglect the “rest of the story” 鈥� or maybe you don’t know it? I had my medical office in Los Angeles for about 30 years and had dozens of Canadians come to L.A., where some had to self-pay for care, but chose to because of the superior level of medicine available. One man, a son of a gynecologist in Canada, had a draining abscess from a years-old appendectomy. The reason was, after investigation, that the Canadian practice had used silk suture (organic material), which can harbor microbes and carry a greater risk of infection. The trend has been to discontinue silk in favor of nylon. The Canadians were obliged to “use up” the silk suture they had before switching to nylon. The surgeons at my hospital were astounded.

鈥� Kathryn Sobieski, Jackson, Wyoming

On the NET Recovery Device’s Track Record 鈥� And Detractors

I read your piece about the NET Recovery device with interest (Payback: Tracking Opioid Cash: “Maker of Device To Treat Addiction Withdrawal Seeks Counties’ Opioid Settlement Cash,” March 18), and I am grateful to you for pointing to one of our many success stories 鈥� the story of Michelle Warfield, whom the NET device helped get off opioids.

I also wanted to note a couple of instances where I see the facts differently than they were portrayed in your piece. Your piece seemed to imply that the NET device is new, and I wanted to note that the device has been around for decades (it helped Eric Clapton and members of The Who and the Rolling Stones get sober back in their heyday), and is based on a proven technology that stimulates both the brain and the vagus nerve to help patients with their cravings and withdrawal. There are countless studies that prove the power of neurostimulation, including that showed significant reductions in opioid and stimulant use without medication for a polysubstance population receiving at least 24 hours of stimulation.

I also noted you quoted detractors of our device, and I’d simply urge anyone looking at the issue of opioid addiction abatement to consider who those detractors are; organizations that now find themselves competing for grant dollars from counties increasingly choosing to fund innovation. It is not surprising that those with the most to lose financially would prefer the status quo. But the counties and jails leading this charge are doing so because they have seen what works, and their constituents, real patients, are the proof.

The success stories of our patients speak for themselves, and our only motivation at NET Recovery is to help as many people as possible get truly clean and sober by helping to break that initial grip the opioids have on them. When the NET device works, and it works an astounding 98% of the time (producing a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid withdrawal symptom severity in one hour), our patients are experiencing the return of choice and true freedom.

Thank you for your interest in our work and for the coverage you provide.

鈥� Joe Winston, NET Recovery CEO, Costa Mesa, California

Education Is the First Step in Lowering Health Care Prices

After reading this article about making hospital prices more transparent, I realized the information alone could help drive medical prices down (“Trump Required Hospitals To Post Their Prices for Patients. Mostly It’s the Industry Using the Data,” Feb. 17). Your publication shows good use of evidence-based research 鈥� it’s timeless and informative.

As a student at Thomas Jefferson University on the path to serving in the health care arena, I understand the struggles and complexities of medical decision-making. In the medical setting, the topic of price is always overshadowed by patient care and clear communication on the part of both professionals and patients, and it does not reflect how patients would navigate comparison-shopping for care. Almost every patient relies on the help of a physician or gets help from an insurance network and not from online price matching.

I believe that many people should engage with this article even if they aren’t entering the health profession; it would benefit everyone. Although price transparency may help insurers and care providers more than patients, if their goal is to lower prices, they must look beyond the simple posting or sharing of prices. I appreciate the effort to try to bring awareness to this major issue and encourage thoughtful policy discussion about lowering medical prices.

鈥� Jan Rodriguez, Philadelphia

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

They worked for a bit. But by 2011, Warfield struggled to walk.

And “by that time, I was addicted,” said Warfield, now living in Shelbyville, Kentucky.

After she lost her health insurance, Warfield started buying pills on the street. She tried to quit several times, but the debilitating withdrawal 鈥� so bad she couldn’t get out of bed, she said 鈥� kept driving her back to drug use.

Until last year.

Through her church, Warfield learned about the NET device. It’s a cellphone-sized pack connected to gel electrodes placed near the ear that deliver low-level electrical pulses to the brain.

“Once I got set up on the device, within 30 minutes, I didn’t have any cravings” for opioids, Warfield said.

After three days on the device in August, she stopped using drugs altogether, she said.

Warfield’s treatment was paid for with her county’s opioid settlement dollars 鈥� money from pharmaceutical companies accused of fueling the overdose crisis.

State and local governments nationwide are receiving over nearly two decades and are meant to spend it treating and preventing addiction.

Warfield wants them to allot a good chunk to the NET device, which costs counties about $5,500 a person. The pitch is gaining traction. , which makes the device, said it has signed about $1.2 million in contracts with more than a dozen counties and cities in Kentucky. 

But some researchers and recovery advocates say the company’s rapid consumption of opioid dollars raises red flags. They see the NET device as the latest in a series of products that have been overhyped as the solution to the addiction crisis, preying on people’s desperation and capitalizing on the windfall of opioid settlements. Many of these products 鈥� from to body scanners for jails 鈥� have little evidence to back their lofty promises. That has not stopped sales representatives from repeatedly pitching elected officials or circulating ready-made templates to request settlement money for the companies’ products.

In fact, a device similar to NET called the Bridge gained popularity several years ago, receiving more than $215,000 in opioid settlement cash nationwide. But about the study backing its effectiveness, and the device is currently off the market.

NET Recovery’s activity “fits the national trends of these industry money grabs,” said , a national expert on opioid settlements based in Tennessee. The device “could be helpful for some,” she said. “But it’s being sold as a silver bullet.”

This year, 237 organizations working to end overdose 鈥� including Christensen’s consulting company 鈥� to guide officials in charge of opioid settlement money. In it, they called the NET device an example of problematic spending on unproven treatment.

Treating Withdrawal or Addiction

The FDA has for a specific use: reducing drug withdrawal symptoms. It has not approved the device to treat addiction.

That’s a crucial distinction, said , executive director of the Institute for Research, Education and Training in Addictions. He co-authored evaluating the evidence on neuromodulation devices like NET.

“The term 鈥榯reatment’ becomes confusing,” Hulsey said. “These devices were cleared to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms, not to treat an opioid use disorder.”

NET Recovery CEO said the company adheres to FDA rules and advertises the device only for withdrawal management. But “we are finding that physicians are prescribing this to folks for long-term behavior based on the results of our study.”

He’s referring to that he co-authored and the company funded, in which researchers followed two groups of addiction patients in Kentucky for 12 weeks. The first group received the NET device for up to seven days, while the second group received a sham treatment.

The study found no significant difference between the groups’ outcomes. Participants who got the NET device were similarly likely to use illicit drugs after treatment as those who got the fake.

Hulsey, who was not affiliated with the study, said the takeaway is clear: “They didn’t find that was effective.”

A subgroup of participants who chose to use the device for more than 24 hours consecutively, however, went on to use illicit drugs less often than other participants.

As the researchers acknowledged in their paper, that subgroup might simply have been more motivated to engage with any form of treatment. The results don’t necessarily show that the device is making a difference, Hulsey said.

Rapid Growth

Winston had a different take. He said the success of the subgroup is “intriguing and outstanding.”

So outstanding, in fact, that the company this month is opening a brick-and-mortar location in Miami, where the device will be available to anyone who can pay $8,000 out-of-pocket. (The cost is higher for individuals than for county governments.) It has also applied for opioid settlement dollars from the state of Kentucky to conduct a larger research study and aims to bring the NET device into metro areas such as Louisville and Lexington.

Last year, NET Recovery hired a magistrate in Franklin County, Kentucky, to head up its operations in the state. (Magistrates function as county commissioners.) , who is also a mental health clinician, travels to different counties, extolling the benefits of the device and encouraging officials to contract with the company.

Her county to NET Recovery prior to her joining the company. Moving forward, Dycus said, she would recuse herself from any contract votes in her county.

Christensen, the national expert on opioid settlements, called Dycus’ new role “extremely strategic” for the company and “an obvious conflict of interest” for a public official.

Giving People Choice

More options for people to enter recovery is generally good, said Jennifer Twyman, who has a history of opioid addiction and now works with , a nonprofit that advocates to end homelessness and the war on drugs.

But settlement funds are finite, she said, and when counties invest in the NET device, that leaves less money to support options like mental health treatment, housing, and transportation programs 鈥� critical for many people who use drugs.

“People slip through these big, huge gaps we have and they die,” Twyman said, pointing to photos of dead friends that line her office wall.

She added that people should have the option of taking medications such as methadone and buprenorphine 鈥� for treating opioid addiction. only 1 in 4 people with opioid addiction get them.

Many people can’t afford them, find a doctor willing to prescribe them, or get transportation to appointments, Twyman said. against those who use medications, with detractors saying they’re not truly abstinent or clean.

Companies like NET Recovery sometimes lean into that stigma, Twyman said.

For instance, Scott County, Kentucky, jailer 鈥� whom the company considers a key champion for its device 鈥� to other county officials that medication treatment is just “swapping one drug for another.” It’s a common refrain from critics that .

Winston told 吃瓜不打烊 his company is supportive of all types of recovery but that the NET device can help the “underserved population” of people who don’t want medication.

Longtime addiction researcher has led studies for NET Recovery and consults for , one of the leading producers of medications for opioid use disorder. He said he sees value in both approaches. It just depends on whom you’re trying to treat.

For people injecting drugs or accustomed to high doses of fentanyl, who are more likely to return to using drugs after residential treatment, “I would hesitate to recommend the device,” he said. Abstinence-based approaches can . But for people who are “highly motivated to stay abstinent,” the NET device may be a good fit.

“Giving people choices is the right thing to do,” he said.

Community as Part of Recovery

Warfield, who has not used opioids since August, credits not just the NET device with her recovery but her community too.

“It’s not a miracle cure,” she said of the device. “You still have to manage your triggers, but it’s easier.”

She regularly attends individual and group therapy to address childhood trauma. She’s found close friends within her church and has reconnected with her daughter. She installed a car seat in her vehicle so she can drive her grandson to preschool.

Warfield explained her hope for opioid settlement money to reach others in her community simply: “I want people to get as much help as they can.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Millions of Americans are facing dramatically higher health insurance premium payments due to the Jan. 1 expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But much of Washington appears more interested at the moment in culture war issues, including abortion and gender-affirming care.

Meanwhile, at the Department of Health and Human Services, personnel continue to be fired and rehired, and grants terminated and reinstated, leaving everyone who touches the agency uncertain about what comes next.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney Bloomberg News

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico

Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress remains undecided on a deal to renew enhanced ACA premium subsidies, as it is on spending plans to keep the federal government running when the existing, short-term plan expires at the end of the month. While some of the bigger appropriations hang-ups are related to immigration and foreign affairs, there are also hurdles to passing spending for HHS.
• ACA plan enrollment is down about 1.5 million compared with last year, with states reporting that many people are switching to cheaper plans or dropping coverage. Enrollment numbers are likely to drop further in the coming months as more-expensive premium payments come due and some realize they can no longer afford the plans they’re enrolled in.
• A key Senate health committee on Wednesday hosted a hearing on the abortion pill mifepristone, focused on the safety concerns posed by abortion foes 鈥� though those concerns are unsupported by scientific research and decades of experience with the drug. Many abortion opponents are frustrated that the Trump administration has not taken aggressive action to restrict access to the abortion pill.
• As the Trump administration moved this week to rehire laid-off employees and abruptly cancel, then restore, addiction-related grants, overall government spending is up, despite the administration’s stated goal of saving money by cutting the federal government’s size and activities. It turns out the churn within the administration is costing taxpayers more. And new data, revealing that more federal workers left on their own than were laid off last year, shows that a lot of institutional memory was also lost.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 吃瓜不打烊’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who created the “Bill of the Month” series and wrote the latest installment, about a scorpion pepper, an ER visit, and a ghost bill. If you have a baffling, infuriating, or exorbitant bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Maxine Joselow.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Clark.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “,” by Dhruv Khullar.

Anna Edney: MedPage Today’s “,” by Joedy McCreary.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “,” by Paul Kane.
• HealthAffairs’ “,” by Mica Hartman, Anne B. Martin, David Lassman, and Aaron Catlin.
• Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA’s “,” by Sophie Dilek, Joanne Rosen, Anna Levashkevich, Joshua M. Sharfstein, and G. Caleb Alexander.

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

But inside, the store is a welcoming oasis. Twinkly string lights adorn racks of donated clothing. Shelves and bins overflow with children’s books, allergy medications, and toiletries. Curtains cordon off one side of the room, where there’s a stage for musicians and a neon sign depicting roller skates for weekly free skate nights.

The space is part free thrift store, part over-the-counter pharmacy, part punk show venue 鈥� and wholly “a radical community center,” said Dan Bingler, who runs the place.

Bingler is a waiter and bartender in the city who founded a mutual-aid organization called the . He said the building owners allow him to use the space as long as he pays the water, electricity, and trash bills.

On Monday evenings, volunteers from other community organizations show up 鈥� some used to set up in the parking lot before Bingler opened the store. They offer free testing for sexually transmitted infections, basic medical care, hot meals, and sterile syringes and other supplies for people who use drugs.

The purpose of the space is simple, Bingler said: “We’re going to make sure we provide for the community.”

Although it’s been open for a few years now, the space has become even more crucial to this community in recent months, with the Trump administration slashing funding for many social service organizations and taking an aggressive approach to homelessness and drug use. In Washington, D.C., the administration has to push people living on the street to . Nationally, it has called for people who use drugs to be . It has 鈥� practices that public health experts say keep people who use drugs safe and alive but that critics say promote illegal drug use.

The community space in New Orleans 鈥� named the Fred Hampton Free Store after the known for bringing together diverse groups to fight for social reforms 鈥� aims to be a haven among this sea of changes.

It doesn’t receive federal funding, state or local grants, or money from foundations, Bingler said. It’s simply neighbors helping neighbors, he said, tearing up and adding, “It’s a really beautiful thing to be able to share all this space.”

All items inside are provided by people or organizations in the community. Bingler said one time a local hotel undergoing renovations donated 50 flat-screen TVs.

On nights the store is open, often more than 100 people visit, Bingler said.

One fall evening, dozens of people browsed for free clothing and over-the-counter medications. Others sat on the grass outside, chatting while keeping an eye on their bicycles or grocery carts full of possessions.

James Beshears stopped by the harm reduction group in the parking lot to get sterile supplies he uses to inject heroin and fentanyl. He said he’d been in treatment for years but relapsed after his doctor moved away and he was referred to a clinic that charged $250 a day. Street drugs were cheaper than treatment, he said.

He wants to stop. But until he can find affordable care, places like the free store keep him going. Without it, he said, he’d have “one foot in the grave.”

Another man in the parking lot was waiting for the arrival of Aquil Bey, a paramedic and former Green Beret well known for helping people overcome obstacles to getting health care. As soon as the man spotted Bey’s black Jeep, he ran up.

“I’ve got stage 4 kidney disease,” the man said, adding that he was scheduled for treatments at a hospital but was struggling to get there.

“Do me a favor,” Bey said as he unloaded folding tables and medical equipment from his car. “When our team gets here, come and see us. Maybe we can get you transportation.”

Bey is the founder of , a volunteer-run organization that provides free basic medical care and referrals for people who are homeless, using drugs, or part of other vulnerable communities. The group has a steady presence at the free store.

That day, Bey and his team connected the man needing kidney disease treatment to reduced-cost transit programs. They also did blood pressure and blood sugar checks for anyone who wanted them, cleaned infected wounds, and called clinics to make appointments for patients without phones.

A man with a leg injury mentioned he was sleeping on the concrete floor of an abandoned naval base. Bey noticed the free store’s furniture section had a mattress. He and another volunteer hauled it out, strapped it to the top of a car, and delivered it to where the man was sleeping.

“We’re just trying to find all these barriers” that people face and “find ways to fix them,” Bey said.

The clinic at the free store helped Stephen Wiltz connect with addiction care. He grew up in the Lower 9th Ward and had been using drugs since he was 10.

Fed up with discrimination from doctors who blamed him for his addiction, Wiltz said, he was reluctant to go to any treatment facility. But after years of knowing the volunteers at the free store, he trusted them to point him in the right direction.

At 56, Wiltz was in sustained recovery for the first time in his life, he said during a phone interview in the fall.

Those volunteers “cared for people who didn’t have nobody to care for them,” he said.

As the sun went down that fall evening at the store, a punk band started setting up for a show across the room from the medical clinic. Lights dimmed and music blared 鈥� a reminder that this was not your everyday clinic or community center.

Bey continued consulting with a patient who had gout.

“I get used to the sound,” Bey said of the rapid drums and loud power chords. “I like it sometimes.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .