Missouri legislative panel hears recommendations for state substance abuse care
Lawmakers heard suggestions Monday for addressing the behavioral health needs of Missourians struggling with substance abuse.
Missouri's Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Task Force is comprised of state senators and representatives, and the task force chose professor Rachel Winograd to represent its recommendations before the House Health and Mental Health Committee.
Winograd researches addiction science and works to develop solutions to substance abuse at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
Changes to the state's drug supply inspired the task force's recommendations. Winograd said even though opioid deaths are decreasing and deaths from stimulants have plateaued, new street drugs like Xylazine (a veterinary sedative commonly known as 'tranq') complicate efforts to combat substance abuse.
'Across my last two years of sitting with the substance abuse task force, I reviewed our recommendations, which were plentiful,' Winograd said. 'I did my best to cluster them in five key domains.'
Winograd said funding for substance abuse prevention needs to increase or at least stay at its current level.
Medicaid, she said, has been crucial in caring for people with addictions without tapping into state funds.
Most state funding for substance abuse treatment comes from sales tax on cannabis and tobacco, as well as settlement funds received from tobacco companies that compensate for smoking-related medical costs.
Rep. Becky Laubinger, R-Park Hills, pointed out how the state has some of the lowest tobacco sales taxes in the nation. The tax rate per one pack of cigarettes in Missouri is 17 cents.
The task force found that the biggest gaps in funding are basic needs like recovery housing.
'I've been really humbled,' Winograd said, 'by how little it matters if you provide really effective evidence-based treatment service if no one can get there.'
She described transportation as an issue of 'equifinality,' or how different experiences can lead to similar outcomes. In rural areas, she said, treatment centers might be too far away. In urban areas, public transportation and infrastructure might be subpar.
Some current solutions to the issue are state-provided bus passes and funds for ride-booking services from care providers, but Winograd said she doubts these solutions are the most efficient way.
Housing is another basic need that effects how those struggling with substances get the help they need.
'What good is fabulous, gold-standard care if then I go back to living on the streets,' Winograd said. 'The way we work as humans operating in society is that my first priority is going to be finding housing. Then I'll deal with my sobriety.'
She recommended flexible strategies as a solution, such as outpatient treatment combined with sober living and recovery housing.
Overdose response makes up a large part of crisis care for substance abuse. Winograd praised the state's push for behavioral health crisis centers, which she compared to urgent care facilities. However, she also recommended that those centers be required to provide medical treatment for people struggling with opioid addiction.
Another task force proposal was ambulance transport to non-hospital settings, such as behavioral health centers.
'Especially after an opioid overdose or a stimulant overamping event, often the hospital is not necessarily the best place for somebody to go,' Winograd said. 'They don't get the right care, it's not what they want, it's not what they need. They kind of get spun and churned back out to the streets.'
Behavioral health care centers can provide more comfortable or personalized care for such cases, she said.
The task force also recommended helping people navigate recovery programs, legalizing needle exchanges and expanding drug-checking services.
Overdoses are a 'huge killer' of people who have been formerly incarcerated, Winograd said.
She recommended drug courts and diversion programs in communities to help in lowering incarceration rates. She also suggested increasing resources to treat people with addictions while they are incarcerated.
The task force also recommended judicial treatment courts, which offer care as an alternative to incarceration. Winograd said the task force wants to make sure use of life-saving tools isn't discouraged.
'There's a real culture in specific drug courts of success and motivation,' Winograd said. 'I'm looking forward to learning more about drug courts and also making sure they are as evidence-based and effective as possible, specifically ensuring that they not only allow, but encourage and support people to stay on medications for addiction treatment.'
Other legal recommendations from the task force include evidence-based treatment for the incarcerated, expanding naloxone distribution and increased funding for public defenders.
The task force found that community support and infrastructure is crucial for youth prevention of substance abuse.
'All of these things are really about letting a child have a childhood and not be running in the streets unattended and getting into dangerous stuff,' Winograd said.
The task force supported funding for youth mentoring and community service liaisons, school-based supports and youth crisis centers.
After hearing testimony in the task force, Winograd agreed that current prevention programming is not very effective, and can even be harmful.
'There is a difference between any school assembly talking about 'don't do drugs' and efforts that actually work,' she said.
Winograd said targeted messaging to an age-appropriate audience can help adolescents understand what is going on inside their mind so drugs don't seem like the easiest option.
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be reprinted in print or online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Debt and delayed care forecast for some who lose insurance under tax and spending law
Delayed treatments, canceled doctor visits, skipped prescriptions. Losing insurance is bad for your health. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the U.S. uninsured population will grow by 10 million in 2034, due to the tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump. And, thanks to a natural experiment nearly two decades ago, researchers can forecast what that will mean for patient care. Among the problems they predict will develop as a direct result of these people losing coverage: — About 2.5 million people may no longer have a personal doctor. — About 1.6 million patients will take on medical debt. — The lack of care may cause nearly 22,000 deaths annually. 'There's really no questioning the basic reality that you can't take health care away from 10 million people without causing many preventable deaths,' said Dr. Adam Gaffney, lead researcher on a team that explored the new law's impact. Here's a deeper look at the research and challenges that could develop. How the law may affect coverage It will become harder for many people to enroll in Medicaid or individual insurance plans and then stay covered. Medicaid is a state and federally funded program that covers care for people with low incomes. States will have to verify every six months whether someone remains eligible for Medicaid. That could cause coverage lapses for people with incomes that fluctuate or for those who move and miss renewal paperwork. Many also are expected to lose coverage as states require Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or go to school unless exempted. Enrollment in Medicaid has swelled in recent years. Republicans are cutting back in part to help fund tax breaks and pay for other priorities like border security. They also say they are trying to root out waste and fraud by rightsizing Medicaid for the population it was initially designed to serve — mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children. People covered through the Affordable Care Act's individual insurance marketplaces also will see shorter enrollment windows and no more automatic renewals. About the research Gaffney, of Harvard Medical School, and other researchers looked to past studies to measure how many people would experience detrimental effects, like going without prescriptions, from the upcoming changes. Gaffney updated the published analysis, which was originally based on the House version of the bill, at the AP's request. One study in particular was critical for their work: In 2008, Oregon offered a rare opportunity to compare groups of people enrolled in Medicaid with those who were not. After a four-year period of frozen enrollment due to budget limitations, the state determined it could enroll 10,000 more people in Medicaid. It used a lottery system to make the selection amid high demand. That gave researchers a chance to follow people who got coverage and those who did not, similar to how scientists testing a new drug might compare patients taking it to those given a placebo. 'This is a gold standard research design because it replicates a randomized-controlled trial,' said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at RAND Corp. who was not involved in the study. Applying results from that study and other research to the recent CBO estimate allowed Gaffney and other researchers to estimate specific effects of losing coverage. 'By taking coverage away, we are putting patients in a terrible position,' said Gaffney, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program. Care could grow complicated Amanda Schlesier went four days without her cancer treatment Calquence this spring and wound up in a local emergency room, delirious with pain. The leukemia patient worries about what might happen if she stops treatment again for a longer stretch because she's lost Medicaid. 'God forbid I forget to fill out a page of documentation, and suddenly I lose access to my medication or my doctors or any of the treatment that I've been going through,' the 33-year-old Farmington Hills, Michigan, resident said. People can still receive care when they don't have coverage, but important steps often are delayed, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Patients may be able to visit a doctor, but they would have to line up coverage or help before they can receive expensive chemotherapy. Diagnosis also may be delayed. Meanwhile, the patient's cancer continues to grow. 'It's a ticking time bomb,' Nichols said. Preventive care may lapse The first thing patients often ditch when they lose coverage are screenings designed to catch health problems before they become serious, said Dr. Jen Brull, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. That could mean patients skip tests for high cholesterol, which can contribute to heart disease, or colonoscopies that detect cancer. Researchers forecast that a half million fewer women will have gotten a mammogram within the past year by 2034. When patients struggle financially and lose coverage, they focus on things like keeping a place to live and food on their table, said Brull, a Fort Collins, Colorado, physician. 'Seeing a doctor because you don't want to get sick feels like a much lower priority,' Brull said. Financial pressure can build Patients start taking financial hits at all ends of care when they lose coverage. They may have to pay up front or start a payment plan before they receive care, said Erin Bradshaw, an executive vice president with the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, which helps people with medical bills. Anyone with an outstanding balance will have to pay it before the next appointment. Financial assistance may be available, but patients don't always know about it. Getting help also may take time and require the submission of tax returns, pay stubs or some validation that the patient no longer has coverage. Bradshaw said letters stating that a patient has lost Medicaid sometimes arrive a couple months after the fact. That can contribute to treatment delays or missed medication doses. Some patients also try to avoid financial stress by skipping care. Schlesier said she delayed seeing a doctor when she first felt symptoms of her cancer returning because she had no coverage at the time. Staying on medications If prescriptions are too expensive, patients may simply not get them or split the doses to stretch the medicine. For Thomas Harper, it's a question of priorities. 'Sometimes you have to make a choice, how well do you want to eat this week versus taking your medicine,' he said. The West Monroe, Louisiana, truck driver has around $300 a month in prescriptions as he deals with diabetes and recovers from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Harper, 57, recently returned to work. That meant he lost Medicaid, which covered more of his prescription costs. He's balancing buying his meds with shopping for healthy food that keeps his blood sugar in check and builds his immune system. 'I'll survive, but I know there's people out there that cannot survive without Medicaid,' he said. ___ AP video journalist Laura Bargfeld contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Tom Murphy And Nicky Forster, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
San Francisco Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Debt and delayed care forecast for some who lose insurance under tax and spending law
Delayed treatments, canceled doctor visits, skipped prescriptions. Losing insurance is bad for your health. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the U.S. uninsured population will grow by 10 million in 2034, due to the tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump. And, thanks to a natural experiment nearly two decades ago, researchers can forecast what that will mean for patient care. Among the problems they predict will develop as a direct result of these people losing coverage: — About 1.6 million patients will take on medical debt. — The lack of care may cause nearly 22,000 deaths annually. 'There's really no questioning the basic reality that you can't take health care away from 10 million people without causing many preventable deaths,' said Dr. Adam Gaffney, lead researcher on a team that explored the new law's impact. Here's a deeper look at the research and challenges that could develop. How the law may affect coverage It will become harder for many people to enroll in Medicaid or individual insurance plans and then stay covered. Medicaid is a state and federally funded program that covers care for people with low incomes. States will have to verify every six months whether someone remains eligible for Medicaid. That could cause coverage lapses for people with incomes that fluctuate or for those who move and miss renewal paperwork. Many also are expected to lose coverage as states require Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or go to school unless exempted. Enrollment in Medicaid has swelled in recent years. Republicans are cutting back in part to help fund tax breaks and pay for other priorities like border security. They also say they are trying to root out waste and fraud by rightsizing Medicaid for the population it was initially designed to serve — mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children. People covered through the Affordable Care Act's individual insurance marketplaces also will see shorter enrollment windows and no more automatic renewals. About the research Gaffney, of Harvard Medical School, and other researchers looked to past studies to measure how many people would experience detrimental effects, like going without prescriptions, from the upcoming changes. Gaffney updated the published analysis, which was originally based on the House version of the bill, at the AP's request. One study in particular was critical for their work: In 2008, Oregon offered a rare opportunity to compare groups of people enrolled in Medicaid with those who were not. After a four-year period of frozen enrollment due to budget limitations, the state determined it could enroll 10,000 more people in Medicaid. It used a lottery system to make the selection amid high demand. That gave researchers a chance to follow people who got coverage and those who did not, similar to how scientists testing a new drug might compare patients taking it to those given a placebo. 'This is a gold standard research design because it replicates a randomized-controlled trial,' said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at RAND Corp. who was not involved in the study. Applying results from that study and other research to the recent CBO estimate allowed Gaffney and other researchers to estimate specific effects of losing coverage. 'By taking coverage away, we are putting patients in a terrible position,' said Gaffney, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program. Care could grow complicated Amanda Schlesier went four days without her cancer treatment Calquence this spring and wound up in a local emergency room, delirious with pain. The leukemia patient worries about what might happen if she stops treatment again for a longer stretch because she's lost Medicaid. 'God forbid I forget to fill out a page of documentation, and suddenly I lose access to my medication or my doctors or any of the treatment that I've been going through,' the 33-year-old Farmington Hills, Michigan, resident said. People can still receive care when they don't have coverage, but important steps often are delayed, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Patients may be able to visit a doctor, but they would have to line up coverage or help before they can receive expensive chemotherapy. Diagnosis also may be delayed. Meanwhile, the patient's cancer continues to grow. 'It's a ticking time bomb,' Nichols said. Preventive care may lapse The first thing patients often ditch when they lose coverage are screenings designed to catch health problems before they become serious, said Dr. Jen Brull, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. That could mean patients skip tests for high cholesterol, which can contribute to heart disease, or colonoscopies that detect cancer. Researchers forecast that a half million fewer women will have gotten a mammogram within the past year by 2034. When patients struggle financially and lose coverage, they focus on things like keeping a place to live and food on their table, said Brull, a Fort Collins, Colorado, physician. 'Seeing a doctor because you don't want to get sick feels like a much lower priority,' Brull said. Financial pressure can build Patients start taking financial hits at all ends of care when they lose coverage. They may have to pay up front or start a payment plan before they receive care, said Erin Bradshaw, an executive vice president with the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, which helps people with medical bills. Anyone with an outstanding balance will have to pay it before the next appointment. Financial assistance may be available, but patients don't always know about it. Getting help also may take time and require the submission of tax returns, pay stubs or some validation that the patient no longer has coverage. Bradshaw said letters stating that a patient has lost Medicaid sometimes arrive a couple months after the fact. That can contribute to treatment delays or missed medication doses. Some patients also try to avoid financial stress by skipping care. Schlesier said she delayed seeing a doctor when she first felt symptoms of her cancer returning because she had no coverage at the time. Staying on medications If prescriptions are too expensive, patients may simply not get them or split the doses to stretch the medicine. For Thomas Harper, it's a question of priorities. 'Sometimes you have to make a choice, how well do you want to eat this week versus taking your medicine,' he said. The West Monroe, Louisiana, truck driver has around $300 a month in prescriptions as he deals with diabetes and recovers from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Harper, 57, recently returned to work. That meant he lost Medicaid, which covered more of his prescription costs. He's balancing buying his meds with shopping for healthy food that keeps his blood sugar in check and builds his immune system. 'I'll survive, but I know there's people out there that cannot survive without Medicaid,' he said. ___
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Democrats escalate anti-Trump lawfare by targeting Congress in Planned Parenthood funding fight
Abortion providers and Democrat-led states are bringing lawsuits over the Trump administration's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, a legal fight that raises the stakes by challenging the will of both Congress and the president. Planned Parenthood and several blue states have sued over the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips Medicaid funding from certain abortion providers for one year. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by the president in July. The legislation advances the pro-life movement's longtime goal of defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, but a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump Health and Human Services Department from carrying it out. Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told Fox News Digital that taking on two branches of government sets this litigation apart from many of the hundreds of other lawsuits targeting the Trump administration. "Congress has the power of the purse," Muller said. "Congress has a lot of discretion [over] how it wants to spend its money, and this is not an instance where the executive has been engaged in overreach or doubtful conduct. … This is ordinary legislation, and when it comes to ordinary legislation, there's more deference given to Congress, and certainly more in how it chooses to subsidize things, where it wants to give money or where it doesn't want to give money." The judge's decision to temporarily block the funding cuts stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit with hundreds of facilities across the country that provide abortions and other reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood's attorneys alleged in court papers that the provision was unconstitutional, arguing it would deprive the nonprofit of millions of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements, causing it to lose half of its patients and forcing it to shutter up to one-third of its facilities. Katie Daniel, counsel at SBA Pro-Life America, told Fox News Digital Planned Parenthood was making a "desperate argument" that "totally undermines Congress' ability to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent." It also signals that Planned Parenthood was not a solvent business, she said. "It's a business that really can't keep itself afloat without getting hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars," Daniel said. Planned Parenthood's attorneys noted that Medicaid does not typically cover abortions and that the funding cuts would affect other services. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the attorneys said. "The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave," the attorneys wrote. Daniel said the Medicaid marketplace includes other options for clinics and that those options "outnumber Planned Parenthood nationally 15 to one." Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, said she was inclined to agree with Planned Parenthood that the legislation violated several provisions in the Constitution and granted a preliminary injunction, which the Department of Justice is now appealing. That lawsuit has been joined by two others challenging the bill. A coalition of 21 states with Democratic attorneys general, along with the District of Columbia and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, brought one of them on Monday. Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 health facilities in the Pine Tree State, has also sued over the legislation. While lawmakers have touted that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood, it was written to include other entities, including Maine Family Planning, as a way to pass parliamentarian scrutiny. Daniel told Fox News Digital she anticipates the higher courts will rule in favor of the Trump administration but that the bill's one-year limit on the funding cuts works in Planned Parenthood's favor. "At this point for Planned Parenthood, it's really about running out the clock," Daniel said. "The defund provision is for one year, so every single day that they can keep getting money. … That's existential to them." If the Trump administration ultimately wins the court fight, it could attempt to claw back the Medicaid funds it lost while Talwani's injunction was in place. Daniel noted, however, that "it's incredibly difficult, it's time-consuming, it's costly, and Planned Parenthood is relying on all of that." Among Planned Parenthood's allegations was a longshot claim that Congress's bill violates the Constitution's bill of attainder clause because it singles out and punishes Planned Parenthood without a trial. Bills of attainder are pieces of legislation that serve to bypass the role of judges and punish people or entities. The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder because they infringe on the function of the courts. Muller told Fox News Digital he believed the bill of attainder argument was a "nonstarter." "People have tried to argue that certain things that Congress does, singling out or targeting individuals, could rise to a bill of attainder," Muller said. "This has gotten some traction in lower courts. It has never really gotten traction in the courts of appeal because it is far afield from the original meaning of the Constitution on this topic."
