Jailer and vendor ask county to use opioid settlement funds for Net Recovery brain‑stimulation treatment

Net Recovery representatives and a Kentucky jailer urged the Clark County Fiscal Court to consider using opioid abatement funds to pay for a brain‑stimulation device they say reduces withdrawal symptoms and cravings. Jeff Lotz, communications director for Net Recovery, told the court the portable device is “98 percent effective at reducing withdrawals” and described clinical results showing reduced cravings and lower readmission rates for treated patients. He said the device is “FDA cleared” and that researchers have published findings in Frontiers in Psychiatry. Lotz proposed a two‑year service agreement with a cap of 40 patients at $5,500 per treatment (a maximum of $220,000). He said the company would require no upfront county funds, that Net Recovery would supply the devices and technicians, and that they would work with the local detention center to prescreen and identify candidates. Scott County jailer Darren Boyles described his facility’s experience with the device. “We’ve treated 38 individuals since last December,” he said, and he reported follow‑up contact with roughly 26–27 participants, many “either in rehab right now or they’re doing well out on their own.” Boyles said the jail combines the device with voluntary rehabilitation paid from local opioid settlement money. Court members asked about independent review, how the device is deployed in a jail setting and which funds could be used. Lotz pointed to state KRS guidance on allowable uses of opioid settlement and abatement funds for treatment. He also said Net Recovery treats people in both jail and inpatient settings and that the company treats polysubstance users, not only those withdrawing from opioids. No formal vote or contract approval was recorded during the meeting. Several court members asked staff to review the proposal and the draft agreement and to return with additional details for formal consideration. Why it matters: the county controls settlement funds intended for opioid remediation; the court must weigh clinical evidence, fiscal limits and operational logistics before committing multi‑year funding. What happens next: court staff will review the proposed services agreement and compliance with opioid‑abatement rules before the fiscal court considers any contract or funding allocation.