Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health And Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court discusses out‑of‑state rehab patients being left in county; staff cite Kentucky law KRS 222.423
Summary
Commissioners raised complaints that some out‑of‑state rehabilitation facilities are discharging residents in Pike County without arranging return transportation; staff cited Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 222.423 and discussed possible outreach to West Virginia officials and federal lawmakers.
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health And Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Lewis raised concerns about rehabilitation facilities that appear to discharge patients from other states in Pike County, leaving them without housing and creating pressure on county services.
Lewis described a pattern in which individuals come from West Virginia rehabs, are transferred for short stays to local facilities and then returned to the rehab after three days. "They're sending these folks over that are still in rehab... they say, hey, your bed's already been taken. You've been gone for 72 hours. So there they are rendered homeless," Lewis said.
County staff explained that Kentucky Revised Statutes require certain coordination when a rehab facility discharges a patient. Roy told the court the relevant statute is KRS 222.423, enacted July 2024, which requires facilities to return a person to a county residence, town square or a home coordinate if they are discharged without a place to return. Roy said the county has limited authority over facilities located in other states and recommended outreach to neighboring West Virginia jurisdictions to discuss cross‑border discharges.
Court members discussed the fiscal impacts, including county costs for mental‑health evaluations and incarcerations when individuals are arrested, and noted prior instances in which the county paid for burials of out‑of‑state residents who died after presenting locally.
The court did not adopt a formal ordinance at the meeting; staff indicated they were willing to meet with officials in Williamson or pursue discussions with the county's federal representative about possible legislative remedies.

