House Human Services hearing examines bill to let Pennsylvania jails offer all FDA‑approved opioid treatments

Members of the Pennsylvania House Human Services Committee heard testimony Wednesday on House Bill 561, which would allow the state’s Act 80 jail‑based grant program to pay for all FDA‑approved medications for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone) and related program costs.

Supporters told the committee expanding the grant flexibility could reduce overdoses after release and improve reentry outcomes by letting clinicians choose the medication that best fits each patient. ‘‘The decision about which medication to use should be made by the patient and the prescribing doctor, not by statute or stigma,’’ said Dr. Latika Davis Jones, secretary of the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs.

Why it matters: People recently released from incarceration face sharply increased overdose risk, and several witnesses cited studies and local data showing jail‑based medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) can reduce overdose and recidivism. Testimony also stressed that current state Act 80 funding is restricted to Vivitrol (intramuscular naltrexone), which many clinicians and patients say is not an appropriate option for all individuals.

What witnesses said

• Dr. Latika Davis Jones, secretary, Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs: Dr. Jones described opioid use disorder as a chronic medical condition and urged lawmakers to remove statutory barriers that prevent jails from offering the full range of evidence‑based medications. She said limiting options ‘‘creates unnecessary barriers to care’’ and that expanding medication choices ‘‘would save lives.’’

• Sam Cook, policy director, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD): Cook said PCCD supports HB 561 because counties have asked for more flexibility. He described PCCD’s role in administering Act 80 funds and noted federal grant streams already permit all FDA‑approved medications.

• Michael Leister, state crisis intervention program manager, PCCD: Leister provided grant administration details, saying PCCD has administered more than $9,000,000 in Act 80 funds to 37 counties and that PCCD awarded roughly $3.7 million in its most recent non‑competitive round. He said $1.75 million set aside in a recent appropriation remains unspent and that PCCD has a balance of roughly $7 million in Act 80 funds. He told lawmakers that HB 561 would allow counties to use funds for medication, training, personnel and infrastructure and would remain administered by PCCD rather than the Department of Corrections.

• Sue Ming Yeh, executive director, Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project: Yeh described clients who lost access to methadone or buprenorphine while incarcerated and said withdrawal can be ‘‘extremely painful.’’ Her group’s review found gaps in jail practices: roughly 16 percent of jails offered no MOUD or offered only very limited access, about 73 percent lacked induction programs (starting medication in custody), and about 33 percent did not provide methadone.

• Dr. Kyle Kopko, executive director, Center for Rural Pennsylvania: Kopko described ongoing research into statewide access and provided data showing higher recent opioid use and related indicators in many rural counties, and noted the center will publish a statewide analysis later this year.

• James Egeler, administrator, Franklin‑Fulton Drug and Alcohol Program (testifying for the Pennsylvania Association of County Drug and Alcohol Administrators): Egeler described personally receiving MOUD in the community and said ‘‘it provided the stability I needed to engage in treatment.’’ He urged stable funding for jail programs and noted uneven opioid settlement distributions across counties.

• Heather Franzoni, warden, Franklin County Jail, and Deputy Warden Michelle Weller: Franzoni and Weller described Franklin County’s jail program, which began with Vivitrol in 2017 and expanded to offer all FDA‑approved medications in 2020. Weller said their program screens new commitments and uses medical and behavioral health staff, case management and warm handoffs at release; the jail reports diversion risk has been managed through procedures and supervision.

Concerns and practical issues

Committee members pressed witnesses on diversion risk, program oversight, and data collection. PCCD said diversion can be reduced with observed administration and protocols and that the agency requires quarterly reporting from Act 80 grantees. PCCD staff also said there is no single statewide jail record system: counties use roughly 11–12 different record systems, which complicates uniform data aggregation.

Next steps

Representative Maureen Madden, sponsor of HB 561, said the bill passed the House 99–4 in the prior session and would, if enacted, require biannual reporting to the Legislature on program reach and outcomes. The hearing was informational; no committee vote or formal action on the bill was recorded during the session.

Ending

Committee chairs and witnesses framed the issue as a public‑health and public‑safety priority: supporters said expanded grant flexibility would let clinicians and patients choose medically appropriate therapies, reduce overdose risk after release and strengthen reentry services. The bill will return to committee work and, if reported, proceed through the legislative process.