Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the MOUD In Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee puts H.32 on hold after drafting changes to MOUD rules in corrections; seeks DVA, DOC data
Summary
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee reviewed a new draft of H.32, which would clarify delivery of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Vermont correctional facilities, expand definitions to include detainees, require training for staff, and create an annual report requirement tied to Medicaid data. The committee asked DOC and
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 29 examined a revised draft of H.32 that would tighten rules for providing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Vermont correctional facilities, expand definitions to include detainees, and add an annual report requirement to assess outcomes after reentry.
Committee counsel Katie McGlenn of the Office of Legislative Counsel presented the draft (4.1) and said the committee’s goals were to ensure parity between MOUD offered in the community and in corrections, improve coordinated reentry care and clarify who makes medical decisions in facilities.
“The per the entity that’s responsible for the delivery of MOUD in our correctional facility is really Wellpath,” Katie McGlenn said, describing the contractor model currently used by DOC and noting the draft focuses on clarifying the department’s relationship with medical contractors.
Key elements in the draft included: definitions that explicitly cover “detainees” as well as sentenced individuals; language that would allow a department contractor to identify necessary health‑care practitioners and schedule intake appointments so a person can continue care on reentry; a more permissive rule allowing any FDA‑approved MOUD medications rather than mandating a specific medication pathway; and a new sentence allowing the department or its contractor to provide equivalent care for detainees.
The draft also added a training provision under which “the department may provide training to its officers and employees to enhance understanding of opioid use disorders and the purpose of medication for opioid use disorder.” McGlenn said DOC should have an opportunity to comment on that language.
Reporting: the draft requires the Department of Corrections, in consultation with the Department of Vermont Health Access, to submit an annual report assessing whether provision of MOUD in correctional settings improves health outcomes for previously incarcerated individuals reentering the community. One specified data point is “the aggregated number of individuals who continue to refill a prescription for medication for opioid use disorder six months after reentering the community.” Committee counsel and members discussed timing so that the report would follow a period after Medicaid coverage and IT changes — including a planned 1115 Medicaid waiver — permit reliable tracking.
DOC and representatives of DVA (the agency that handles Medicaid claims) explained that work to pause — rather than cancel — Medicaid coverage during incarceration and to adapt IT systems will be required to generate the follow‑up data the committee sought. Committee members were told the IT modifications are under development and that the 1115 waiver is intended to be the vehicle to enable Medicaid continuity on release and therefore tracking by DVA.
Several members said they wanted broader measures of successful reentry than medication refills. One member said, “One of the successes is when someone reenters the community from being incarcerated, they’re not overdosing and dying,” and members discussed measuring mortality, new charges, and other outcomes in addition to prescription refills.
After extended discussion about scope, technical detail and timing, the committee agreed to hold H.32 for further work. Members asked DOC and the Department of Vermont Health Access to collaborate off session on what data the waiver and IT changes will deliver and to return with recommendations and more specific reporting proposals so the draft can be refined before another committee vote.
The bill as drafted contains phased timing tied to the operational rollout and to the Medicaid waiver; committee members and staff emphasized that even if the bill moved through the House and Senate a waiver-driven implementation schedule means meaningful evaluation data would not be available immediately.
The committee also discussed ancillary questions: whether DOC contractors are working within defined scopes of practice, how long a supply of MOUD should be provided at release, and how reentry appointments and case management should be arranged. Members emphasized they prefer using external public‑health and academic partners to measure outcomes, and they asked staff to draft a letter asking DOC and DVA to prepare the technical proposals needed to implement the reporting requirement.
