Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Pilot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates $130,000 opioid‑settlement pilot to expand chiropractic care; members ask for data
Summary
Council discussed a recommendation to allocate approximately $130,000 in opioid‑settlement funds for a pilot program (ATOMIC) to expand chiropractic, non‑opioid pain treatment for underinsured residents. Supporters described it as preventive; several council members asked for more evidence, transparency and competitive procurement. No final council vote recorded.
Luzerne County Council spent an extended portion of its work session discussing a proposed pilot program to use opioid‑settlement funds for expanded chiropractic services as an alternative to opioid pain medication.
The proposal, presented remotely by Dr. Lewis, describes a two‑year pilot (branded in the materials as ATOMIC — Alternative Treatment Of Opioid Medication And Chiropractic) aimed at providing reduced‑cost or subsidized chiropractic care to underinsured and uninsured patients with chronic pain who state they do not want opioid treatment. In the meeting Dr. Lewis said: "It has long been medically accepted that chiropractic is a safe alternative treatment for people using any type of pain relievers, opioid included," and described a patient intake questionnaire, visit‑by‑visit opioid‑use checks and an outreach/marketing element to enroll eligible patients.
Council members pressed for implementation and oversight details. Councilmember Brian Thornton asked how patients would be re‑evaluated and what protections would prevent inappropriate ongoing enrollment; Dr. Lewis replied that the program would require an initial questionnaire and review at each visit, and that any patient found to be using opioids would be removed from the program and reevaluated after a 90‑day period. Several members (including Miss Stevenson and Mister Lescavage) said they were unconvinced the proposal should receive sizable funding now, citing limited evidence and the county’s other immediate needs (homelessness and emergency services).
Other concerns raised by council included fairness and competition (several members suggested an RFP so other providers could apply), program reach (how non‑existing patients would learn of the program), measurable metrics, and whether a $130,000 allocation is the best use of opioid funds given other demands. Supporters described the pilot as preventive and potentially cost‑effective — noting most patients served would be those already seeking non‑opioid care — and suggested the committee could provide additional data and a summary presentation for council.
No final roll‑call vote on funding the pilot is recorded in the transcript; council discussion closed with requests for more documentation, clearer metrics and possible procurement steps before a final council decision. The transcript indicates the item will proceed through the trust/committee review pathways (exhibit and trust determinations) after council action.
Provenance: discussion introduced during the work session (see transcript discussion beginning SEG 2035 and concluding after detailed Q&A through SEG 2734).
