Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substance Use Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Rockbridge County to study methadone clinic to expand opioid treatment access
Summary
Allison Rose Clark, a long‑time local resident, urged the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors to explore establishing a methadone clinic in the Lexington–Rockbridge County–Bu�n Vista area, arguing methadone has higher long‑term retention than current local treatments and that travel barriers prevent many people from staying in care.
Get email alerts on the Substance Use Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allison Rose Clark, a Rockbridge County resident, told the Board of Supervisors on June 22 that a lack of local methadone treatment is preventing many people with severe opioid dependence from remaining in care.
Clark cited research she said shows low retention with buprenorphine (what she referred to as “Suboxin”) and contrasted that with higher long‑term retention for methadone, and urged cooperation among Lexington, Rockbridge County and Bu�n Vista to study a local clinic. “Expecting someone with a severe addiction to travel 2 hours round trip six days a week is a barrier to recovery that many cannot overcome,” she said.
Clark said retention rates for buprenorphine can be low — she cited discontinuation figures she referenced from studies — and argued methadone treatment shows higher 24‑month retention. She quoted Tracy Cohen, MD, as saying of medication‑assisted treatment: “You take your meds and go about your day; treatment is the opposite of addiction.”
Clark asked local officials to assess feasibility, funding and interjurisdictional coordination and to consider barriers in the state licensing process. She recommended the county and cities work together on funding and permitting to reduce travel and improve treatment continuity.
The comment came during the public‑comment portion of the meeting; no formal action was taken by the board at that time. Chair and staff did not announce a follow‑up date or a staff assignment during the meeting.
What’s next: Clark’s request was recorded for the board’s public comment record. The board did not vote on a study or a referral at the June 22 meeting; any formal next step would require staff direction or a future agenda item.

