On May 3, 2017, the Governor of the State of Florida signed Executive Order Number 17-146 declaring that the opioid epidemic threatens the State with an emergency and that, as a consequence of this danger, a state of emergency exists. Also, in the executive order, the Governor directed the State Health Officer and Surgeon General to declare a statewide public health emergency, pursuant to its authority in section 381.00315, F.S. On June 29, 2017, the Governor signed Executive Order Number 17-177 to extend the state of emergency declaration.
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) was recently awarded a two-year grant to address this opioid epidemic.
Many Floridians involved in this discussion were excited that expansive use of Medication-Assisted Treatment and other modalities would be used to address the growing epidemic within underserved populations using a medical model, rather than exclusively through traditional counseling treatment.
However, what appears to be occurring, though more information still needs to be obtained, is that DCF will use these funds in part to expand onlyMethadone Medication-Assisted Treatment services in needed areas of the state as part of a comprehensive plan to address the opioid crisis. We do not believe this includes Suboxone or Vivitrol.
This also does not appear to help the majority of Floridians who may have insurance but cannot cover the costs of treatment due to treatment plans that continue to demand exorbitant co-pays and deductibles for SUD treatment. Stated otherwise, you either have SUD or do not. The economic decision of whether to pay a deducible becomes secondary.
While Florida does allow a statutory “deferral” of payment of deductibles in order to obtain payment, this allowance has been sometimes abused in the past with faux attempts to collect the deductible after-the-fact.
Florida mandates “balance billing” which means the provider MUST use all reasonable methods to collect on the balance. The fees for services are published and provided in advance as required by DCF rule, so the patient and their family know or have access to know what they are getting themselves into.
Ironically, perhaps, the “bad” providers who “forgive” the debt are alleged to have committed “Patient Brokering” for “inducing” a patient to treatment under the guise of waiving the co-pays and deductibles.
The “good” providers that follow the law and make every reasonable attempt to collect on the deductibles are called “heartless” or “ruthless” for “taking advantage of a family who is otherwise suffering a health tragedy.”
This law certainly must be changed.
For now, DCF has to revise the licensure requirements since methadone programs were the only type of service provider issued licenses based upon a needs assessment. DCF has determined there is a critical need for more methadone medication-assisted treatment providers.
This rule makes changes to permanent Rule 65D-30.014 F.A.C., which is attached for reference, relating to licensure requirements for methadone medication-assisted treatment programs.
Latest posts by Jeffrey Lynne (see all)
- Lawsuits Continue Against Insurance Companies for Refusing to Pay for Mental Health Care - November 21, 2018
- Why Isn’t Housing Deemed “Medically Necessary” in SUD Treatment? - November 15, 2018
- Federal Government Seeks to Commentary Relating to Anti-Kickback Laws - November 2, 2018