Unhinged reason Democrat-run cities riddled with crime are now PAYING the meth addicts blighting their streets
Addiction treatment facilities in cities including San Francisco and Portland, Maine, have been implementing contingency management (CM) techniques to keep patients clean and on the path to recovery.
Contingency management is a decades-old strategy that positively enforces sobriety by rewarding negative drug tests with prizes such as vouchers, gift cards and debit card cash valued.
The longer someone is able to stay on the straight and narrow, the heftier the pay - though maximum payouts vary from clinic to clinic.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is funded by taxpayers, allows patients to be awarded up to $750 each year through its vouchers.
Other programs, such as ones in Pennsylvania 's Allegheny County, reward participants up to $1,000 annually.
Treatment plans generally span anywhere from eight weeks to a year in duration and are most commonly used for treating stimulant addictions.
While experts have praised the method as an effective way to combat drug dependencies, it has sparked fierce criticism for its transactional nature - with skeptics saying unhealthy habits re-emerge once the money stops coming.
Researcher and clinicians have slammed the practice as 'bribery' and called it 'unethical to pay people for what they should be doing anyway,' according to the National Library of Medicine (NLM).
But for Jamie Mains, who is addicted to meth, CM programs have helped completely turn her life around.
'I was getting paid not to use and that was nice and that was the beginning,' Mains, of Portland, Maine, told The New York Times.
'But now I feel like being sober is payment enough, not waking up sick is payment enough, being trusted is payment enough.'
Mains had been binge-drinking since she was nine-years-old and her mother shot her up with heroin when she was just 12. She had been battling addiction ever since.
While she traded her fentanyl cravings for meth, she had no luck becoming totally sober until entering a CM program last year.
The program had just launched at Portland's Spurwink clinic, and Mains enrolled because the 'money was a good enough reason to try.'
Sixteen months later, Mains is totally sober. She told the NY Times that even when her step-mother started smoking crack in her car while they were on their way to a relative's funeral, she had no urge to cave.
'Most people recoil at paying people to do the right thing,' Dr. Sally Satel, a medical director of a methadone clinic in Washington DC and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute told the NY Times.
'But we've got plenty of data that shows this works. So I think we just have to bite the utilitarian bullet.'
Over the past few years, Maine has seen a surge in meth addicts. From 2018 to 2024, the number of meth overdoses skyrocketed from seven percent to 37 percent, according to Maine's director of opioid response.
California, Montana, Washington and West Virginia have sought out Medicaid coverage for CM programs, according to the Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association (LAPPA).
Most insurance plans do not cover CM treatments.
The recovery method first caught traction in 2011, when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) launched an initiative to broaden patient access to CM.
From 2011 to 2016, the method was implemented in 116 out of the 129 VA programs in collaboration with the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (CESATE).
More than 8,000 veterans have been treated through these programs.
Beyond the VA, California has been spearheading efforts to implement CM programs.
Last year, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom proposed using hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to implement such programs throughout the Golden State.
According to California's Department of Health Care Services website, 23 out of the state's 58 counties participate in the incentive programs.
One of those counties, San Francisco - which has one of the worst overdose rates in the nation - proposed a 'Cash Not Drugs' program last year.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the measure in order to combat the city's raging drug problem.
Under this program, people could receive up to $100 a week for steering clear of illicit substances, CBS reported.
Under the Biden administration, increased federal support and allowed more states to apply for Medicaid grants to fund the patient rewards.
Before raising the maximum SAMHSA voucher limit to $750, it was just $75.
But proponents of CM are worried for its future, as Donald Trump's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy - a recovered heroin addict himself - may not be on board with expanding or sustaining these programs.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to the NY Times' question specifically about CM,
Instead this agency issued the following statement: 'HHS must return to common-sense public health approaches focused on prevention, treatment, and long-term recovery.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Even Trump's former Surgeon General has hit out at RFK Jr's plans to gut vaccine research: ‘Going to cost lives'
Health experts, including some former Trump officials, are raising the alarm over the administration's decision to pull nearly $500 million in funding for mRNA-based vaccine projects. 'I've tried to be objective & non-alarmist in response to current [Department of Health and Human Services] actions – but quite frankly this move is going to cost lives,' Jerome Adams, who served as Surgeon General during the first Trump administration, wrote on X. ' mRNA technology has uses that go far beyond vaccines… and the vaccine they helped develop in record time is credited with saving millions.' The former official added that mRNA vaccines could do more than just fight Covid, with scientists working to apply them to the flu, RSV, HIV, cancer, and Zika, among other pressing health issues. On Tuesday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that Health and Human Services was winding down 22 mRNA projects being run through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which invests in cutting-edge medical technologies. In a video statement, Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic, made multiple claims about mRNA vaccines that scientists said were inaccurate and counterproductive. 'As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract,' the secretary said, adding that such technology 'prolongs pandemics' and 'poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses.' Health experts said Kennedy's claims about mRNA vaccines, the core technology in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Modern Covid-19 vaccines, were incorrect. 'By issuing this wildly incorrect statement, the secretary is demonstrating his commitment to his long-held goal of sowing doubts about all vaccines,' Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health, told The New York Times. 'Had we not used these lifesaving mRNA vaccines to protect against severe illness, we would have had millions of more Covid deaths.' Researchers who pioneered the technology won a Nobel Prize in 2023. Instead of mRNA vaccines, the administration said it will seek to invest in other approaches, including using vaccines based on whole killed viruses. The approach has been used in past vaccines, but researchers say it takes longer to develop vaccines this way. "It is irresponsible to strip funding from future technologies with great potential and shift it towards outdated old-fashioned technologies," Rick Bright, the former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority during the first Trump administration, told NPR. "We're taking our country from 2025 back to 1940, and we all know that's a recipe for disaster and failure." "In an outbreak, when you are facing a rapidly spreading virus — whether it's from nature or a nation-state adversary — speed is the name of the game," he added.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘It's really, really bad right now': NIH scientists dismayed by Trump cuts
Last week, the office of management and budget (OMB) revealed plans to freeze all outside funding for National Institutes of Health research this fiscal year, but reversed course later that day, leaving the scientific community in a state of whiplash. A senior official at the NIH who spoke on condition of anonymity said this was just the latest in a 'multi-prong' approach by the Trump administration to destroy American scientific research. In July, the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the NIH, updated its website to reflect Trump administration plans to significantly cut cancer research spending as well. Since January, the administration has been cancelling NIH grants, in some cases targeting other specific research areas, such as HIV treatment and prevention. 'It's really, really bad at NIH right now,' said the official, who added that researchers working outside the NIH have been unaware of the severity of the situation until recently, even though they have also faced funding upheaval since the winter. 'The Trump administration is, for the first time in history, substantially intervening inside NIH to bring it under political control,' the official said. 'That's what we saw this week with the OMB freeze on funding.' 'I think the core of it is that they want to destroy universities, or at least turn them into rightwing ideological factories,' the official said, since the majority of the NIH's grants are distributed to researchers in universities, medical schools and similar institutions. In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech entitled The Universities Are the Enemy. The official said they were alarmed at how little universities are fighting back – many have settled with the administration, which has 'gotten Columbia to completely knuckle under. One of America's most significant universities and a place that is a worldwide magnet for talents. Same thing at Penn. Now they're going after UCLA.' Institutions such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also stayed on the sidelines, refusing to sufficiently resist Trump, the official said. If the administration does manage to freeze NIH funding, it will push to rescind the funds permanently using a rescission motion, the official said. This type of motion only requires a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Senate, instead of the supermajority necessary to beat a filibuster. Republicans would have enough votes to 'ram through these motions to effectively cut the budget without Democrats in Congress weighing in. It's an ongoing disaster.' Researchers at the many universities where the administration has frozen funding, such as Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, are starting to feel the gravity of the situation, said the official. Carole LaBonne, a biologist at Northwestern, said 'university labs are hanging by a thread', explaining that even though the OMB reversed its decision to freeze outside NIH funding, 'the baseline reality is not much better'. Other recent changes at the NIH include allocating research grants all at once rather than over multiple years, so that fewer projects are funded. Reductions in cancer research funding also mean that only 4% of relevant grant applications will move forward. 'This will effectively shut down cancer research in this country and destroy the careers of many scientists. This is devastating,' LaBonne said. The extreme uncertainty surrounding scientific research is also negatively affecting scientists' mental health. 'I do not know any faculty who are not incredibly stressed right now, wondering how long they will be able to keep their labs going and if/when they will have to let laboratory staff go,' LaBonne said. 'It also very hard to motivate oneself to write grants, a painstaking and time-intensive processes, when there is a 96% chance it will not be funded.' Ryan Gutenkunst, who heads the department of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Arizona, said: 'The chaos at NIH is definitely freaking [faculty and students] out and wasting huge amounts of emotional energy and time. We were emailing about the latest pause, only to find it unpaused hours later.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The senior NIH official found last week's events unsurprising, they said: 'They're throwing everything at the wall to stop NIH from spending. What struck me was that many of my colleagues at universities were like, 'Oh, my God, they're stopping grants.' And it really seemed to activate people in a way that I hadn't seen before, whereas a lot of us at NIH thought, 'Oh, they just did another thing.'' Science is an engine for American economic dominance, and scientific clusters such as Silicon Valley could not exist without federal funding, the official said. 'Once you break them, it will be impossible to rebuild them. We're on the path to breaking them.' LaBonne said she worried about the impact on progress in cancer specifically. 'My own research touches on pediatric cancers. Forty years ago more than 60% of children diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of diagnosis. Today there is a 90% survival rate. We should not put progress like that in danger,' she said. Although many major scientific institutions have complied with the administration, grassroots organizations and individual scientists, including those within the NIH, are finding ways to resist. The senior NIH official said they were most hopeful about grassroots organizers who are resisting the Trump administration openly, rather than relying on older strategies such as litigation and negotiations with Congress. For example, Science Homecoming, a website to promote science communication, is encouraging scientists to get the word out about the importance of federal funding to their home towns. The Bethesda Declaration, signed by 484 NIH staff, directly accused NIH director Jay Bhattacharya of 'a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally appropriated funds for critical NIH research. Each day that the NIH continues to disrupt research, your ability to deliver on this duty narrows.'
Reuters
12 hours ago
- Reuters
Focus: Trump, pharma industry discuss boosting medicine spending abroad to cut US prices, sources say
NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - The Trump administration has been talking to drugmakers about ways to raise prices of medicines in Europe and elsewhere in order to cut drug costs in the United States, according to a White House official and three pharmaceutical industry sources. U.S. officials told drug companies it would support their international negotiations with governments if they adopt "most favored nation" pricing under which U.S. drug costs match the lower rates offered to other wealthy countries, the White House official said. The U.S. is currently negotiating bilateral trade deals and setting tariff rates on the sector. The Trump administration has asked some companies for ideas on raising prices abroad, two of the sources said, describing multiple meetings over several months aimed at lowering U.S. prices without triggering cuts to research and development spending drugmakers insist would result. The White House official called the effort collaborative, saying both sides were seeking advice from each other. The U.S. pays more for prescription drugs than any other country, often nearly three times as much as other developed nations. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to narrow this gap to stop Americans from being "ripped off." The previously unreported discussions reflect the challenges Trump faces to achieve that goal, and are the backdrop to the letters he sent last week to CEOs of 17 major drugmakers, urging them to cut U.S. prices to match those paid overseas. Unlike in the U.S., where market forces determine drug prices, European governments typically negotiate directly with companies to set prices for their national healthcare systems. Anna Kaltenboeck, a health economist at Verdant Research, said European nations have leverage to drive pricing and are sometimes willing to walk away from purchasing medicines they deem too expensive. Drugmakers generate most of their sales in the U.S. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America - the industry's main lobby group - has always argued that cutting U.S. prices would stifle innovation by lowering R&D spending. PhRMA declined to comment on the private meetings. Kaltenboeck said past studies had shown that drugmakers made enough money in the U.S. to more than fund their entire global R&D spends. "Prices can come down in the United States without being increased in other countries, and we can still get innovation," she said. Despite the Trump administration's tariff threats and pressure to move more manufacturing to the U.S., the push to raise European drug prices is its top priority in discussions with industry, according to a senior executive at a European drugmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity about the confidential meetings. "This is the key conversation right now with PhRMA and every company getting that message from Pennsylvania Avenue to a point that we are already executing on it," the executive said, referring to the White House address. The company had already met with European governments on the issue, the executive added. An E.U. Commission spokesperson said it is in regular contact with the pharma industry and pointed to an agreement with the U.S. that should it impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals, they would be capped at 15%. When asked how the administration would support international drug price negotiations, the White House official referred Reuters to Trump's most favored nation executive order from May. That order directed trade officials to pursue trade and legal action against countries keeping drug prices below fair market value. In last week's letters, Trump complained that since the May executive order, most industry proposals had simply shifted blame for high prices or requested policy changes that would result in billions in industry handouts. A second source, a pharmaceutical executive who was not authorized to speak on the matter, said the Trump administration has been continually meeting with representatives of his company and had discussed strategies for raising drug prices internationally. "There's a big push from the administration to drive up prices outside the U.S.," the executive said. The executive said the Trump administration had been looking at using trade talks with the UK and EU as leverage, and considered pressuring countries to spend a higher percentage of GDP on new medicines or offering tariff breaks in exchange for higher drug spending. It was understood that the UK deal specifically aims to get the country to ramp up investment in branded medicines over time, the executive said. A spokesperson for the UK government said it would continue to work closely with the U.S. and its own pharmaceutical industry to understand the possible impact of any changes to drug pricing, without commenting on the trade talks. In April, over 30 industry CEOs including those from AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab, Bayer ( opens new tab and Novo Nordisk ( opens new tab signed a letter to European Union President Ursula von der Leyen saying Europe needed to rethink its pricing policies. "It's going to be very difficult for a country that already has the ability to control what it spends to go in the other direction," Kaltenboeck said, "and it doesn't make much sense for them politically."
