logo
A new consensus on substance use disorders and healthcare

A new consensus on substance use disorders and healthcare

Yahoo21-04-2025

(Photo:)
New polling from the Legal Action Center shows North Carolinians nearly universally (98%) view substance use disorders (SUD) as a problem deserving of attention. More than two-thirds know someone impacted by SUD, and the data shows robust support – across political and demographic lines – for a health-first approach to the issue. North Carolinians support expanding access to the full spectrum of evidence-based SUD treatment, including medications and eliminating SUD-based discrimination.
Leaders in North Carolina's executive and legislative branches can take heart in this emerging consensus of support for their efforts to combat the state's overdose epidemic. Fortunately, Governor Josh Stein and First Lady Anna Stein both support access to evidence-based treatment and ending the stigma that interferes with the delivery of treatment.
Additionally, State Representative Timothy Reeder and State Senator Jim Burgin recently held a press conference with the Addiction Professionals of NC (APNC) to announce the NC Treatment Connection website, aimed at ensuring all SUD treatment providers in the state use evidence-based models.
These efforts are essential since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks North Carolina in the top 15 states with the highest fatal overdose rates. According to the state's Department of Health and Human Services, 2023 (the most current year of data) marks NC's highest rate of fatal overdose since 2010, with an estimated 4,442 deaths. That's 12 deaths per day, more than double the rate of fatalities from vehicle crashes that year.
For opioid use disorder, the most evidence-based form of treatment uses either methadone or buprenorphine, two of the three medications approved by the FDA for treatment of this disorder. The third, naltrexone, has much less robust evidence of efficacy.
Buprenorphine and methadone are effective at treating opioid withdrawal and cravings for opioids. These two medications for opioid disorder (MOUD), in repeated studies, show a reduction in overdose death rates of at least two-fold.
If a medication showed such a reduction in death when used to treat any other chronic condition, failing to provide that medication would be malpractice. Yet MOUD is often prohibited in settings such as drug courts, skilled nursing facilities, and even in residential SUD treatment programs. These stigmatizing practices lead to unnecessary deaths.
We must eliminate MOUD- and SUD- based discrimination in all settings, especially healthcare settings. The stigma some medical professionals hold towards people with SUD can lead to dangerous results. Studies have shown clinicians can miss important diagnoses or deny care when they harbor preconceived ideas about patients.
Inadequate treatment of withdrawal symptoms causes patients to leave against medical advice or avoid medical care completely. Verbal and nonverbal communication of disdain or judgment from medical providers intensifies the shame already felt by patients with SUD and harms the therapeutic relationship. Even at facilities treating SUD, some providers carry negative attitudes towards life-saving buprenorphine and methadone.
The people of North Carolina also have reasons for optimism. In 2024, North Carolina experienced a five-year low of 12,447 emergency department visits due to overdose. The availability of naloxone, now free at many jails, health departments, and harm reduction sites, and the use of mobile OUD treatment clinics to reach people in areas that previously lacked access has contributed to this positive trend.
Clearly, there's much more work to be done. North Carolina's widespread support for strategies that prioritize treatment over punishment signals a prime opportunity for action. NC leaders should build on their efforts in three key ways:
Ensure emergency departments, primary care providers, jails, recovery courts, and SUD treatment programs all provide – or act as conduits to – evidence-based treatment.
Expand the SUD treatment workforce
Ensure public funds, including opioid settlement money, only support programs that provide access to evidence-based treatment.
Overwhelming public support for a health-first approach, the leadership of policymakers committed to change, and the availability of lifesaving interventions bring the overdose crisis within our reach for positive change.
By investing in treatment, harm reduction, and policies that promote recovery and combat discrimination, North Carolina can save lives and create a robust healthcare system that treats all people with dignity and respect. There is consensus, and the path forward is clear.
Let us act with urgency.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program
Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program

SCRANTON — A national anti-DEI group has targeted the Geisinger College of Health Sciences with recent filings of discrimination complaints. Virginia-based Do No Harm purported in news releases in March and June that it filed separate complaints with two federal agencies against the college, citing as discriminatory its federally funded Center of Excellence for Diversity and Inclusion and a summer program that aimed to help students from Black, Hispanic or Native American communities that are underrepresented in the medical field transition into medical school. The Do No Harm discrimination complaints come amid President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, programs in the public and private sectors. Trump issued executive orders in the first week of his second term targeting DEI initiatives. 'Geisinger College of Health Sciences did a thorough review of our programs after the presidential executive orders were issued to ensure compliance. The pre-matriculation program referenced in the (Do No Harm) complaint ended in 2024 and is no longer active,' Geisinger CHS said in a statement. Do No Harm is labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an 'anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.' Critics of the SPLC say it's politically biased and its definition of hate group is overly broad. Do No Harm first filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on March 19 against Geisinger CHS, according to a news release posted on the Do No Harm website. A member of Do No Harm then filed a similar complaint June 5 with the U.S. Department of Education, because Geisinger 'did not learn its lesson' from the initial complaint filed with HHS, the advocacy organization announced in another news release. The Times-Tribune could not verify that the complaints were filed with both departments, and whether either agency investigated the allegations or took any actions. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education through separate representatives said they do not confirm the existence of complaints. Do No Harm, established in April 2022, claims it has 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians and concerned citizens, and cites its mission as safeguarding health care from ideological threats. 'Do No Harm seeks to highlight and counteract divisive trends in medicine, such as 'Diversity, Equity and Inclusion' and youth-focused gender ideology,' the organization's website says. According to the SPLC, Do No Harm in 2024 filed eight lawsuits challenging programs such as scholarships and fellowships for marginalized people. 'The group claims that the practice of nonprofit organizations like the American Association of University Women to provide fellowships to students of color and LGBTQ+ students — groups historically underrepresented in academia and medicine — harms patients by requiring medical schools to accept or fund unqualified candidates. According to the group, the case was dismissed 'after AAUW agreed to drop the racial criteria in the fellowship's selection process,'' the SPLC website says. According to the website of Geisinger College of Health Sciences, it is the research and education arm of the Geisinger health system. Established in 2022, the college unifies the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Geisinger School of Nursing, Geisinger School of Graduate Education, graduate medical education, Center for Faculty and Professional Development and more. * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) Show Caption 1 of 3 Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) Expand

Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program
Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Anti-DEI group targets Geisinger College of Health Sciences over program

SCRANTON — A national anti-DEI group has targeted the Geisinger College of Health Sciences with recent filings of discrimination complaints. Virginia-based Do No Harm purported in news releases in March and June that it filed separate complaints with two federal agencies against the college, citing as discriminatory its federally funded Center of Excellence for Diversity and Inclusion and a summer program that aimed to help students from Black, Hispanic or Native American communities that are underrepresented in the medical field transition into medical school. The Do No Harm discrimination complaints come amid President Donald Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, programs in the public and private sectors. Trump issued executive orders in the first week of his second term targeting DEI initiatives. 'Geisinger College of Health Sciences did a thorough review of our programs after the presidential executive orders were issued to ensure compliance. The pre-matriculation program referenced in the (Do No Harm) complaint ended in 2024 and is no longer active,' Geisinger CHS said in a statement. Do No Harm is labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an 'anti-LGBTQ+ hate group.' Critics of the SPLC say it's politically biased and its definition of hate group is overly broad. Do No Harm first filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on March 19 against Geisinger CHS, according to a news release posted on the Do No Harm website. A member of Do No Harm then filed a similar complaint June 5 with the U.S. Department of Education, because Geisinger 'did not learn its lesson' from the initial complaint filed with HHS, the advocacy organization announced in another news release. The Times-Tribune could not verify that the complaints were filed with both departments, and whether either agency investigated the allegations or took any actions. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education through separate representatives said they do not confirm the existence of complaints. Do No Harm, established in April 2022, claims it has 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians and concerned citizens, and cites its mission as safeguarding health care from ideological threats. 'Do No Harm seeks to highlight and counteract divisive trends in medicine, such as 'Diversity, Equity and Inclusion' and youth-focused gender ideology,' the organization's website says. According to the SPLC, Do No Harm in 2024 filed eight lawsuits challenging programs such as scholarships and fellowships for marginalized people. 'The group claims that the practice of nonprofit organizations like the American Association of University Women to provide fellowships to students of color and LGBTQ+ students — groups historically underrepresented in academia and medicine — harms patients by requiring medical schools to accept or fund unqualified candidates. According to the group, the case was dismissed 'after AAUW agreed to drop the racial criteria in the fellowship's selection process,'' the SPLC website says. According to the website of Geisinger College of Health Sciences, it is the research and education arm of the Geisinger health system. Established in 2022, the college unifies the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Geisinger School of Nursing, Geisinger School of Graduate Education, graduate medical education, Center for Faculty and Professional Development and more. * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) * Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) Show Caption 1 of 3 Geisinger College of Medicine in Scranton on Monday, June 9, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER) Expand

Fewer than 1 in 4 Colorado voters support Medicaid cuts
Fewer than 1 in 4 Colorado voters support Medicaid cuts

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Fewer than 1 in 4 Colorado voters support Medicaid cuts

(Stock photo by) Just 21% of Colorado voters want Congress to decrease Medicaid spending, according to a poll released Tuesday. Concerns about gutted health care access come as U.S. Senate Republican leaders work to push through a tax and spending bill that would cut Medicaid by an estimated $625 billion over the next decade. The poll zeroed in on the 8th Congressional District, which includes the northern Denver metro area and parts of Weld County. In the district, where 1 in 4 residents receive Medicaid benefits, 63% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who voted to cut Medicaid. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 8th District is represented by Republican Gabe Evans, who voted in favor of the plan that would reduce federal Medicaid spending when it was brought to the U.S. House of Representatives in May. A spokesperson for Evans defended the vote, saying a proposed provision to institute part-time work requirements for some people to retain Medicaid eligibility would make 'the program more efficient by cutting out fraud, waste, and abuse.' 'Congressman Gabe Evans has been steadfast in his support of protecting Medicaid for the vulnerable populations it was created to serve — pregnant women, kids, and disabled people,' said spokesperson Delanie Bomar in a statement Tuesday. Evans, who was elected to the House last year, represents one of the country's few congressional swing districts. According to the poll, 42% of voters in the district want to see increased federal Medicaid spending, 20% want it to stay about the same and 28% want it to decrease. Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for lower-income people and some with disabilities, serves more than 70 million U.S. residents. The poll of 675 registered Colorado voters was conducted by Broomfield-based firm Magellan Strategies on behalf of the nonprofit Healthier Colorado. It has a margin of error of 3.7%. 'Politicians are saying that they want to cut Medicaid to make it better, but the poll shows clearly that voters aren't buying what they're selling,' said Jake Williams, CEO of Healthier Colorado. 'It shows that there's real political peril for any candidate who votes to cut Medicaid.' Bomar pointed to the poll's findings that many respondents, especially those who are Republicans or unaffiliated, said Medicaid 'should only be for U.S. citizens or legal residents, with some calling for stricter eligibility enforcement.' Immigrants who are in the U.S. unlawfully are not eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, but Colorado and 13 other states provide some state-funded coverage to immigrants lacking permanent legal status. Under the proposed federal cuts, an estimated 7.8 million people, most of them citizens or lawful residents, would lose access to Medicaid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Some of the main reasons cited in the poll by respondents who said they have favorable opinions of Medicaid are the benefits it provides to low-income Coloradans, seniors, children, people with disabilities and single parents. 'The poll shows that Medicaid cuts would have devastating effects for both our health and economy here in Colorado,' Williams said. 'I also think it shows that Colorado voters aren't dummies.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store