Addiction treatment violations finally would be public under Assembly bill

Back when we started writing about fraud and abuse and death in California’s private-pay addiction treatment centers in 2017, we had to wait months for copies of inspection reports and violations from state regulators.

Now, seven years later, we still have to wait months for those records!

Imagine being the parent of a kid in crisis, trying to find a safe place for them to get help, making life-or-death decisions based on slick websites and grand promises rather than official tallies of violations, complaints and, yes, deaths.

 

Enter now Assembly Bill 2081 by Assemblymember Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel. It’s a simple plea for transparency, which would require state-licensed and/or certified programs to disclose, on their own websites, “if a legal, disciplinary or other enforcement action has been brought” by state regulators, and the program was found to be in violation.

The web disclosure would have to include the violation’s date and nature, and there’d be a $2,500 civil penalty for failure to comply.

Mind you, the state has been working to put this information online — for years now! — but Davies isn’t inclined to wait much longer.

“We’re looking for transparency,” she said. “The most important thing is ensuring the patients’ safety. There are bad actors out there. If there’s a violation, it’s on the website, you can see what their record is. Sometimes places look great on the website, but it’s very different once you get there.”

Deja vu again?

The Department of Health Care Services — which licenses and regulates addiction treatment programs in California — has promised in recent years to provide folks quick, online access to its public records on licensed treatment centers via a public dashboard.

This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff. The California Department of Social Services, which licenses and inspects group homes for disabled folks and kiddie daycares, has been posting inspection and complaint reports online for many years. It has many of the same privacy concerns to navigate as DHCS does, but manages nonetheless.

In marked contrast, getting public records for addiction treatment centers from DHCS is an agonizing process that can take months, rendering it useless to anyone who needs information right away. Which is most everyone who asks for it.

A year ago, DHCS told us the department was “actively working towards implementing an online directory to post inspection reports as well as complaint investigation reports, death investigation reports and counselor investigation reports. The project is currently in the development stage and DHCS estimates implementation in late 2023.”

It’s 2024.

Last July, outpatient treatment programs — which, unbelievably, didn’t need any state blessing to operate in California at all — were finally required to be certified by the state. Not licensed, mind you, but certified, which is a lesser bar, but better than nothing, right? And because of this change, the dashboard required more work.

DHCS published draft certification standards in October and asked these programs for feedback. DHCS is incorporating said feedback and now anticipates that the dashboard will premiere this summer, officials said.

Busy year

It will be a busy year.

DHCS’ mission prowess is currently under the microscope. The State Auditor is studying the agency to “determine if DHCS is properly licensing, regulating and enforcing state laws” regarding residential facilities that provide nonmedical recovery, treatment and detox services.

The audit, requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, is expected to be done by spring or early summer. The request was refreshingly bipartisan, signed by Davies; Assemblymembers Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Laguna Beach; Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach; Tri Ta, R-Westminster; Kate Sanchez, R-Rancho Santa Margarita; and Senators Josh Newman, D-Fullerton; Janet Nguyen, R-Huntington Beach; and Dave Min, D-Irvine.

“It is regrettable how much these facilities are taking advantage of vulnerable people — people who actually need help,” Dixon said in July. “Unfortunately, these facilities advertise treatment for alcohol or drug abuse recovery or treatment services and more often than not provide limited care. We need more accountability on who is licensed and if the treatment programs provided are effective.”

The influential League of California Cities is on board as well. “In 2024, we want to see action on sober living homes,” said League rep Connor Medina at a recent California Sober Living Task Force’s meeting. “We want to sponsor legislation. We’re still crafting exactly what that looks like… we’re in lockstep with you on taking action.”

The Task Force is collecting personal testimony from folks who have experiences to share about living near, or in, these facilities. Submit your two cents at https://www.soberlivingtaskforce.com/jlac-feedback; it will be forwarded to the state auditor’s office.

Strength in numbers

Davies is co-chair of the Task Force, along with Mission Viejo Councilmember Wendy Bucknum. It’s where the idea for AB 2081 was born.

The group is a bipartisan coalition of local and state officials, law enforcement and residents working to raise the bar for the industry and the people who depend on it for their lives — as well as the neighbors of these facilities. Addiction treatment often happens in regular old tract homes in regular old residential neighborhoods, often devoid of any meaningful medical oversight (which is strange, if addiction is a disease, right?).

Davies’ bill would certainly help consumers navigate this confusing (and sometimes treacherous) landscape. It will be lovely when DHCS finally gets its records online. But even then, folks may not know where to look.

Requiring the basics to be posted by the facilities themselves, on their own websites, is a clever idea that could force facilities to try harder. It could give often-addled and desperate folks weighing treatment centers a much more objective snapshot of operations. And it could place more accountability squarely on the shoulders of the facilities themselves — which is, in the end, where it belongs.

“Licensed recovery homes provide a wide range of benefits to some of California’s most vulnerable residents, and it is critical that their needs are prioritized over profits,” said League of California Cities Legislative Affairs Lobbyist Caroline Grinder in a prepared statement. “Cal Cities is proud to support this commonsense, transparency legislation that protects residents and holds providers accountable for maintaining high quality treatment. It’s good for the community, good for the neighbors, and most importantly, good for those who are receiving care.”

Source: Orange County Register