An Act Relative to Substance Use, Treatment, Education, and Prevention outlines the measures set out to mitigate Substance Use Disorder (SUD). Since 2014, the government has battled thousands of SUD related deaths with more than 10,000 Opioids deaths per day. (Mclellan, 2017). About 60% of people were becoming addicted to drugs such as heroin, tobacco, alcohol, and prescribed Opioids. Because of this, Governor Baker, in conjunction with the State’s Legislator, deemed it a glaring necessity to initiate an Act of Parliament that would consist of laws preventing addiction and educating people about the effects of drug abuse.
SUD mostly affected vulnerable people with weak immune systems ( Meghan Rudder, MD, Lulu Tsao, MD, and Helen E. Jack, 2016). They made it very challenging to treat the addiction, making it a national disaster. The government, in collaboration with public health officials and legislators, came up with pragmatic measures that would help stop and prevent substance use disorder.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Substance Use Disorder (SUD)
Between 2010- 2014, many people succumbed to SUD. The U.S. Congress came up with policies to deal with the epidemic. SUD interferes with the normal functioning of the brain. Inarguably, the ease in progression to addiction varies depending on the strength of a certain drug. It is worth noting that drugs containing opioids are more likely to cause adverse effects to their users. Experts posit that the addiction builds up gradually, beginning with the subsequent need to keep using the drugs up to the point of no return. Unfortunately, any attempts to quit the abuse of the drug may present adverse effects like illnesses such as migraines and other related complications.
Situation in Massachusetts
The hurdles of the SUD finally caught the attention of Massachusetts’ Governor, Charles Baker, who took it upon himself to counteract the ailment at all costs (Rudder et al., 2016). This was mostly attributed to the fact that the illness was chronically affecting the State of Massachusetts. It is worth noting that through Chapter 52- Acts of 2016, the Commonwealth voiced concerns over the matter and advocated for Baker’s response to the epidemic (MMS, 2016). Additionally, several measures were suggested in response to the same.
Measures Instigated as Counteraction
The STEP Act was formulated in 2016 that required drug prescribers to counter-check with the State’s prescribing program before making any prescriptions (Miller, 2017). Additionally, prescribers were also required to be rigorously qualified in the sectors of pain management and addiction (Miller, 2017). On top of that, this law came a long way in ensuring that these newly-devised standards were extended throughout Massachusetts for wide coverage in battling the epidemic of SUD.
To demonstrate its efficacy in educational institutions, the Bill introduced an allocation of $2 Million to these facilities (Miller, 2017). These funds were for the sole purpose of enabling drug screening and educational awareness as preventive measures. Patients were also required to apply for an opioid drug use authorization, compared to ordering it like before. This was accompanied by the pharmacists’ application of consent to the prescribers, which was to be requested within seven days of the application of the drug (MMS, 2016).
Moreover, physicians were required to report any substance abuse cases to the responsible agencies as soon as they occurred. In the same regard, the sale of powdered alcohol was prohibited because the powder was used as an illegal escape avenue for addicts (MMS, 2016). Additionally, the manufacture and possession of the same were viable for holding a victim criminally liable for obstruction (MMS, 2016). With such stringent measures, SUD was considerably eliminated in the State of Massachusetts.
Furthermore, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy was required to subject abusers of drugs to mandatory rehabilitation programs to enable them to get a grip (MMS, 2016). Medicaid insurance cover was funded to ensure that individuals that were unable to cater to the rehabilitation fees were covered by the insurance (MMS, 2016).
Effectiveness of the Strategies to Schools
The donation made to schools of $2 million enabled supervisors to assimilate screening devices that could detect any issues related to SUD (MMS, 2016). Victims would then be subjected to treatment plans that would enhance their subsequent recovery. On top of that, mandatory educational awareness was introduced to enable students to come to speed with the epidemic of SUD and the need to steer clear of drugs as much as possible (MMS, 2016). Suffice it to say; these measures were extremely proficient in informing purpose and change in educational institutions by a great margin.
Conclusion
Governor Baker’s strategy was very competent in reducing SUD cases in Massachusetts. The alliance between legislators and health officers came a long way in restoring public health stability in Massachusetts. Notably, the welfare of the people is the supreme law; therefore, governments should take the front line in instigating measures that effectuate this realization. Plausibly, Governor Baker took a huge step in protecting the citizens of Massachusetts by eliminating the SUD epidemic. Because of this, Massachusetts remains clean from substance disorders up to date.
It is worth appreciating that these measures spearheaded the need by other States to follow suit to cushion their citizens and economies. For instance, Florida and Washington laid down clear-cut strategies that would also be as effective as the STEP Act was in Massachusetts. It is palpable that when every nation follows in the same footsteps, the globe would be devoid of struggling addicts and related disorders.
References
Massachusetts Medical Society. (2016). Fact Sheet: An Act Relative to Substance Use Treatment, Education, and Prevention.” Massachusetts Medical Society, Available at:
http://www.massmed.org/Advocacy/Key-Issues/Opioid-Abuse/Fact-Sheet--An-Act-Relative-to-Substance-Use-Treatment,-Education-and-Prevention/#.XuZCzkUzbIU
Mclellan, T. (2017). Substance Misuse and Substance use Disorders: Why do they Matter in Healthcare? Retrieved From: Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5525418/
Miller, D. (2017). Massachusetts Looks at Ground-Breaking Provisions to Curb Opioid Epidemic. E-Newsletter. Retrieved From:
https://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/cs131_1.aspx
Rudder, M. (2016). Shared Responsibility: Massachusetts Legislators, Physicians, and Act Relative to Substance Use Treatment, Education, and Prevention.” AMA Journal of Ethics, Available at https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/shared-responsibility-massachusetts-legislators-physicians-and-act-relative-substance-use-treatment/2016-09
