California Senate Bill SB110

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/6/21
• Refer: 1/28/21
• Refer: 3/15/21
• Report Pass: 4/22/21
• Refer: 4/22/21
• Report Pass: 5/20/21
• Engrossed: 6/1/21
• Refer: 6/17/21
• Refer: 7/1/21
• Report Pass: 7/14/21
• Refer: 7/14/21
• Report Pass: 8/26/21
• Enrolled: 9/3/21
• Vetoed: 10/8/21

Caption

Substance use disorder services: contingency management services.

Impact

If enacted, SB 110 would significantly alter the provision of substance use disorder services by allowing for a structured incentive system to motivate individuals towards positive treatment outcomes. This change signals a shift towards evidence-based practices in addiction treatment. The implementation of contingency management is contingent upon obtaining the necessary federal approvals and funding, ensuring the program adheres to both state and federal regulations. Overall, this expansion could lead to improved health outcomes for Medi-Cal beneficiaries struggling with substance use disorders.

Summary

Senate Bill 110 focuses on enhancing substance use disorder services through the introduction of contingency management services within California's Medi-Cal program. This bill aims to expand treatment options for eligible low-income individuals by adding contingency management as an optional benefit under the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. Through this initiative, counties administering the system must develop and submit an implementation plan demonstrating their readiness to provide these new services, which potentially includes incentives for participants achieving specific behavioral goals, such as maintaining negative drug tests.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB 110 appears to be supportive, particularly from advocates for addiction recovery and public health. Proponents argue that the inclusion of contingency management services will enhance treatment effectiveness and provide necessary resources to underserved populations. However, there may also be concerns regarding the equitable distribution of these services and the effective management of the incentive program, which could be highlighted in further discussions among stakeholders.

Contention

Challenges may arise during the implementation phase of contingency management services, including how counties will effectively plan and execute these services while maintaining compliance with existing laws and regulations. There is also the potential for contention around the specifics of incentive structures and how they might impact treatment dynamics. Stakeholders may need to address concerns about ensuring that incentives do not inadvertently create negative consequences for participants or the therapeutic environment.