House Human Services Committee Hearing

Act 50 of 2011-Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs

Mark B. Cohen, Chair (D)

Tuesday November 1, 2011

            Thank you  Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the implementation of Act 50 of 2010.   You and I both publicly expressed dismay over the administration’s recent announcement that it did not intend to implement Act 50’s statutory mandate of to establish a Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs.   For many years this legislature, and especially this House under both parties, has been a national leader in passing farsighted, innovative legislation in the field of drug and alcohol treatment.  At least three times this House voted by overwhelming numbers to create a cabinet department using the already existing staff and budget of the Bureau of Drug and Alcohol programs as its base.  There has been remarkably little partisan disagreement over this major piece legislation.  There however continues to be been great stress between the legislature and the executive branch. 

 As I said last week, "Governor Corbett cannot pick and choose which laws to follow” or implement.  Either the law has to be repealed, which I will oppose, or it MUST be implemented. 

Failure to implement this law does not save money! There are huge costs in human suffering, crime, lost work productivity, and increased health care as a result of leaving addictions untreated. The cost of this department is but a drop compared to that flood of negative consequences.

Most county drug and alcohol programs are over capacity and facing funding costs. We need a central agency to better coordinate the delivery of drug and alcohol services. We need better outreach to prevent more people from falling into drug and alcohol dependency. We need to quickly move people who admit to needing D&A intervention into appropriate treatment.  Appropriate treatment will save money over the option of allowing addictions to fester until families are destroyed, jobs are lost, the criminal justice system is involved, and people die.  The cost /benefit analysis to our families and communities clearly favor this investment in Drug and Alcohol programs.

            I do not believe this is really about the one-million dollar additional cost to create this new Department. I fear that this is about control and power --and to some extent “who” pays.  Insurance companies and managed care have long fought  the Act 106 mandates requiring immediate coverage of appropriate drug and alcohol treatment. We cannot afford delays in treatment that so often result in deaths.  Managed care organizations are continuing to fight by seeking federal preemption of our state law in Washington, D.C.  The last thing they want is for a new department to advocate for enforcement of Act 106—something the PA Insurance Dept. has been historically reluctant to do. 

            I must say that the debate of this one-million dollar additional expenditure for a new department only convinces me how much we need it.  Powerful forces seem to want to use the budget crisis to undo Act 50 --even as we debate spending hundreds of millions on school vouchers.  It is hard to believe money is really the issue.

            As I said before, I understand the budget realities that we face today.  I also understand the incentives are to minimize this new department to restrict its mandate.  I think the General Assembly will not permit this to happen.  I do not think this committee will permit this to happen. I look forward to this hearing.