Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

Massachusetts to Lose Federal Treatment Aid
April 7, 2004

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Massachusetts is set to lose $9.2 million in federal grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) because it is not maintaining constant levels of treatment funding, the Boston Globe reported April 5.

Since 2001, the state has cut $11 million in alcohol and other drug treatment services. In next year's budget, Gov. Mitt Romney wants to cut an additional $2 million.

As a result of the cuts, the state will lose 13 percent of the $34.3 million it was expecting to receive from SAMHSA for the upcoming budget year.

Treatment-center executives said the reduced funding would prove devastating as the state tries to address a heroin epidemic and Massachusetts faces an increase in deaths from other opioids like OxyContin.

"The potential loss of another $9 million in substance-abuse funding would be disastrous to the Commonwealth," said John Auerbach, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission. "Our treatment and prevention efforts have already been significantly crippled and the prospect of facing millions of dollars of additional cuts would bring our substance-abuse system to its knees."

Mark Weber, a spokesman for SAMHSA, acknowledged that the $9 million in cuts would be detrimental to drug users.

"As much as it may pain us to do this, it's the law, and we'll be carrying it out," said Weber.

State public-health authorities are appealing for a reprieve. Last year, the federal government accepted the state's economic-hardship argument and issued a waiver. But his year, a SAMHSA executive said, the state failed to prove that it was facing "extraordinary economic conditions" that warranted an exemption.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for all, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post promotional links to organizations, products or services, or personal requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.