Most Active Stories
- FirstEnergy Making Push For New Plan, Opponents Dub It A Coal Plant Bailout
- Whistleblower's Allegations Raise Questions About Charter School Spending
- Group Challenges Ohio Voting Procedures
- Columbus Foundation's "The Big Give" Starts At 10 A.M. Today
- Why California Farmers Are Conflicted About Using Less Water
Wed July 16, 2014
Addiction Treatment Funding Becoming Political Battleground
Politics are ramping up over the state’s heroin overdose crisis.
Two Democratic candidates for statewide office are attacking temporary but significant cuts in funding for addiction treatment. Joanna Richards of member station WCPN in Cleveland reports.
Starting July 1st, Ohio’s treatment agencies have seen cuts in federal grant funds that the state distributes. That’s on top of other state and federal funding cuts for addiction treatment.
Pepper: There’s real human consequences to what in this case is a bureaucratic decision in Columbus that just makes no sense.
That’s David Pepper, a Cincinnati attorney and Democratic candidate for state Attorney General. He and Cuyahoga County Executive and gubernatorial hopeful Ed FitzGerald criticize the move, echoing the anxieties of some treatment agencies.
But not everyone in treatment agrees. Hubert Wirtz heads The Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & Family Services Providers. He says what Pepper calls an out-of-touch bureaucratic move is actually a solution to a longstanding problem.
Wirtz: Because there was a delay often from Washington on allocating those funds to the states, that caused disruption for providers meeting expenses.
So the state is stretching this year’s worth of that federal funding over 18 months, to better align agencies’ budget cycles with the money’s arrival. Wirtz says the plan was drafted in consultation with the treatment community, with tweaks made to lessen the impact.
Both sides say the opiate crisis is a priority, and so is funding treatment. The argument in this case is whether the cure is worse than the disease.