Disaster California Wants To Become The First State To Pay People With Addiction To Stay Sober - You gotta see it to believe it


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Frustrated by out-of-control increases in drug overdose deaths, California's leaders are trying something radical: They want the state to be the first to pay people to stay sober.

The federal government has been doing it for years with military veterans and research shows it is one of the most effective ways to get people to stop using drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine, stimulants for which there are no pharmaceutical treatments available.

It works like this: People earn small incentives or payments for every negative drug test over a period of time. Most people who complete the treatment without any positive tests can earn a few hundred dollars. They usually get the money on a gift card.

It's called "contingency management" and Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked the federal government for permission to use tax dollars to pay for it through Medicaid, the joint state and federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled that covers nearly 14 million people in California.

Meanwhile, a similar proposal is moving through California's Democratic-controlled Legislature. It's already passed the Senate with no opposition and is pending in the Assembly, where it has a Republican co-author.

"I think there is a lot in this strategy for everyone to like," said state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco and author of the bill. "Most important of all, it works."

How much it would cost depends on how many people participate. A program covering 1,000 people could cost as much as $286,000, a pittance in California's total operating budget of more than $262 billion.

In San Francisco, one man enrolled in a similar program and is now a counselor
The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, a nonprofit agency, runs a small, privately-funded contingency management program. It's where Tyrone Clifford, who was addicted to meth, enrolled because they promised to pay him for every negative test over 12 weeks.

His first payment was $2. That increased slightly with each subsequent negative test for a total of about $330.

"I thought, I can do 12 weeks. I've done that before when my dealer was in jail," he said. "When I'm done I'll have 330 bucks to get high with.'"

Clifford did make it through the program without a positive test. But instead of using the money to buy more drugs, he bought a laptop computer so he could go back to school. He says he hasn't used methamphetamine in 11 years and now works as a counselor at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, helping people who had the same addiction problems he did.

Clifford, 53, said earning the money didn't matter much. Unlike some who struggle with drug addiction, Clifford always had a job and a house and was never much in danger of losing either. But he said watching his account grow with each negative test motivated him more than any other treatment program did.

"You watch those dollar values go up, there is proof right there that I am doing this," he said. "By no means is anyone getting rich off this program."

There is "clear and convincing evidence" that the treatment works to keep people sober from drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program. However, while research shows it is effective in keeping people sober during the program, the effect doesn't last much beyond six months after treatment concludes.

Clifford acknowledged the program doesn't work for everybody, but added his treatment included extensive group and individual counseling sessions that kept him accountable and made him feel part of a community.

Clifford said he considers the treatment a success even if people don't make it without a positive test.

"They are trying something," he said.

If California starts paying for contingency management treatment through Medicaid, Clifford said he thinks it would mean an explosion in similar programs across the state.

There are no pharmaceutical treatments for stimulants like methamphetamine and cocaine
California, like most of the country, has struggled with opioid abuse, including drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin. But overdose deaths from stimulants in California nearly quadrupled between 2010 and 2019, and the problem has gotten even worse since.

Preliminary data from the first nine months of 2020 — when much of the state was locked down because of the coronavirus — shows stimulant overdose deaths jumped 42% compared to 2019.

While opioids have several pharmaceutical treatments available to help people get sober, there are none for stimulants like methamphetamine and cocaine, often leaving people to their willpower to kick the habit.

"There is a clear kind of hole in regards to treatment services for individuals who have a stimulant use disorder," said Jaycee Cooper, director of California's Medicaid program. "At this point (contingency management) is the only thing people are pointing to that has been effective."

Contingency management is not widely used because it's not clear if state and federal law allow Medicaid money to pay for it. California has a law prohibiting people from profiting or receiving "kickbacks" from treatment programs. Wiener's law would clarify contingency management is legal under state law.

Whether it violates federal law is still a question.

"We don't think it does," Wiener said, noting the Biden administration has signaled its interest in the treatment.

Wiener's bill would require California's Medicaid program to pay for the treatment while Newsom's plan would let counties choose whether to participate.
 
We are not talking about sentencing them for using drugs though. Its a completely legitimate test to verify if your using the income the government is giving you on what your supposed to be using it on. If your using it to buy drugs, you don't get welfare.

As long as the drug test is not used to seek out or included in any criminal proceedings, something that could be easily added to the welfare submission, I don't see how this violates the 5th.

Fair-ish. I'm not going to fall down and slobber at the idea of government mandated drug tests for anything, but if I had the thought provoking sticker you'd get it.
 
Fair-ish. I'm not going to fall down and slobber at the idea of government mandated drug tests for anything, but if I had the thought provoking sticker you'd get it.
If your getting welfare, which is taken from public tax dollars, then it only makes sense to ensure only those who will use it do so for its intended purpose (survival/subsistence), and not luxuries.

After all, the intent behind welfare SHOULD be to keep people on their feet until they find steady income and nothing else. Once they have employment, then they can start thinking of buying themselves the various luxuries they desire. You SHOULD be expected to surrender at least a part of your personal freedoms if your going to take a hand out funded by tax dollars and only get that freedom back once you have acquired legitimate income that you can use for whatever the fuck you want to use it on.

Its SUPPOSED to be a way to incentivize getting off welfare and becoming a contributing member of society. Clearly it is not working that way and I fucking hate it.
 
California wouldn't have this problem if they didn't give out so much free shit. It's impossible to be homeless and starve out there, and the housing benefits are almost better than working in some places. Just stop giving people free stuff.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak
If your getting welfare, which is taken from public tax dollars, then it only makes sense to ensure only those who will use it do so for its intended purpose (survival/subsistence), and not luxuries.

After all, the intent behind welfare SHOULD be to keep people on their feet until they find steady income and nothing else. Once they have employment, then they can start thinking of buying themselves the various luxuries they desire. You SHOULD be expected to surrender at least a part of your personal freedoms if your going to take a hand out funded by tax dollars and only get that freedom back once you have acquired legitimate income that you can use for whatever the fuck you want to use it on.

Its SUPPOSED to be a way to incentivize getting off welfare and becoming a contributing member of society. Clearly it is not working that way and I fucking hate it.

My personal thought is that it would be better to expand the amount of money a person on welfare can earn from a job. A lot of people stay on it because you have to keep your worked hours to some really low ball minimum or the gibs go away. It's similar to how welfare incentivizes people to breed, and I hate it.
 
Medicaid, the joint state and federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled that covers nearly 14 million people in California.

I absolutely refuse to believe that there are 14 million genuinely disabled and/or poor people in California. I reckon at least 13 million are grifters or illegals.

13 million is an understatement.
The requirements to get medicaid are lax, and the receptionists for said evaluations do not give a shit.
There's also EBT sharing and that thing involving trading food or some shit.
Very few people in California are wealthy, or even upper middle class. The vast majority of the state population is wagey cage / retail slaves that get shit pay and have astronomical living costs. California's downward spiral has trapped all the people who actually work hard and want to live the traditional American life in the state, dependent on the state itself just to juggle all the costs associated with basic necessities. There are fees for absolutely everything, yearly registration for my car averages $350, plus smog every other year, plus the increased price of gas.

California is a professional plate spinner, and it's only a matter of time before everything falls in on itself.
 
I don't even understand how California is still afloat, with all the free shit, it gotta cost them a fortune, and on top of that, their now going to pay addicts to get clean. All they did is incentives more people to get addicted to claim free money which puts way more pressure on tax payers there which can't be much judging by the amount businesses and people leaving. And more importantly where are they getting money to cover this?
 
I could see this working as part of a program of some sort, for some people. On its own...nah. I can think of at least half a dozen ways to scam that system in seconds.
 
Maybe it'll work. It honestly depends on if the person themselves wants to change or not. Like the example in the article said, he full-on wanted to continue doing drugs with the money, but eventually ended up getting a laptop instead and clawed his own way out of the hole.

It's probably not going to affect the amount of needles you can find littering the SF streets, however.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spicey McHaggis
So what’s the point of rehabilitation centers then?

However, while research shows it is effective in keeping people sober during the program, the effect doesn't last much beyond six months after treatment concludes.

Of course. Because Democrats don’t think long-term.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak
Yeah but then some people are going to become addicts on purpose to try and get that money and then die on accident or become too addicted and can’t stop and then die later. In California die of obesity or from overdose. Bone chilling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak
Ohh YES! hey CA government, im currently living in tent city 17 and i do inject me the Marihuana all day long, pls paypal me some monez for not doing that.
 
The WHO designated videogame addiction as a real thing, and how about porn addiction?

I need money to stop gaming and cooming; help me daddy California!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak
This will in no way be gamed or abused.
"Hey, Dad, I'm thinking of starting meth this weekend..... if I had gas money, I might not.... just sayin' "

And by "Dad" I mean "Daddy Governmentbux"
 
Back