State Policies Targeting Patient Brokering and Deceptive Marketing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment.

Melissa M Garrido, Kiersten Strombotne, PhiYen Nguyen, Steven D Pizer, Austin B Frakt
{"title":"State Policies Targeting Patient Brokering and Deceptive Marketing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment.","authors":"Melissa M Garrido, Kiersten Strombotne, PhiYen Nguyen, Steven D Pizer, Austin B Frakt","doi":"10.1177/29767342241279194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To characterize state laws targeting patient brokering and deceptive marketing of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient brokering and deceptive marketing of SUD treatment leads to poor outcomes for individuals with SUD, including relapse- or overdose-related hospitalizations, ED visits, or death. In response, several states within the United States have passed laws targeting unethical practices of SUD treatment in recent years. The context in which these laws were passed has not been previously described. The extent to which states engaged in recovery residence regulation that also pass patient brokering and deceptive marketing laws is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a descriptive study and identified state laws relating to patient brokering and deceptive marketing that were enacted and effective as of December 31, 2022. Using a model state law for addressing unethical SUD treatment practices as a guide, we developed a taxonomy to describe the laws' elements, including covered entities, prohibited activities, and penalties. We used descriptive statistics to characterize variation across current laws.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All patient brokering laws explicitly mention referrals to SUD treatment facilities, and most specify that both individuals and facilities are prohibited from paying, receiving, or soliciting referrals in exchange for fees or commissions. All deceptive marketing laws prohibit making false or misleading statements about the nature of services provided. Beyond these common features, there is wide variability in the degree to which states specifically prohibit other patient brokering and deceptive marketing activities (e.g., indirect offerings, lead generation, or kickback schemes involving laboratories).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>State policies targeting patient brokering and deceptive marketing may be useful for preventing instances of unethical SUD treatment practices. We constructed a taxonomy to characterize elements of patient brokering and deceptive marketing laws and facilitate future evaluations of their effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342241279194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize state laws targeting patient brokering and deceptive marketing of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.

Background: Patient brokering and deceptive marketing of SUD treatment leads to poor outcomes for individuals with SUD, including relapse- or overdose-related hospitalizations, ED visits, or death. In response, several states within the United States have passed laws targeting unethical practices of SUD treatment in recent years. The context in which these laws were passed has not been previously described. The extent to which states engaged in recovery residence regulation that also pass patient brokering and deceptive marketing laws is unknown.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive study and identified state laws relating to patient brokering and deceptive marketing that were enacted and effective as of December 31, 2022. Using a model state law for addressing unethical SUD treatment practices as a guide, we developed a taxonomy to describe the laws' elements, including covered entities, prohibited activities, and penalties. We used descriptive statistics to characterize variation across current laws.

Results: All patient brokering laws explicitly mention referrals to SUD treatment facilities, and most specify that both individuals and facilities are prohibited from paying, receiving, or soliciting referrals in exchange for fees or commissions. All deceptive marketing laws prohibit making false or misleading statements about the nature of services provided. Beyond these common features, there is wide variability in the degree to which states specifically prohibit other patient brokering and deceptive marketing activities (e.g., indirect offerings, lead generation, or kickback schemes involving laboratories).

Conclusions: State policies targeting patient brokering and deceptive marketing may be useful for preventing instances of unethical SUD treatment practices. We constructed a taxonomy to characterize elements of patient brokering and deceptive marketing laws and facilitate future evaluations of their effectiveness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对病人中介和欺骗性药物使用障碍治疗营销的州政策。
目的:描述各州针对患者中介和欺骗性营销药物使用障碍(SUD)治疗的法律特点:描述各州针对病人中介和药物使用障碍(SUD)治疗的欺骗性营销的法律特点:背景:对药物滥用障碍治疗进行患者中介和欺骗性营销会导致药物滥用障碍患者的不良后果,包括与复发或用药过量相关的住院、急诊室就诊或死亡。为此,美国多个州近年来通过了针对不道德的药物滥用治疗行为的法律。关于这些法律通过的背景,以前还没有描述过。参与康复住所监管的各州在多大程度上也通过了患者中介和欺骗性营销法律尚不得而知:我们进行了一项描述性研究,确定了截至 2022 年 12 月 31 日已颁布并生效的与患者中介和欺骗性营销相关的州法律。以处理不道德 SUD 治疗行为的州法律范本为指导,我们制定了一个分类法来描述法律的要素,包括涵盖的实体、禁止的活动和处罚。我们使用描述性统计来描述现行法律之间的差异:所有患者中介法律都明确提到了向药物滥用治疗机构的转介,并且大多数法律都规定禁止个人和机构支付、接受或寻求转介以换取费用或佣金。所有欺骗性营销法都禁止对所提供服务的性质做出虚假或误导性陈述。除了这些共同特点外,各州在具体禁止其他患者中介和欺骗性营销活动(例如,间接提供服务、引荐或涉及实验室的回扣计划)的程度上也存在很大差异:各州针对患者中介和欺骗性营销的政策可能有助于防止不道德的 SUD 治疗行为。我们构建了一个分类法来描述患者中介和欺骗性营销法律的要素,并促进未来对其有效性的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Hospital-Based Intervention to Improve Access to Buprenorphine for Patients with Opioid Use Disorder. Practice Changes 6 Months Following a Physical Therapist Training Program Regarding Opioid Use and Misuse Screening and Assessment: A Qualitative Study. One Third of Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnoses are Missed by ICD Coding. Psychosocial Impact of Suspected Xylazine-Associated Skin Wounds Among People Using Fentanyl, Philadelphia, 2022 to 2023. Naloxone Distribution Models in the United States: A Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1