BILL NUMBER:S4239A

TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to authorizing
eligible defendants, in the judicial diversion program who need
treatment for opioid abuse or dependence, to receive certain medically
prescribed treatment therefor

PURPOSE:

Establish statewide uniformity in drug treatment courts to allow
defendants to obtain medically prescribed treatment for opioid abuse
or dependence while participating in the judicial diversion program.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one amends subdivision 5 and paragraph (a) of subdivision 9 of
section 216.05 of the criminal procedure law, which relates to the
release conditions of a defendant participating in a judicial
diversion program. Subdivision 5 is amended to allow for the inclusion
of medically prescribed drug treatments in the set of release
conditions agreed upon by the defendant. Paragraph (a) of subdivision
9 is amended to include that under no circumstances shall a defendant
who requires treatment for opioid abuse or dependence be deemed to
have violated the release conditions on the basis of his or her
              

participation in medically prescribed drug treatments while under the
care of an authorized and qualified physician.

Section two provides that this act shall take effect immediately.

JUSTIFICATION:

New York State has helped pave the way nationwide for the implantation
and utilization of drug treatment courts in the judicial diversion
programs. As of August 1, 2014, New York has established 146 drug
courts across the state, 90 in criminal court, 35 in family court, 6
in town and village courts and 15 focused exclusively on juveniles.
These courts have had roughly 85,415 participants statewide, with
roughly 38,185 having graduated from the program. While the statistics
are impressive, more needs to be done to ensure that more participants
matriculate from the program.

On February 5, 2015, the White House's Office of National Drug Control
Policy, released a statement announcing that drug courts which receive
federal funding may no longer prohibit the use of medically assisted
treatment. If the courts wish to continue to receive federal funding,
they must not only allow the use of such treatments, but also help to
ensure participants have access to these medications, specifically
methadone and buprenorphine (brand name Suboxone). The Office of
National Drug Control Policy further commented that applicants for
drug court grants will be required to allow participants access to
medically prescribed treatment, and will no longer have the discretion
to require participants to taper off these medications as a condition
of their participation in the program.


A case study performed by the Harm Reduction Journal found that New
York does not have a uniform policy regarding the use of medically
prescribed treatment during participation in a judicial drug diversion
program. For example, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens drug treatment
courts require participants to wean off methadone in order to continue
participation in their programs, while courts in Suffolk, Onondaga and
Bronx Counties do not prohibit the use of such treatment in order to
participate. Since varying standards exist, it is crucial that the
State establish a uniform policy permitting the use of medically
prescribed treatment statewide in order to comply with recent federal
initiatives.

Further empirical evidence suggests that the use of medically
prescribed treatment in drug courts is a beneficial and appropriate
way of tackling the opioid epidemic plaguing the nation. The National
Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), a national non-profit
corporation founded by a group of judges, prosecutors, defense
attorneys and clinical professionals from the first twelve drug courts
across the country, has recently reported that defendants should not
be excluded, or removed from drug courts for authorized use of
methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments. Some courts allow for
the use of such medically prescribed treatment as a "bridge to
abstinence," allowing defendants, in conjunction with their authorized
medical professional, to taper off use of such treatment in order to
remain active in these programs. While this may present itself as a
sound treatment option, the World Health Organization has come out
strongly in support of continued use of such treatments, stating that
clinical research has proven that arbitrary limits on the use of
methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments is disadvantageous to
the ultimate goals of judicial drug treatment programs.

Additionally, in 2004, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Court
Operations and Planning in New York State, Judy Harris Kluger,
established an advisory committee which was charged with producing a
recommended practices guide for the state's drug treatment courts. In
the issued report, the committee strongly urges drug courts to
seriously consider the use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy
treatments since scientific research has shown that these medications
help to normalize brain function of opioid addicts. The report further
encourages the courts to defer to the treatment decisions of
authorized medical professionals working closely with the court
system. While the legislature has the utmost respect for judicial
discretion, it is evident that prohibiting the use of methadone and
buprenorphine therapy treatments, or requiring its use serve merely as
a "bridge to abstinence" is contrary to established best practices,
and hinders the recovery process. This piece of legislation would
establish uniformity in New York State's judicial drug diversion
programs, while ensuring the continued financial support for such
programs by the federal government.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New bill

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None


EFFECTIVE DATE:

This act shall take effect immediately.

                                BILL NUMBER:S4239B

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to authorizing eligible defendants, in the judicial diversion
program who need treatment for opioid abuse or dependence, to receive
certain medically prescribed treatment therefor

PURPOSE:

Establish statewide uniformity in drug treatment courts to allow
defendants to obtain medically prescribed treatment for opioid abuse
or dependence while participating in the judicial diversion program.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one amends subdivision 5 and paragraph (a) of subdivision 9 of
section 216.05 of the criminal procedure law, which relates to the
release conditions of a defendant participating in a judicial
diversion program. Subdivision 5 is amended to allow for the inclusion
of medically prescribed drug treatments in the set of release
conditions agreed upon by the defendant. Paragraph (a) of subdivision
9 is amended to include that under no circumstances shall a defendant
who requires treatment for opioid abuse or dependence be deemed to
have violated the release conditions on the basis of his or her
participation in medically prescribed drug treatments while under the
care of an authorized and qualified physician.
              

Section two provides that this act shall take effect immediately.

JUSTIFICATION:

New York State has helped pave the way nationwide for the implantation
and utilization of drug treatment courts in the judicial diversion
programs. As of August 1, 2014, New York has established 146 drug
courts across the state, 90 in criminal court, 35 in family court, 6
in town and village courts and 15 focused exclusively on juveniles.
These courts have had roughly 85,415 participants statewide, with
roughly 38,185 having graduated from the program. While the statistics
are impressive, more needs to be done to ensure that more participants
matriculate from the program.

On February 5, 2015, the White House's Office of National Drug Control
Policy, released a statement announcing that drug courts which receive
federal funding may no longer prohibit the use of medically assisted
treatment. If the courts wish to continue to receive federal funding,
they must not only allow the use of such treatments, but also help to
ensure participants have access to these medications, specifically
methadone and buprenorphine (brand name Suboxone). The Office of
National Drug Control Policy further commented that applicants for
drug court grants will be required to allow participants access to
medically prescribed treatment, and will no longer have the discretion
to require participants to taper off these medications as a condition
of their participation in the program.

A case study performed by the Harm Reduction Journal found that New
York does not have a uniform policy regarding the use of medically
prescribed treatment during participation in a judicial drug diversion


program. For example, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens drug treatment
courts require participants to wean off methadone in order to continue
participation in their programs, while courts in Suffolk, Onondaga and
Bronx Counties do not prohibit the use of such treatment in order to
participate. Since varying standards exist, it is crucial that the
State establish a uniform policy permitting the use of medically
prescribed treatment statewide in order to comply with recent federal
initiatives.

Further empirical evidence suggests that the use of medically
prescribed treatment in drug courts is a beneficial and appropriate
way of tackling the opioid epidemic plaguing the nation. The National
Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), a national non-profit
corporation founded by a group of judges, prosecutors, defense
attorneys and clinical professionals from the first twelve drug courts
across the country, has recently reported that defendants should not
be excluded, or removed from drug courts for authorized use of
methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments. Some courts allow for
the use of such medically prescribed treatment as a "bridge to
abstinence," allowing defendants, in conjunction with their authorized
medical professional, to taper off use of such treatment in order to
remain active in these programs. While this may present itself as a
sound treatment option, the World Health Organization has come out
strongly in support of continued use of such treatments, stating that
clinical research has proven that arbitrary limits on the use of
methadone and buprenorphine therapy treatments is disadvantageous to
the ultimate goals of judicial drug treatment programs.

Additionally, in 2004, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Court
Operations and Planning in New York State, Judy Harris Kluger,
established an advisory committee which was charged with producing a
recommended practices guide for the state's drug treatment courts. In
the issued report, the committee strongly urges drug courts to
seriously consider the use of methadone and buprenorphine therapy
treatments since scientific research has shown that these medications
help to normalize brain function of opioid addicts. The report further
encourages the courts to defer to the treatment decisions of
authorized medical professionals working closely with the court
system. While the legislature has the utmost respect for judicial
discretion, it is evident that prohibiting the use of methadone and
buprenorphine therapy treatments, or requiring its use serve merely as
a "bridge to abstinence" is contrary to established best practices,
and hinders the recovery process. This piece of legislation would
establish uniformity in New York State's judicial drug diversion
programs, while ensuring the continued financial support for such
programs by the federal government.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New bill

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

EFFECTIVE DATE:


This act shall take effect immediately.