Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Garrido MM, Strombotne K, Nguyen P, Pizer SD, Frakt AB, Abdullah AS, Abdullah AS. State Policies Targeting Patient Brokering and Deceptive Marketing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment. Substance use & addiction journal. 2024 Sep 29; 29767342241279194.
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.