The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require additional information in State plans for Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services block grants. Specifically, it adds a new item to Section 1932(b)(1)(A) that states must include details on medication-assisted treatment (MAT) drugs, MAT programs or protocols used for diversion and misuse prevention, data on MAT-related misuse (including mixing MAT drugs with other prescriptions), and data on drug screening protocols within the State’s care system.
The amendment is a compliance and oversight measure intended to improve transparency and accountability in how states administer MAT-related components of SUD block grants.
At a Glance
What It Does
The amendment adds a new item to the existing list of state plan requirements, requiring four data elements related to MAT and its oversight.
Who It Affects
State health departments, public health data systems, and MAT providers that participate in SUD block grant programs.
Why It Matters
This creates granular reporting that can drive program improvements, oversight, and accountability for MAT within state SUD programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill tightens reporting requirements around how states manage Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services block grants by mandating more detail on medication-assisted treatment. States must describe the drugs used for MAT, the programs or protocols in place to prevent diversion and misuse, data on any misuse of MAT drugs (including when MAT meds are mixed with other prescription drugs), and information about drug screening protocols used in their care systems.
The changes aim to provide federal and state authorities with a clearer view of MAT practices and oversight activities, enabling better assessment of program integrity and safety. While the measure does not alter MAT therapies themselves, it shifts responsibility to states to supply structured, specific data about MAT implementation and monitoring.
This could improve accountability and targeted improvements but may also raise concerns about data collection burden, privacy, and how sensitive health information is handled across state systems. Compliance and implementation will hinge on states aligning plan templates, data definitions, and reporting workflows with these new elements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new item (xi) to Section 1932(b)(1)(A) requiring MAT-related disclosures.
States must describe the drugs used for MAT within their system of care.
States must report MAT programs or protocols used for diversion and misuse prevention and enforcement.
States must provide data on MAT-related misuse, including mixing with other prescription drugs.
States must report drug screening protocols within their care system, including MAT patient protocols.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded reporting provisions for MAT data
The bill amends Section 1932(b)(1)(A) to add a new item (xi) that requires the State plan to describe four MAT-related data elements. These elements cover drugs used for MAT, MAT programs or protocols for diversion and misuse prevention and enforcement, data on misuse of MAT drugs (including instances where MAT is mixed with other prescription medications), and data on drug screening protocols within the state’s care system, with specific attention to those for patients receiving MAT.
Details of the four new data elements
Sub-items (I)-(IV) specify the four data elements to be reported: (I) the types of MAT drugs available in the state’s care system; (II) MAT programs or protocols used for diversion and misuse prevention and enforcement; (III) data on MAT drug misuse, including mixing MAT with other prescriptions; (IV) data on drug screening protocols within the system, including protocols for MAT patients.
State plan impact and implementation considerations
States will need to adapt planning templates and data systems to collect and report these four MAT-related elements. This will likely involve aligning definitions, ensuring data quality, and coordinating among public health, clinical providers, and licensing or oversight bodies to gather the required information.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State health departments and public health agencies gain clearer reporting expectations and improved oversight capabilities.
- SAMHSA and federal program administrators obtain more granular data to monitor MAT-related practices and outcomes.
- Medication-assisted treatment providers can operate within standardized reporting frameworks, helping to benchmark programs and address gaps.
- Public health researchers and policymakers gain access to structured MAT data to inform evidence-based improvements.
- Patients receiving MAT may benefit indirectly through more accountable and potentially safer program practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- State health departments face higher data collection, reporting, and system-upgrade burdens.
- MAT providers and clinics incur administrative overhead to gather and submit the new data elements.
- State information systems may require modifications to capture nuanced MAT data, with associated IT and staff costs.
- Privacy and data-protection requirements may necessitate enhanced security measures and staff training.
- Potential duplication of reporting across multiple programs could increase compliance workload in the near term.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the need for granular, actionable MAT data to improve oversight and outcomes, and the practical challenges of data collection, privacy safeguards, and administrative burden across diverse state systems.
The bill introduces meaningful oversight-forcing data requirements around MAT within SUD block grants, but it also raises questions about data privacy, standardization, and implementation burden. The four new data elements demand precise definitions and consistent data capture across states, which could require significant changes to state plan templates, data schemas, and interagency coordination.
While more granular MAT data could improve program quality and accountability, states must balance the benefit against the cost of collecting sensitive information and ensuring robust privacy protections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.