This bill repeals §62-15A-1, §62-15A-2, and §62-15A-3 of the West Virginia Code, removing the legal text that created the Addiction Treatment Pilot Program, its definitions, and its annual reporting obligation. The repeal is narrow in scope: it removes the statutory authority and reporting mandate that formerly governed the pilot.
That removal matters in practice because statutes do more than describe programs — they create legal authority for spending, contracting, eligibility rules, and oversight. Eliminating these sections without transitional language leaves open how existing contracts, appropriations, patient placements, and data collected under the pilot will be handled and who will assume continuing responsibilities for treatment and reporting.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes three code sections (definitions, program establishment, and annual reports) that together constituted the Addiction Treatment Pilot Program in state law. It does not add replacement language, transitional provisions, or instructions on contract or funding wrap-up.
Who It Affects
The Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (named in the original language), contractors or treatment providers who performed services under the pilot, currently enrolled individuals, and any state offices that received the pilot's reports or used its data.
Why It Matters
Removing statutory text can be routine housekeeping, but here it also removes the legal basis for program-specific activities and reporting. Agencies, providers, and courts may need to rely on other statutes, regulations, or administrative actions to continue services or formalize program wind-downs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill performs a straight repeal: it strikes three numbered sections that together defined and created the Addiction Treatment Pilot Program and required annual reporting. The text on its face is surgical — it does not add replacement authority, deadlines, or guidance for wrapping up program operations.
That means the statutory framework that once described who could run the pilot, how it was defined, and what reports were required will no longer exist in the Code.
Because the pilot’s authority, definitions, and reporting obligation are removed but the bill says nothing about contracts, appropriations, or patients, the operational consequences will depend on how the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and other state actors choose to proceed. Agencies may rely on other existing statutory authority or administrative rules to continue services, re-contract under a different legal basis, or formally terminate provider arrangements.
The bill itself imposes no funding changes nor does it instruct the state treasurer or legislature to rescind prior appropriations.The repeal also eliminates the annual-reporting requirement that supplied data and oversight signals to the Legislature and the public. Without that codified reporting duty, stakeholders that depended on periodic program data will lose a statutory lever to demand information; restoring oversight would require new statutory language or standing administrative practices.
Finally, although the bill was submitted at the request of the Division named in the original statute, it leaves unresolved standard transition questions — patient continuity of care, record retention, and obligations to federal grantors — which typically require administrative or fiscal steps outside of a bare repeal.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals three specific West Virginia Code sections: §62-15A-1 (definitions), §62-15A-2 (Department program establishment), and §62-15A-3 (annual reports).
The original statute established the 'Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety Drug Addiction Treatment Program' as the legal vehicle for the pilot; that statutory name is deleted.
The statutory annual-reporting requirement is removed, eliminating the codified obligation to provide program metrics to the Legislature or the public.
The bill contains no transitional or sunset provisions — it does not address existing contracts, appropriations, patient placements, or record-retention requirements.
The repeal was submitted 'by the request of the Department of Homeland Security – Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation,' indicating agency concurrence but leaving operational details to administrative action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Removal of statutory definitions
This provision stripped the statutory definitions that supported the pilot program. Repealing the definitions can have practical ripple effects: other provisions or programs that referenced those terms may now lack a uniform statutory meaning. Agencies that relied on those definitions to interpret eligibility, roles, or reporting categories will need to adopt alternative definitions in rules or contracts to avoid ambiguity.
Abolishes the statutory program authorization
This section originally created the Department-level program authority for the Addiction Treatment Pilot. Repealing it removes the explicit legal authorization in the Code for that named program. Practically, the Division may still operate similar services under other statutory authorities or administrative powers, but the specific program identity and any protections or limits built into the repealed text no longer exist in statute.
Eliminates the requirement for annual program reports
The deleted section required annual reporting to the Legislature or designated recipients. Its repeal ends the codified accountability mechanism that produced program data and oversight. Unless replaced by administrative policy or a new statutory mandate, legislators and external stakeholders lose a predictable source of program metrics and performance 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
- Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation — Gains removal of an explicit pilot framework that it requested to repeal, potentially increasing administrative flexibility to reorganize or manage addiction-treatment services under other authorities.
- State executive branch administrators — Face fewer statutory reporting and program-structure obligations, which can streamline internal processes if the program is being phased out.
- Legislative staff focused on statutory housekeeping — Benefit from the removal of an obsolete pilot from the Code, simplifying statutory architecture.
Who Bears the Cost
- Program participants currently receiving services under the pilot — Risk disruption if contracts are terminated or if no alternative statutory authorization is used to continue care.
- Contracted treatment providers — Face contractual and revenue uncertainty because the repeal contains no guidance on existing agreements or funding continuity.
- Legislators and oversight bodies — Lose a statutory reporting mechanism and may have reduced information for policymaking unless a replacement reporting regime is established.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between statutory housekeeping and operational continuity: cleaning obsolete code improves legal clarity, yet deleting program authority and reporting obligations without transition planning risks disrupting services, contracts, and oversight for an already vulnerable population. The bill resolves the housekeeping question cleanly but pushes difficult implementation trade-offs into administrative and fiscal processes.
The bill is narrowly drafted as a pure repeal: it removes statutory language but does not address the operational or fiscal steps that typically accompany program termination. That raises predictable implementation questions.
First, contracts entered under the repealed authority do not automatically vanish; contract terms, state procurement rules, and appropriation language will govern whether services continue or stop. If contracts remain enforceable, agencies will need administrative authority to pay for or renew them even without the pilot statute.
Second, the repeal is silent on patient continuity and data. Individuals enrolled in treatment programs are vulnerable to interruption in care; statutory removal does not itself alter provider obligations under state or federal health privacy laws, but it can complicate how care is funded.
Likewise, removing the reporting requirement eliminates a statutory channel for metrics, but data already collected may still exist; the law does not specify retention or transfer rules. Finally, federal funding streams or grant requirements tied to the pilot might impose continuing obligations independent of state statutory language; the state will need to reconcile those external requirements with the repeal through administrative or contractual means.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.