This bill repeals three sections of the West Virginia Code that established the Addiction Treatment Pilot Program: the definitions section (§62-15A-1), the program authorization located in §62-15A-2, and the annual reporting requirement in §62-15A-3. The bill’s stated purpose is to remove the pilot program from statute because the pilot no longer exists.
For professionals tracking state health, criminal-justice diversion, or program oversight, the repeal removes the statutory framework that governed program design, administrative placement, and reporting. That changes the legal basis for any program elements still relying on those Code provisions and eliminates the statutory reporting obligation to the Legislature that accompanied the pilot.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill strikes three named sections from Chapter 62, Article 15A of the West Virginia Code, eliminating statutory definitions, the program authorization (placed with the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety), and the annual reporting duty tied to the pilot.
Who It Affects
The statutory repeal directly affects the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety as the named administering agency, any service providers or contractors operating under the pilot’s statutory authority, and the Legislature’s reporting and oversight functions tied to those Code sections.
Why It Matters
Removing these sections is more than housekeeping: it eliminates the law that authorized and described the pilot, ends the statutory reporting line into the Legislature, and may create gaps in legal authority for any remaining activities that referenced the repealed provisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill deletes three specific Code provisions connected to a named Addiction Treatment Pilot Program. One section contained the program’s definitions, another placed administration with the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety and set out the program itself, and the third required an annual report.
Repeal removes those statutory anchors from state law.
Practically, striking these sections withdraws the Legislature’s formal description and authorization of the pilot. That matters for how the program—if any residual activities remain—is justified in statute and how the Legislature receives information about outcomes.
Repeal does not lay out any replacement authority, transition rules, or new oversight mechanisms.Because the program was housed in the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety rather than a health agency, the statute shaped who managed the pilot and the administrative chain for contracting and coordination. Taking the provisions out of the Code reopens that choice: if the state wants a future pilot or to resume related services, it will need either administrative retooling under existing agency authorities or a new statute.A technical but important legal point: repealing the statutory sections removes the named legal basis for the pilot, but it does not, by itself, cancel existing contracts, destroy appropriations already made, or erase program data held under other authorities.
Those outcomes depend on contract terms, agency decisions, and funding law rather than the single act of repeal.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals §62-15A-1 (Definitions), §62-15A-2 (the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety Drug Addiction Treatment Program), and §62-15A-3 (Annual reports).
§62-15A-2 specifically placed program administration with the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety; repeal removes that statutory assignment.
Repeal removes the statutory requirement to file an annual report to the Legislature under §62-15A-3.
The bill contains no transitional language: it does not address existing contracts, appropriations, patient records, or how ongoing services (if any) should be handled.
The bill includes an express explanatory note stating the purpose: the pilot program no longer exists.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove statutory definitions for the pilot
This section previously collected the statutory definitions that framed the pilot (for example, terms like "pilot program," "participant," or other program-specific phrases). Repealing the definitions eliminates the statutory vocabulary that linked program rules to the rest of the Code; without these definitions, any regulations or references that relied on them will lose their explicit textual anchor.
Delete the statutory authorization and administrative placement
Section 62-15A-2 was the operative authorization: it established the Drug Addiction Treatment Program and named the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety as the administering agency. Repeal removes the Legislature’s express authorization and agency assignment. For administrators and counsel, the practical issue is whether agency staff continue related activities under other statutory authorities or whether those activities lack a clear legal basis after repeal.
Eliminate the annual reporting requirement
This provision required annual reports to the Legislature about the pilot. Its repeal ends that statutory reporting obligation, which affects legislative oversight and the public record of program outcomes. Agencies or third parties that have been relying on that mandated reporting will no longer be compelled by statute to produce those specific annual reports unless another law or administrative rule requires it.
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
- Legislative codifiers and counsel — removing obsolete provisions simplifies the Code and reduces the need to maintain a defunct statutory program.
- The Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety — if the program truly no longer operates, repeal reduces statutory obligations and potential oversight responsibilities tied to that program.
- State budget and administrative staff — eliminating the statutory reporting requirement can reduce recurring administrative workload associated with producing the annual report.
Who Bears the Cost
- Former pilot participants and people with substance use disorder — if any services previously linked to the statute remain in practice, repeal risks leaving them without a clear statutory entitlement or oversight protections.
- Community treatment providers and contractors — those who relied on statutory authority for referrals, reimbursements, or contractual relationships may face uncertainty or revenue disruption if the underlying legal basis is removed.
- Legislative oversight bodies and stakeholders interested in program transparency — losing the statutory report reduces guaranteed public information about program outcomes unless another reporting mechanism exists.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is housekeeping versus continuity: cleaning obsolete statutes from the Code improves clarity and reduces administrative friction, but removing a legal foundation without transition language can unintentionally strip authority, oversight, or continuity from programs and the people they served.
The bill is narrowly framed as a repeal, but that narrowness creates practical ambiguities. Because it contains no transition provisions, agencies and contractors must sort out what to do with existing contracts, client records, grant-funded activities, or leftover appropriations.
Contract law and appropriation statutes—not this repeal—govern those questions, but the lack of direction increases the risk of operational disruption and legal disputes.
Another tension lies in oversight and data continuity. The statutory annual report provided a guaranteed channel for outcome data to reach the Legislature and the public.
Once repealed, there is no statutory backstop preserving that flow of information. That may be acceptable if the pilot truly ceased and no evaluation is needed, but it will hinder retrospective accountability if stakeholders later seek to understand what happened while the pilot operated.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.