The Ohio House approved a bill on Wednesday tightening regulations on recovery homes, which provide specialized transitional housing to people struggling with addiction. The homes have proliferated in some areas of the state most affected by the opioid epidemic in the 2000s.
The House approved House Bill 58 in a unanimous bipartisan vote. The bill now heads to the Ohio Senate and, if approved, would go to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk for his signature.
The legislation is a top priority for elected officials in Portsmouth and the surrounding area, where they say recovery homes have popped up faster than they can regulate them.
State Rep. Justin Pizzulli, a Portsmouth Republican and lead bill sponsor, said the “best” recovery home providers support the tougher regulations, because they compete with the “worst” ones that can drop their price by cutting corners. The legislation will benefit patients and providers alike, he said.
“Recovery housing should be part of a treatment plan, not a business model,” Pizzulli said.
The bill addresses a key concern for local officials: increasing state oversight while giving local authorities greater ability to enforce the law.
HB 58 would require recovery homes to get certification from the state in order to open, removing the option for certification by a private industry group instead. It also requires the state to create and publish a list of providers that’s more detailed than the existing one.
It would also give local prosecutors greater power to seek a court order shutting down a recovery home that’s found to violate state laws. And, it would require people who are sent to a recovery home due to a court order to be provided with transportation home if they fail to complete their mandated addiction treatment.
The latest version of the bill drops language that would have required recovery homes to get a “certificate of need” – which involves studying local demand and paying a fee – before opening. Pizzulli had pushed for the requirement because Portsmouth officials contend there are too many recovery homes in their area and not enough in other parts of the state. The fee was to have helped local governments pay for mandated inspections.
The bill, instead, would set up a state task force to study the geographic distribution of recovery homes, possible inspection requirements and other topics. The changes address concerns and won support from addiction recovery advocates and providers who said requiring a certificate of need would drive up provider costs and ultimately stifle the state’s efforts to fight addiction.