West Virginia House Bill HB3385

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/14/25
• Refer: 3/14/25

Caption

Requiring medication-assisted treatment prgrams to have written policies concerning community relations

Summary

House Bill 3385 amends West Virginia’s medication-assisted treatment program licensing law to add location, notice, and community-relations requirements for MAT facilities. The bill would prohibit a medication-assisted treatment program from being located at the same site as a chronic pain management clinic, from offering recruitment incentives such as bounties or free services, and from operating within one-half mile of a licensed day care center or K-12 school, subject to a variance for existing programs that can show adequate patient population controls and compliance with the article’s requirements. The bill also requires a program to give at least 60 days’ public notice before opening or relocating, including a Class 1 legal advertisement and certified-mail notice to county commissioners and municipal mayors. The notice must explain why the site was chosen and how the program will avoid disrupting local functions. County commissions and municipalities would then meet within 30 days to discuss the proposed location, and the bill states that a program may not locate or relocate without express approval from both the county commission and the municipality where it would operate. The bill further preserves the director’s authority, in consultation with the Inspector General, to grant waivers or variances, while adding inspection and recordkeeping requirements for those requests.

Impact

HB3385 would significantly tighten state regulation of medication-assisted treatment programs by adding siting restrictions, public-notice obligations, and local-government approval requirements to the licensing framework in §16B-13-6 of the West Virginia Code. It would affect both new and existing opioid treatment programs and office-based MAT programs, especially those near schools or child care facilities, and would give county commissions and municipalities a formal role in approving new or relocated facilities. The bill also expands oversight by requiring written policies, waiver documentation, and pre-approval inspections by the Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was introduced with a regulatory and community-protection focus, and its caption and purpose statement frame it as a measure to require written community-relations policies and public notice. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the legislative record here. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect concern about the local impacts of MAT facilities rather than opposition to treatment itself.

Contention

The main points of contention likely involve the bill’s restrictions on where MAT programs may operate and the extent of local control over facility siting. Supporters would likely emphasize neighborhood compatibility, school and daycare proximity, and transparency through public notice, while opponents may argue that the half-mile buffer and mandatory county/municipal approval could limit access to treatment, create barriers to opening or relocating programs, and interfere with state-level licensing authority. The variance provision for existing programs may also be a point of dispute because it softens the rule for current facilities but still requires proof of patient-population controls and compliance.