West Virginia Senate Bill SB939

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/27/25
• Report Pass: 3/27/25
• Engrossed: 4/1/25
• Refer: 4/2/25

Caption

Relating to testing for substance use disorder

Summary

SB 939 amends West Virginia’s Medication-Assisted Treatment Program Licensing Act to establish mandatory drug testing guidelines for office-based medication-assisted treatment facilities. The bill requires a comprehensive, quantitative, direct-observation drug test when a patient is admitted to a drug program, followed by direct-observation quantitative testing every two weeks for the next six weeks. The bill then sets a longer-term testing schedule: for the next year, patients must undergo direct-observation qualitative or quantitative testing every 45 days while in treatment, and after the first year, testing must continue every six months until discharge. It also allows providers to require a direct-observation qualitative or quantitative test at any time if they want to assess compliance, and patients must be willing to submit to that request.

Impact

The bill adds a new section, §16B-13-4a, to state law governing medication-assisted treatment program licensing. Its practical effect is to impose a uniform testing schedule on office-based MAT providers and patients, increasing regulatory specificity around substance use disorder treatment monitoring. The measure affects licensed treatment facilities and patients enrolled in medication-assisted treatment by making direct-observation drug testing a statutory requirement at defined intervals.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in floor votes, passing the Senate 32-0, the House 96-1, and then returning to the Senate for concurrence with a 30-0 vote. The near-unanimous votes suggest general legislative agreement with tighter testing standards for substance use disorder treatment, with no recorded committee transcript debate available in the provided materials.

Contention

No committee discussion is provided, so specific objections are not documented in the record here. The only visible sign of disagreement is the single no vote in the House, which may indicate concern about the burden of mandatory testing, provider discretion, patient privacy, or the impact on treatment access, but the available materials do not identify the member or the reason. Overall, the bill’s testing mandates and compliance language are the main areas where concerns would likely arise.