The recent ruling by federal district court judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts has opened up the possibility of a class-action lawsuit that could revolutionize access to lifesaving addiction medications for Americans. Surprisingly, the defendant in this case is The Salvation Army, a well-known Christian charity with a network of addiction treatment facilities across the country.
The lawsuit, brought by the nonprofit Justice Catalyst Law on behalf of three plaintiffs, challenges The Salvation Army’s policy of prohibiting medications like methadone and buprenorphine, which are commonly used to treat opioid addiction. Despite being safer alternatives to drugs like heroin and fentanyl, these medications are often stigmatized and restricted by treatment providers, including The Salvation Army.
In his decision, Judge Sorokin highlighted the importance of methadone and buprenorphine in combating the opioid crisis, especially in the face of the deadly fentanyl epidemic. These medications can help individuals safely taper off highly toxic substances and prevent severe withdrawal symptoms. However, many recovery-focused organizations, including The Salvation Army, have resisted incorporating them into their treatment programs.
The lawsuit, known as Tassinari v. Salvation Army National Corporation et al, centers on Mark Tassinari, a Massachusetts man who was denied access to Salvation Army facilities because he was using buprenorphine to manage his opioid addiction. The judge’s ruling establishes two classes of individuals: one for injunctive relief to allow access to the medications, and another for damages for those harmed by The Salvation Army’s policy.
The case has the potential to set a precedent that could compel more treatment providers to offer methadone and buprenorphine, regardless of ideological objections. By challenging discriminatory practices that limit access to essential addiction medications, the lawsuit aims to improve outcomes for individuals seeking recovery from opioid use disorder.
The ruling is based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those with opioid use disorder. Other courts and the Department of Justice have also recognized that denying access to medications for opioid addiction constitutes a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Overall, the lawsuit against The Salvation Army represents a critical step towards dismantling barriers to care for individuals with opioid addiction. By holding treatment providers accountable for discriminatory practices and advocating for evidence-based treatment options, advocates hope to improve access to lifesaving medications and support long-term recovery for those in need. Access to medication in facilities like Salvation Army’s can be a crucial issue for incarcerated individuals who are undergoing treatment while in jail or prison. According to advocate Sarah Friedman, lack of medication access can be disruptive for those who have recently started medication treatment and are then discharged into transitional or recovery housing.
Friedman highlighted the dilemma faced by individuals who are told to discontinue their medication upon transitioning out of incarceration. She emphasized the absurdity of requiring individuals to stop the medication they just started, especially when it comes to medications like methadone and buprenorphine that are used for treating opioid addiction.
The recent court certification of class status in this matter could have far-reaching implications nationwide. By setting a legal precedent and demonstrating that denying access to medication can lead to consequences, this decision sends a clear message to facilities operating recovery housing or residential treatment programs.
Friedman pointed out that facilities that do not allow medications like methadone and buprenorphine may face the risk of having a class action lawsuit certified against them. This serves as a warning to all entities involved in providing housing and treatment to individuals in recovery that denying access to essential medications is not acceptable.
Overall, the court’s decision and Friedman’s advocacy shed light on the importance of ensuring medication access for individuals transitioning out of incarceration. By addressing this issue, we can better support individuals in their recovery journey and prevent unnecessary disruptions in their treatment plans.
