Connect with us

Massachusetts

What's in the Massachusetts Senate bill to allow overdose prevention sites?

Published

on

What's in the Massachusetts Senate bill to allow overdose prevention sites?


Jeremy Siegel: You’re listening to GBH’s Morning Edition. The Massachusetts Senate is set to pass a bill today that would give cities and towns the authority to open overdose prevention centers, facilities where people can use illegal drugs under the supervision of medical personnel. Supporters say overdose prevention centers, also known as safe injection sites, can be a way to help stem the tide of drug deaths. But there are a number of obstacles to opening them, including a rocky path ahead at the statehouse. We’re joined now for more by GBH statehouse reporter Katie Lannan. Good morning. Katie.

Advertisement

Katie Lannan: Hey, Jeremy. Good morning.

Siegel: So these types of overdose prevention centers are illegal under federal law. What exactly is the Senate looking to do here, at the state level?

Lannan: Yeah. So obviously the Senate can’t speak to federal law, but they’re looking at adding kind of explicit permission into Massachusetts state law for an array of things that goes beyond just overdose prevention centers. Their bill would give cities and towns the authority to pursue various harm reduction strategies to help decrease the negative consequences of substance use disorder and drug use. So that’s not just overdose prevention centers. It’s needle exchanges, drug testing programs, overdose reversal care using Narcan and treatments like that, and referral to treatment and other services. And under the Senate’s bill, the Department of Public Health would need to report how these programs work, study them in their first year up and running. And they couldn’t just open automatically. A city or town that wants to host a site like this would need to sign off from both its board of health and its city council or its select board. So it’s not a requirement that any community operate them, but it’s an option available for those that do want to try it out. The fact this is in the bill indicates that a majority of senators support the idea. And I talked to really the point person on this issue, State Senator Julian Cyr. Here’s what he had to say about why.

State Senator Julian Cyr: It’s about both saving lives. It’s also about providing a gateway to critical services, and helping getting people into treatment. I do want to really be clear, right. You know, there’s not one tool, including overdose prevention centers, that alone can solve this addiction crisis, but I’ve really come to believe that they are a crucial harm reduction tool.

Siegel: So it appears there is support in the Senate. A handful of cities in Massachusetts, including Cambridge and Somerville, have already been exploring the idea of opening overdose prevention centers. What’s stopped them from actually forging ahead?

Advertisement

Lannan: So one big barrier, at least as the state government sees it, is the risk of legal liability for health care providers, volunteers and other people who work at these sites. Last winter, a Department of Public Health report found that it would be feasible to open overdose prevention centers in Massachusetts and that they could be an effective intervention. But that report said that state legislators first would need to write some sort of liability protections into law. So that’s what the Senate is hoping to do here. Their bill would provide some limited legal protections for both people who work in overdose prevention centers and for the people who use there, who go there to use drugs, they’ve obtained from somewhere else.

Siegel: Now, as you mentioned, this bill goes beyond just overdose prevention centers. In the 30 seconds we have left here, Katie, what’s next for the bill after the Senate’s vote later today?

Lannan: Yeah. There’s no guarantee that the House and Senate are going to reach agreement here at all. The House has passed an overdose prevention bill that takes some different tacks, and they’re facing an extreme time crunch with a deadline to finish legislation by tomorrow. And the House seems pretty frustrated that the Senate is coming up with a new idea this late in the game.

Siegel: That is GBH statehouse reporter Katie Lannan on a push for overdose prevention centers in Massachusetts. Katie, thanks so much for your time.

Lannan: Thank you.

Advertisement

Siegel: You’re listening to GBH’s Morning Edition.

The Massachusetts Senate is set to pass a bill today that would give cities and towns the authority to open overdose prevention centers, facilities where people can use illegal drugs under the supervision of medical personnel.

Supporters say overdose prevention centers, also known as safe injection sites, can be a way to help stem the tide of drug deaths. They would allow people to use illegal drugs under the eye of trained medical workers and volunteers, who can step in to help in the event of an overdose.

But there are a number of obstacles to opening them, including a rocky path ahead at the State House.

Advertisement

Here’s what to know about the legislation.

It would permit supervised injection sites — and more

Overdose prevention centers are illegal under federal law.

The Massachusetts Legislature cannot amend federal law, but it can explicitly permit overdose prevention centers within state lines, GBH State House reporter Katie Lannan said.

“Their bill would give cities and towns the authority to pursue various harm reduction strategies to help decrease the negative consequences of substance use disorder and drug use,” Lannan said. “It’s needle exchanges, drug testing programs, overdose reversal care using Narcan and treatments like that, and referral to treatment and other services.”

The Senate’s bill would require the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to study such programs in their first year and report on their outcomes.

Advertisement

The bill doesn’t require supervised use sites to open, Lannan said. It only allows cities and towns to opt in if they wish, with support from both their local board of health and the city council or town select board.

State Senator Julian Cyr said the initiative is “about saving lives.”

“It’s also about providing a gateway to critical services, and helping getting people into treatment,” Cyr said. “There’s not one tool, including overdose prevention centers, that alone can solve this addiction crisis, but I’ve really come to believe that they are a crucial harm reduction tool.”

Legal liability is a hurdle

A handful of cities in Massachusetts, including Cambridge and Somerville, have already been exploring the idea of opening overdose prevention centers.

But one big barrier, at least in the eyes of state government, is legal liability for the medical professionals.

Advertisement

Last winter, a Department of Public Health report found that it would be feasible to open overdose prevention centers in Massachusetts and that they could be an effective intervention — but state legislators first would need to write some sort of liability protections into law.

“That’s what the Senate is hoping to do here,” Lannan said. “Their bill would provide some limited legal protections for both people who work in overdose prevention centers and for the people who use there, who go there to use drugs they’ve obtained from somewhere else.”

Next steps: No guarantee of passage

With two days left in this year’s session, legislators will have to act fast.

“The House has passed an overdose prevention bill that takes some different tacks, and they’re facing an extreme time crunch with a deadline to finish legislation by tomorrow,” Lannan said. “And the House seems pretty frustrated that the Senate is coming up with a new idea this late in the game.”

Advertisement





Source link

Massachusetts

Mass. House votes to set new rules for DiZoglio’s audit

Published

on

Mass. House votes to set new rules for DiZoglio’s audit


Twenty-eight lawmakers dissented Wednesday as the Massachusetts House voted to set new terms around what state Auditor Diana DiZoglio would be able to review in the legislative audit voters authorized her to carry out in 2024.

Almost all House Democrats voted for the measure, which also proposes to make more state government records accessible to the public. Three Democrats — Cambridge Rep. Mike Connolly, Attleboro Rep. Jim Hawkins and Fall River Rep. Alan Silvia — joined the body’s 25 Republicans in voting no.

Speaker Ron Mariano said the bill responds to an ongoing call from voters for more transparency out of Beacon Hill and provides a path forward in lieu of a what he called “politically motivated audit conducted in violation of the Constitution.”

Leaders of the House and Senate have resisted DiZoglio’s audit push, arguing that a probe by the auditor’s office would run afoul of the separation of powers laid out in the state Constitution, bringing the legislative branch under the review of a piece of the executive branch.

Advertisement

“We are not accountable to any constitutional officer,” said Rep. Mindy Domb, an Amherst Democrat. “We are only accountable to our constituents.”

Taunton Rep. Lisa Field, a Democrat in her first term, said she was among the 72% of Massachusetts voters who backed the audit ballot question in 2024.

“Due to legitimate concerns and questions about constitutional privileges and separation of powers, we have been stuck on this audit issue for more than a year,” Field said. “Let’s not be like Washington, D.C. and accept such gridlock — not about the audit and not about public records. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good progress.”

The House’s bill would authorize DiZoglio to review what it defines as the “administrative functions” of the Legislature, going back to the 2021 fiscal year. Those areas include the adoption of annual budgets, official audits of the House and Senate by independent firms, spending by both chambers, and the execution of any financial settlements with lawmakers and employees.

It would also newly apply the state’s public records law to the governor’s office, and create a process by which people could request and receive certain legislative files.

Advertisement

Massachusetts is currently the only state where the Legislature, governor and judiciary all claim to be exempt from the public records law.

Warren Republican Rep. Todd Smola described the process that led up to Wednesday’s vote as opaque in and of itself. Mariano last week said the House would take up what he called comprehensive transparency legislation, but did not say when or what, specifically, the bill would do.

The bill was circulated to members of the House Ways and Means Committee around 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, and committee members had a little over a half hour to vote on whether to advance it. Smola, the ranking Republican on the committee, said during that 34-minute window, “we had members on both sides of the political aisle that were calling each other back and forth to say, ‘Can you explain this portion to me?’”

“We are so much better than the process that has unfolded,” he said. “And for the sake of people that are asking us for transparency, that is not transparency. That’s the opposite of transparency.”

Rep. Michael Soter, a Bellingham Republican, said he was particularly concerned with a part of the bill that removes the courts from settling disputes between the auditor and the Legislature.

Advertisement

He said that by setting its own rules around an audit, the House would be “ensuring the auditor can only see exactly what we allow her to see and nothing more.”

It’s not clear yet if the Senate will pass the bill. Last week, state senators voted to turn over a limited set of documents to DiZoglio. The documents the Senate plans to provide mirror the records she would be allowed to review under the House bill.

Asked if he expected the Senate to agree to the legislation, Mariano on Tuesday said only, “I talked to the Senate.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

French-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston

Published

on

French-Mediterranean Eatery Charts Opening In Boston


BOSTON, MA — An international restaurant group with locations across the globe is preparing to open its first Massachusetts restaurant this year.

LPM Restaurant & Bar, a French Riviera-inspired restaurant founded in London, is set to open on the second floor of the Four Seasons Hotel One Dalton Street in Back Bay, according to Four Seasons. The hotel lists the restaurant as “Opening Summer 2026,” while the Boston Business Journal reported the restaurant plans to open in September.

The Boston restaurant will mark LPM’s debut in the Northeast and its third U.S. outpost, following locations in Miami and Las Vegas, according to a Four Seasons announcement.

LPM, also known as La Petite Maison, was founded in London in 2007 and is known for French-Mediterranean food, Mediterranean ingredients and dining rooms influenced by Belle Époque design.

Advertisement

The business operates locations in London, Dubai, Miami, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, Riyadh, Limassol, Doha, Mykonos, Kuwait, Boston, Maldives and Bangkok.

Four Seasons said LPM will take over the space that formerly housed One Dalton’s breakfast concept, One + One. The restaurant will join other dining options at the hotel, including Zuma and Trifecta.

See Also:





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts high school under investigation after teachers diagnosed with breast cancer

Published

on

Massachusetts high school under investigation after teachers diagnosed with breast cancer


A Massachusetts high school is under investigation after “several” teachers have been diagnosed with breast cancer or precancerous conditions.

The state Department of Public Health is set to visit Uxbridge High School on Thursday to “conduct a series of air quality tests,” to determine whether the multiple cases are potentially connected.

Superintendent David Ljungberg and Principal Michael Rubin alerted families and district staff on Monday of the “sombering news,” after Uxbridge High School’s graduation over the weekend.

“We are writing to inform you about a concern we are investigating at Uxbridge High School,” Ljungberg and Rubin stated in the letter. “Several female teachers have been diagnosed with breast cancer or precancerous conditions over the past few years.”

Advertisement

“It is, of course, possible that these multiple cases are not connected to one another,” the leaders added, “but out of abundance of caution, we are looking into any environmental factors at the school that may be a factor in their diagnoses.”

The 123,000-square-foot school, with an enrollment of roughly 600, was constructed in 2012 at a cost of $45 million, including a $22-million state reimbursement.

Uxbridge school leaders say they notified the state Department of Health and local health board as soon as they became aware of the cases, seeking “counsel about how best to proceed.”

“Massachusetts DPH officials have indicated that there is no evidence of immediate danger in the building and no reason to limit access to or use of the facility at this time,” they wrote in their letter. “In fact, the public health officials have commended our decision to approach them with these concerns, our readiness to partner with them in support of the evaluation process.”

Health officials are assessing the school’s interior and exterior to “ensure there are no issues with the infrastructure that would present risks (including electrical, plumbing, mechanical, HVAC, and other systems)” and the indoor and outdoor air quality on campus.

Advertisement

The superintendent and principal said that state officials have ruled out water supply as a “risk factor” after “thorough testing.”

“The team has reached out to the women who have been diagnosed, requesting data to evaluate whether there may be a connection among their cases,” Ljungberg and Rubin wrote. “We are grateful for their cooperation.”

They added that the state has said discovering an environmental “smoking gun” is “rare” in workplace investigations.

“However, even if a direct causal link is not established,” the leaders wrote, “the administration is utilizing this process to rigorously test the building and guarantee that it meets all safety standards moving forward.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending