Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7234

Bill Overview

Title: Summer Barrow Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Act

Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and modifies multiple grants, programs, and other activities that support prevention and treatment of substance use disorders. Specifically, the bill addresses mental health and substance use disorder services for homeless populations; priority substance use prevention and treatment needs that are of regional and national significance; access to treatment in areas with high or increasing rates of opioid use; data collection, research, and other activities to prevent and respond to underage drinking; diversion of individuals with mental health illnesses from the criminal justice system to community-based services; increased access to emergency treatments for known or suspected opioid overdoses (e.g., naloxone), including by expanding the prescriptive authority of certain health care providers; implementation of comprehensive state-based plans to respond to opioid use disorders; and use of opioid alternatives for pain management in hospitals and emergency departments.

Sponsors: Rep. Spanberger, Abigail Davis [D-VA-7]

Target Audience

Population: People with substance use disorders

Estimated Size: 22000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Homeless (West Virginia)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems like a lifeline for those like me who are dealing with substance abuse and homelessness.
  • Access to treatment has been sporadic and largely inaccessible due to my living situation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Factory Worker (Ohio)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased access to treatments like naloxone is critical for overdose risks, even among employed people like me.
  • I'm hoping for sustainable treatment options that go beyond emergency responses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 6 5

High School Student (California)

Age: 18 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There needs to be more education and activities to keep kids from falling into drinking and drug habits.
  • Programs after school that are engaging can make a huge difference.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Nurse (New York)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • By expanding prescriptive authority, we can more effectively manage overdose cases rapidly.
  • Stress is constant; better preventive measures are necessary for community health workers.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Software Developer (Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think focusing on mental health and stress management could help avert issues before they start.
  • The policy may not affect me directly, but broader community health improvements would be beneficial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Retired (Florida)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could provide new hope for families struggling when someone they love is caught in substance use.
  • Support networks are very much needed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Police Officer (New Mexico)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Diverting individuals with mental health issues to community services rather than jail is essential.
  • Our response frequently lacks the proper tools, increasing repeat offenses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Community Health Worker (Alaska)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Integrating traditional practices with increased access to treatment is critical for my community.
  • The policy could offer much-needed resources for tailored health solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Bartender (Washington)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Legislation on underage drinking needs proper enforcement.
  • Awareness and preventive measures should start in schools and community settings.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Judge (Illinois)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Court systems are overloaded with substance abuse cases; diversion programs can act as an alternative to incarceration.
  • Better outcomes are achieved when focus is placed on treatment instead of punishment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1250000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)

Year 2: $1250000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)

Year 3: $1250000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)

Year 5: $1300000000 (Low: $1050000000, High: $1550000000)

Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1600000000)

Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1700000000)

Key Considerations