Republish
Bridging the urban-rural divide for lifesaving substance abuse treatment
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Bridging the urban-rural divide for lifesaving substance abuse treatment
Share this:
Guest Commentary written by
Tracy Nguyen
Tracy Nguyen is a student at Stanford University studying political science and public policy. She specializes in state and local governance with a broader focus in health policy.
Imagine driving 75 miles one way every day because your life depended on it.
That used to be the case for residents of Redding, in Shasta County, who needed treatment for substance abuse disorder. They had no choice but to make the drive to Chico, in Butte County.
In urban areas, they’d at least have a fighting chance. But in rural California — no such luck. In rural California, the rate of opioid-related deaths doubles, sometimes even triples, the average rate in urban counties.
In the past year, the California Department of Health Care Services began funding the expansion of a mobile narcotic treatment program across the state, in which mobile units travel to rural communities and provide medicine-assisted treatments to people with opioid use disorder.
Rather than limiting treatment only to mobile units and to the occasional facility located in more urban areas, California needs to expand medicine-assisted treatment through “medication units” in rural communities.
Med units are satellite offices of primary clinics licensed to treat recovering patients.
While the mobile narcotic treatment program does an excellent job of directly bringing treatment to vulnerable populations by eliminating transportation and cost barriers, it is unrealistic to believe that mobile units can effectively treat the hundreds of thousands of rural Californians who suffer from opioid addiction.
Practically speaking, mobile units only allow for one patient to be seen at a time, severely limiting how many patients can be treated at one location.
There also are not enough clinics or facilities in rural California that offer medicine-assisted treatments. For example, in rural Butte County, which has one of the highest opioid-related death rates in the state, the county only has one facility in Chico that offers medicine-assisted treatment.
Instead of forcing long distances on patients, state and local governments should coordinate to expand med units to more rural areas.
In Redding, after a years-long approval process, Shasta County eventually built a med unit, ending the hours-long commute for patients. The clinic grew so fast that it eventually became its own office within a few years. Now it’s larger than the Chico facility.
With sufficient time and funding, these med units will reassure recovering patients that the medicine-assisted treatments are here to stay and that there is support for patients should they want it.
The larger question might be how the state plans to pay for this.
Read Next
My turn: Who is dying of drug overdoses? Not who you might think
With $1 billion dollars already invested in Governor Newsom’s Master Plan to tackle the opioid crisis, finding any pocket change in the budget will be difficult. That’s not mentioning the long and arduous bureaucratic challenges to approve new med units at the state and local levels.
But it is worth the effort, if we consider how much supporting people in recovery leads to improved health and wellbeing in our communities.
It will lighten the strain on under-resourced emergency services and reduce the number of visits to hospital emergency rooms due to opioid overdoses, thus lowering the costs of healthcare.
It also will reinsert recovering patients into the workforce, thus reducing unemployment and reliance on welfare programs.
Where does the Trump administration fit into this? Given that President Donald Trump is focused on cutting back “waste,” one could argue that the last thing we need is an increase in expenditures, especially if we have other priorities that depend on California cooperating with the federal government.
Yet we can’t dismiss the state’s responsibility to protect Californians from all dangers and threats, including faceless ones. If the state does not pursue expanding medicine-assisted treatments, then California will be complicit in or responsible for the lives lost to the opioid crisis.
When the opioid epidemic strikes, it leaves no mercy — not to its victims and certainly not to their friends and families.
While medicine-assisted treatment and substance abuse overall remain stigmatized — especially in rural communities — we cannot be distracted from the harm substance abuse perpetuates.
Seeking help for an addiction should not be an arduous, 75-mile drive away.
Read More
California hospitals keep closing their labor wards. Can lawmakers do anything about it?
California offered $57 million to help this hospital reopen. Now, it finally has a plan