Elkton, Maryland files injunction against proposed Main Street Suboxone clinic
Summary and Analysis…
The effort by the town of Elkton, Maryland to contest plans to establish a Subuxone clinic in the downtown business section highlights some of the issues cities and town may face as Suboxone or other MAT-driven clinics or doctor’s offices begin to establish themselves around the country.
This article covers Elkton’s initial move to block the clinic — filing an injunction against it based on the claim that the parent company, MATClinics, was attempting to circumvent zoning regulations.
Excerpted from Cecil Daily
An article appeared on CecilDaily.com, a site associated with the Cecil Whig newspapers serving Maryland’s Eastern Shore, regarding local opposition to the potential opening of a MAT-based “clinic.”
The company behind the clinic was MATClinics which has several other offices in nearby areas. According to the article, the plan for the Elkton clinic was to place “patients on a monthly maintenance schedule” even though “the clinic doesn’t offer counseling services” though it planned to “assign patients a case manager who will refer patients to a counselor and keep tabs on patients.”
According to experts, MAT consists of prescription drugs combined with counseling and other support services, not just prescribing drugs. According to the Elkton article:
“Dr. Paul Katz, of Chesapeake Wellness Center, highlighted the need to combine medical treatment with counseling.
”’Part of the rehabilitation is giving a structured program to people that suffer the disease of addiction. These folks need to have treatment,’ he said. ‘They’re just looking for the chemical. They really don’t want to face the reason why they’re taking the chemical.'”
The article highlights a potential danger for cities and towns. The city filed a restraining order against MATClinics claiming:
“The Town of Elkton Zoning Administrator was not notified that the defendant intended to open a clinic and did not represent themselves as a clinic to the town, although the name of the business indicates defendant is a clinic. … Furthermore, defendant advertises as a clinic, has been purported to be a clinic, and is operating as such.”