This Act mandates the disclosure of certain substance use disorder medication records to state prescription drug monitoring programs only when required by state law.
Mike Kennedy
Representative
UT-3
The Safe Prescribing Through Reporting Act of 2025 amends federal law to allow the disclosure of patient records related to substance use disorder medications to state prescription drug monitoring programs. This sharing is contingent upon the specific requirements and mandates set forth by individual state laws. The goal is to enhance oversight and safety in prescribing these critical medications.
New Federal Rule Allows States to Track Sensitive Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records
The “Safe Prescribing Through Reporting Act of 2025” isn't about setting new prices or creating massive programs. It’s a surgical strike on a federal privacy rule, specifically changing how records for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment medications are handled. Essentially, Section 2 of this Act gives a green light for states to integrate these highly sensitive patient records into their existing Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs)—but only if the state’s own laws already demand that kind of disclosure. This is a procedural change that standardizes the flow of data, allowing federal rules to step aside when state mandates require SUD medication records to be shared with state monitoring systems.
The Fine Print: When State Law Takes the Lead
Think of this like an agreement between the federal government and the states on data sharing. Before this, federal regulations were a significant hurdle to sharing SUD treatment records. Now, the federal government is saying, “If your state law requires prescribers to report this information to the PDMP, then you can do it.” This means if you are receiving medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for addiction—say, a prescription for Suboxone—that information could now be funneled into the state database that tracks all controlled substance prescriptions. The critical point is that the disclosure is conditional: it only happens where state law explicitly requires it. If your state doesn't have such a law, nothing changes.
Who’s Watching the Watchers?
For public health agencies and state PDMPs, this is a win. It means they get a more complete picture of prescribing habits, which can help them spot potential misuse or track overall treatment trends. For example, a state health department trying to analyze the effectiveness of MAT programs now has access to the actual prescription data, allowing for better public health analysis. This enhanced data availability could lead to better policy decisions down the line.
The Privacy Trade-Off for Patients
If you are a patient receiving treatment for substance use disorder, this is where you need to pay attention to your state’s laws. SUD treatment records are among the most sensitive medical data, and historically, they’ve been protected by strong federal privacy rules (known as 42 CFR Part 2) to encourage people to seek help without fear of discrimination or legal repercussions. By allowing these records into the PDMP system, the federal government is placing faith in state laws to protect that data. The concern here isn't the Act itself, but what happens next: If a state’s PDMP system lacks robust security, or if their laws allow broad access to that data, highly sensitive patient information could be exposed. This makes it crucial for patients and advocates to understand the exact disclosure and security requirements within their specific state before this change takes effect.