Author: Miranda Chien

What is The HOPE Act 2023

The Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act of 2023 is a legislative proposal aimed at addressing the challenges faced by individuals with state cannabis offenses on their criminal records. The HOPE Act authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make grants to states and local governments to reduce the financial and administrative burden of expunging convictions for state cannabis offenses. This bill is designed to help clear cannabis convictions from millions of Americans’ records, allowing people to regain access to essential employment, housing, loans, and more. The Act is a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Representatives David Joyce (R-OH) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

What does The HOPE Act 2023 do?

The HOPE Act of 2023 is legislation that seeks to transform the landscape of cannabis policy in the United States. Furthermore, it mandates a study by the DOJ on the impacts of a cannabis-related criminal record and the costs of related incarcerations. Lastly, the reintroduction of the HOPE Act could influence political discourse and policy decisions surrounding such as cannabis policy crime reform, voting behavior, and healthcare and social service policies, in the 2024 election cycle, fostering a platform for diverse opinions.

Argument for The HOPE Act 2023

The HOPE Act seeks to expunge cannabis convictions, thereby addressing systemic flaws such as racial disparities, collateral consequences, and inefficient use of resources in the criminal justice system. As many employers conduct background checks, employers may be hesitant to hire someone with a criminal record. Similarly, housing applications often require background checks, and a criminal record can lead to denial of housing.  Individuals with cannabis convictions often find themselves trapped in a cycle of poverty. The HOPE Act aims to break the cycle by incentivizing states to expunge cannabis convictions. Additionally, the Act encourages broader cannabis reform, fosters opportunities for reintegration, and removes barriers to socioeconomic prosperity. 

Economically, the Act aims to empower individuals by removing employment and housing barriers associated with cannabis convictions. This is particularly significant considering the estimated $78 to $87 billion annual GDP loss attributed to the workforce exclusion of individuals with cannabis convictions. Furthermore, the Act seeks to make the expungement process more efficient by providing federal grants to states, which will provide financial aid from the federal government to state governments to support specific programs or initiatives.

The HOPE Act also represents a shift in cannabis policy, reflecting the growing public support for cannabis legalization, with 70% of U.S. adults favoring legalization in 2023. Over time, there has been an increased acknowledgment of the potential therapeutic uses of cannabis, which has contributed to shifting attitudes. Concurrently, there has been a growing awareness of the societal and racial disparities that have arisen from the enforcement of cannabis-related laws. 

 The HOPE Act represents an effort to align federal law with these changing societal perspectives by encouraging states to expunge cannabis convictions, not only recognizing the shifting attitudes towards cannabis but also addressing the historical consequences associated with cannabis-related convictions. In essence, supporters argue that the HOPE Act of 2023 represents a comprehensive approach to cannabis reform, addressing both social justice and economic considerations in its provisions. 

Argument Against The HOPE Act 2023

The HOPE Act of 2023 has been met with various criticisms, many of which prioritize other pressing issues over cannabis reform. For instance, the ongoing opioid crisis, particularly the proliferation of fentanyl analogs, is viewed by some as a more immediate concern that requires urgent attention. Opponents believe the urgency and severity of the opioid crisis demand  immediate and undivided attention. Critics argue that the resources and time spent on cannabis reform could be better utilized to combat the opioid epidemic, which is causing widespread harm and loss of life. In 2020, nearly 75% of the 91,799 drug overdose deaths involved an opioid. The number of drug overdose deaths increased by more than 16% from 2020 to 2021. They contend that while cannabis reform is important, it does not present the same level of immediate danger as the opioid crisis, and thus, should not be the primary focus at this time. The crux of the argument is not about the inability to multitask, but rather about prioritizing resources and attention based on the severity and immediacy of the issues at hand.

Additionally, the complexity of comprehensive cannabis legislation is highlighted by the crowded landscape of cannabis reform bills, suggesting that achieving comprehensive reform may be more challenging than initially anticipated. Comprehensive reform is not just about reaching a consensus on the need for reform, but also about navigating the intricacies of differing viewpoints, reconciling conflicting interests, and crafting legislation that can garner sufficient support to pass. The HOPE Act exemplifies those factors by acknowledging the need for cannabis conviction reform, navigating bipartisan viewpoints, reconciling interests of criminal justice and cannabis offenses, and crafting a bill that offers federal grants to states for expungement, balancing state rights and reform support. 

Following this, another layer of complexity involves the financial system and social equity objectives. This includes considering how the economic system will adapt to a legal cannabis market, and how to ensure that the benefits of this market are equitably distributed. Critics also argue that some legislation appears to prioritize financial system concerns over social justice issues, potentially undermining the social equity objectives of cannabis reform. This is further complicated by the general stigma tied to cannabis reform, which continues to influence public and political opinion. The multitude of layers involved in the process amplifies the complexity of implementing the HOPE Act.

Indeed, some leaders advocate for maintaining marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification indicates that marijuana is considered to have a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. These leaders emphasize that any changes to its classification should be based on rigorous scientific evidence.

Concerning the HOPE Act, this stance presents a significant challenge. The Act’s objective to expunge cannabis offenses and promote social equity is in direct contrast with the Schedule I classification of marijuana. If marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, the social justice goals of the HOPE Act could be hindered, as the classification maintains the criminalization of marijuana at a federal level. Therefore, the debate around marijuana’s classification directly impacts the potential effectiveness and implementation of the HOPE Act.

Conclusion

As the discourse around cannabis reform continues to evolve, the HOPE Act underscores the importance of a balanced, evidence-based approach that considers both the societal implications and the individual impacts of cannabis-related offenses. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, the Act invites a broader conversation about the future of cannabis policy in the United States.

What is the Medicaid Reentry Act?

The Medicaid Reentry Act is a proposed amendment to Medicaid law, designed to enhance healthcare access for incarcerated individuals, especially during their transition back into society. This legislation addresses healthcare disparities and improves health outcomes for a population often facing socioeconomic vulnerability.  For example, despite approximately 58% of incarcerated adults meeting clinical criteria for drug dependence or abuse, less than 30% receive any drug-use treatment while incarcerated. The Act seeks to bridge this gap in healthcare provision.

What does the Medicaid Reentry Act do?

The Medicaid Reentry Act, introduced as a bipartisan effort by Senators Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Mike Braun of Indiana, targets the reduction of drug overdoses and recidivism post-release from prison. Recidivism, the tendency for convicted individuals to re-offend, is a pressing issue in our justice system. This Act addresses it by providing healthcare services during the crucial reentry period post-incarceration, aiming to break the cycle of recidivism.

The Act proposes reinstating Medicaid benefits for eligible individuals 30 days prior to their release to avoid coverage gaps. Immediate access to healthcare upon release can help manage chronic conditions and mental health issues, thereby reducing overall illness rates. Additionally, it facilitates access to substance use disorder treatments, lowering the risk of overdose deaths. The Act aims for improved health outcomes and cost-effective healthcare.

Its discussion in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the drug overdose crisis, and structural racism highlights its potential positive impact on healthcare services for eligible incarcerated individuals. This is especially relevant given the high rates of chronic diseases, mental illness, and substance use disorders among the incarcerated population.

Arguments for The Medicaid Reentry Act:

The Medicaid Reentry Act is a significant piece of legislation aimed at improving the reintegration of individuals after incarceration by addressing healthcare transitions. It recognizes the crucial role of health coverage, care, and medication during reentry, focusing on effective state and local practices to connect returning individuals with healthcare services.

One key aspect of the Act is granting states the flexibility to reinstate Medicaid benefits before release, ensuring a smooth transition and immediate healthcare support upon reentry. Supporters of the Act highlight its importance, noting that individuals reentering society are 129 times more likely than the general population to die from a drug overdose in the first two weeks post-release. The Act prioritizes streamlined access to addiction treatments, thereby reducing the risk of post-release overdose deaths—a critical concern given the higher prevalence of substance use disorders in correctional facilities. By providing thirty days of Medicaid coverage before release, the Act aims to improve access to quality healthcare, promoting successful reintegration for individuals in jails, prisons, and juvenile detention centers.

Supporters of the act recognize that the majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually reintegrate into society, highlighting the importance of uninterrupted health coverage. This approach aims to improve health outcomes, leading to better employment opportunities, housing stability, and family support, potentially reducing recidivism and the financial burden of repeated incarcerations.

The policy is aligned with data demonstrating that expanding eligibility for public assistance programs such as Medicaid can have positive impacts on incarcerated individuals’ health, economic well-being, and crime-related outcomes. Expanded Medicaid eligibility in certain healthcare policies can increase access to treatment for conditions that may enhance employment prospects and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Arguments against the Medicaid Reentry Act:

Opponents of the Medicaid Reentry Act argue that the legislation could contribute to the national debt, especially in the current inflationary environment and amid ongoing concerns about the impact of the latest coronavirus variant. They point to the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy, which prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for healthcare services provided to inmates of a public institution, as a key factor in the financial strain on counties. This policy shifts the responsibility of covering medical costs for incarcerated individuals to local budgets. Opponents are concerned that passing the Medicaid Reentry Act under this regulation could exacerbate financial strain on local budgets.

Critics raise concerns about Medicaid enrollment declines in states not expanding, especially in Republican-led areas. The absence of consistent standards for accrediting correctional medical services under Medicaid leads to care quality issues. The Act’s effectiveness in jails, where discharge timing is uncertain, may be limited. Medicaid’s dual role as healthcare and a federal grant system raises worries about unequal benefits favoring wealthier states. The removal of Medicaid continuous enrollment may impact the Act’s effectiveness. 

Research on state-driven Medicaid changes shows mixed results on recidivism. Fast-tracked Medicaid enrollment for individuals leaving prisons with serious mental illness increased usage but didn’t lower recidivism rates after twelve or thirty-six months. This raises doubts about Medicaid expansion’s effectiveness in this regard.

Conclusion

The Medicaid Reentry Act aims to improve healthcare for individuals post-incarceration, potentially reducing recidivism. However, concerns exist about financial strain on local budgets, inconsistencies in correctional medical services, and the Act’s effectiveness in jails due to uncertain discharge timing. The debate underscores the complexity of healthcare policy in the context of incarceration and reentry, highlighting the need for careful consideration of both the benefits and potential drawbacks of such legislation.