Hartford — Members of the Connecticut General Assembly's Public Health Committee on Friday heard testimony about several proposed and raised bills during the committee’s first public hearing of the 2017 legislative session.

Of the 21 bills in question, 10 were opioid-related, including a bill the committee itself raised last week.

That bill, House Bill No. 7010, includes adaptations of multiple concepts that state Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, a co-chair of the committee, suggested in bills she proposed last month.

One provision would allow physicians, spouses or relatives of a person struggling with addiction to apply to send that person involuntarily to emergency treatment for five or fewer days.

The applicant would have to establish the person meets at least one of three requirements, one of which is that the person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

Somers said she realizes involuntary commitment to emergency treatment is an issue of personal rights. But she also knows countless mothers who desperately have pleaded for a way to help their addicted children.

Somers said a person who repeatedly lands in the hospital as a result of overdosing is crying for help in a way similar to someone who shows up there with slit wrists.

“At what point after being brought back to life several times are they a danger to themselves?” she asked. “I don’t want to involuntarily make anybody (enter into) treatment, but if we can’t help parents after a certain period of time, then we’re not doing our job.”

Somers previously lauded the option as one that could give those struggling with addiction the clear mind necessary to want to seek longer-term treatment.

Testimony against that provision of the bill was ample.

Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, said she was concerned the broadness of the bill’s language could negatively affect individuals’ rights.

In written testimony she provided to the committee, Delphin-Rittmon pointed out that statutes already allow individuals to be involuntarily committed for five or fewer days in certain situations.

“These emergency commitments do occur,” she said.

Several other members of the medical field expressed similar concerns, often calling upon the legislature to instead focus on expanding access to medication-assisted treatment and other treatment options.

One of them, Jonathan Craig Allen, medical director of the Rushford Center, said committing people so they can detoxify inadvertently may increase their risk of overdosing upon release. Evidence, Allen said, shows a person has the greatest risk of overdosing when newly abstinent.

Another, Department of Public Health Deputy Commissioner Yvonne Addo, noted that individual desire for and commitment to recovery is “a key element” to ensuring its success.

The bill also includes a section that would work to retain Connecticut residents who become certified to provide psychiatry services to people with substance use disorders by reimbursing a portion of their education loans.

Other recurring themes during Friday’s lengthy hearing included expanding access to detoxification centers — some of which turn people away if they’ve been sober for a day or two — intensifying efforts to educate people about the addictive nature of opioids and making opioid antagonists more widely available.

About 3:50 p.m., Somers, who had stepped out of the public hearing to attend other meetings, said in a phone call that the testimony she had heard and read so far made it “clear that opiates are on everyone’s mind.”

Somers was about to go back into the hearing, which began at 10:30 a.m.

“The next step, after we hear all the testimony, is to get together in a committee meeting, decipher what we heard and try to draft or craft some legislation that we feel will be effective,” she said. “We’ve had a lot of input, so that will take some time.”

l.boyle@theday.com

Other bills discussed Friday

Proposed House Bill No. 5667

Explanation: The bill would make it so licensed substance-abuse treatment facilities can't limit admission to people who currently are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Testimony in favor: Enables a person to stop using the instant they decide to enter treatment.

Against: None.

Proposed Senate Bill No. 552

Explanation: The bill aims to increase access to opioid antagonists. Instead of having pharmacists prescribe the overdose-reversing drug, it would allow physicians to order qualified people, including but not limited to pharmacists, to provide the antagonists without a prescription.

Testimony in favor: Allows more people, including community health workers, psychologists, counselors and other trained lay people, to dispense naloxone.

Against: Would be a step backward. Existing program greatly expanded access to naloxone, trains certified pharmacists to point people to services that can prevent them from overdosing, and meets federal requirement that naloxone be prescribed.

Proposed House Bill No. 6037

Explanation: In an attempt to increase the number of substance-abuse treatment beds in the state, the bill would allow open psychiatric care beds to be used for patients recovering from health problems related to opioid abuse.

Testimony in favor: Would allow more residents to undergo treatment in the state.

Against: State facilities regularly have some open substance-abuse beds, they're just not available to people with private health insurance; psychiatric care units may not be equipped to handle needs of the addicted; backlogs also exist for people waiting for psychiatric care beds.

Proposed House Bill No. 5760

Explanation: The bill would require physicians who prescribe opioid medications to educate patients about the addictive risks of taking such medications.

Testimony in favor: Statistics show four out of five people using heroin or another street opioid started with prescription opioids, thus it's reasonable to ask prescribers to take on this burden.

Against: Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies already outline what prescribers should do and say to reduce the risk of opioid abuse.