Maker of Device To Treat Addiction Withdrawal Seeks Counties’ Opioid Settlement Cash

Why It Matters

Diverting finite settlement dollars to an unproven device could limit access to proven addiction treatments and undermine the public health goal of reducing opioid overdose deaths.

Key Takeaways

• NET device costs $5,500 per patient for counties
• FDA cleared only for withdrawal, not addiction treatment
• Study showed no significant difference versus sham overall
• Settlement funds diverted to unproven tech, limiting other services
• Conflict‑of‑interest concerns with county officials promoting NET

Pulse Analysis

The United States has allocated billions of dollars from opioid lawsuits to state and local governments, earmarking the funds for prevention and treatment initiatives. In Kentucky, officials have turned a portion of these resources toward the NET device, a portable neurostimulation system that claims to curb cravings within minutes. The appeal lies in its promise of rapid relief without medication, positioning it as a potential solution for underserved patients who reject traditional opioid‑use‑disorder therapies. However, the device’s high per‑patient cost—about $5,500 for counties and $8,000 out‑of‑pocket for individuals—raises questions about cost‑effectiveness, especially when the settlement pool is finite.

Regulatory clearance for NET is limited to managing acute withdrawal symptoms, not treating the underlying disorder. A recent 12‑week controlled study funded by the manufacturer found no statistically significant advantage over a sham device for the majority of participants, with only a highly motivated subgroup showing reduced illicit use. Experts highlight that such mixed results, combined with aggressive sales tactics and the involvement of county officials in the company’s outreach, create a conflict‑of‑interest scenario. The lack of robust, independent evidence fuels skepticism among researchers and advocacy groups, who caution against treating the device as a silver bullet for the opioid crisis.

The broader policy implication is clear: allocating settlement money to unproven technologies can crowd out proven interventions such as medication‑assisted treatment, counseling, and housing support—components consistently linked to sustained recovery. Stakeholders are urged to follow emerging roadmaps that prioritize evidence‑based solutions and transparent spending. As the debate unfolds, the NET case underscores the need for rigorous evaluation before large‑scale public investment, ensuring that settlement funds truly advance public health outcomes rather than subsidize speculative products.