The practice of prescribing opioid drugs for opioid dependent patients in the 
U.S. has been subjected to special government scrutiny for almost 100 years. 
From 1920 until 1964, doctors who used opioids to treat addicts risked federal 
and/or state criminal prosecution. Although that period ended when oral 
methadone maintenance was established as legitimate medical practice, public 
concern about methadone diversion and accidental overdose fatalities, combined 
with political pressure from both hostile bureaucracies and groups committed to 
drug-free treatments, led to the development of unprecedented and detailed Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations that specified the manner in which 
methadone (and later, levo-alpha-acetyl methadol, or levomethadyl acetate, 
(LAAM)) could be provided. In 1974, Congress gave the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) additional oversight of methadone treatment programs. 
Efforts to liberalize the FDA regulations over the past 30 years have been 
resisted by both the DEA and existing treatment providers. Additional 
flexibility for clinicians may evolve from the most recent effort to create an 
accreditation system to replace some of the FDA regulations. The development of 
buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, as an effective treatment for opioid 
addiction reopened the possibility for having a less burdensome oversight 
process, especially because of its reduced toxicity if ingested by non-tolerant 
individuals. New legislation, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) of 2000, 
created an opportunity for clinicians with special training to be exempted from 
both federal methadone regulations and the requirement to obtain a special DEA 
license when using buprenorphine to treat addicts. Some details of how the DATA 
was developed, moved through Congress, and signed into law are described.