PGCB Urged to Reconsider Proposed Amendment to Pennsylvania's Self-Exclusion Ban
Experts are urging the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to reconsider proposed changes to the self-exclusion program of the state. Right now, a person on the self-exclusion list cannot enter a casino until after their period of self-exclusion ends - and after they apply for a successful reinstatement of their gaming advantages. But regulators in the state have plans to lift the mandate, reinstating gaming privileges automatically, and this is concerning for various specialists in addiction and mental health.
Pennsylvania's mental health providers and addiction specialists are urging state gaming regulators to abandon a proposed amendment to the self-exclusion program, citing concerns that the change could jeopardize recovery efforts for individuals with gambling addiction.
Currently, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board mandates that individuals who voluntarily join the state's self-exclusion list for casinos must apply for reinstatement of their gaming privileges once their one- or five-year exclusion period ends. Lifetime bans remain permanent unless requested otherwise by the participant. But the PGCB's recent proposal seeks to eliminate the reinstatement application requirement, automatically restoring access once an exclusion term expires.
Proposed change sparks debate
In October, the PGCB introduced the proposed change, explaining that it aligns with the state's self-exclusion protocols for iGaming, fantasy sports, and video gaming terminals, which already feature automatic reinstatement. The board also cited concerns about individuals unknowingly trespassing in casinos after their exclusion period concludes, thinking their exclusion status had already been lifted.
However, mental health professionals, addiction counselors, and other stakeholders argue that automatic reinstatement could harm recovery efforts and increase the risk of relapse.
Experts voice strong opposition
The Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs has strongly opposed the proposal. Amy Hubbard, manager of DDAP's Compulsive Problem Gambling Section, emphasized that the current process, which requires individuals to actively seek reinstatement, serves as a protective barrier against relapse.
Individuals in recovery from problem gambling often feel more comfortable choosing a temporary self-exclusion period, knowing they have control over whether to extend it. Automatically removing them from the list without their explicit request undermines that control and may lead to relapse, Hubbard stated.
Ken Martz, the Pennsylvania Association of Addiction Professionals president, echoed these sentiments, urging the PGCB to retain the existing structure for casino self-exclusion. Martz suggested that instead of altering the casino protocol, the board should consider modifying self-exclusion programs for iGaming, fantasy sports, and VGTs to match the casino model. "To strengthen support for those struggling with gambling behaviors, we recommend standardizing self-exclusion across all gaming platforms," Martz stated.
Relapse risk and consumer protection
Addiction specialists have warned that automatic reinstatement increases the likelihood of relapse for individuals recovering from gambling addiction. The Better Institute, a Pennsylvania-based therapy provider, submitted a letter signed by many licensed counselors and therapists, cautioning against the potential consequences.
Removing individuals from the self-exclusion list without their explicit request heightens the risk of relapse, particularly during moments of vulnerability, the letter noted. It added that relapse can result in financial devastation, broken relationships, and even suicide. The Better Institute also criticized the proposal for contradicting the principles of consumer protection. Self-exclusion programs are designed to safeguard individuals from harm. This change undermines that principle by facilitating easier re-entry into gambling environments, despite prior efforts to self-protect, the letter added.
Interestingly, the state's casino operators have largely refrained from commenting on the proposed amendment. However, one letter raised concerns that automatic reinstatement could lead to targeted marketing efforts by casinos toward individuals newly removed from the exclusion list.
Balancing administrative ease with recovery support
The PGCB has defended the proposed change, citing administrative efficiency and the avoidance of unintentional trespassing incidents. However, addiction specialists argue that these benefits are outweighed by the potential harm to individuals in recovery.
While reducing administrative burdens is a valid goal, it should not come at the expense of vulnerable individuals who rely on these protections to maintain their recovery, said a coalition of mental health and addiction counselors in their submitted comments.
As the PGCB considers public feedback on the proposal, the debate demonstrates the complexities of balancing administrative ease with the need to support individuals battling gambling addiction. Mental health experts, addiction professionals, and advocacy groups continue to push for a standardized, recovery-focused approach that prioritizes consumer protection and long-term recovery. The final decision by the PGCB could set a precedent for how gaming regulators nationwide address the delicate interplay between responsible gaming policies and recovery support.
Casino news









