Committee reviews H.218 proposal and state opioid abatement fund after fiscal office maps prior appropriations

A committee meeting on H.218 and the state's opioid settlement spending heard detailed briefings from fiscal staff and legislative counsel on the structure of the opioid abatement special fund and the status of prior appropriations.

"What this is, this is an attempt. Try to put all the information that you might need in front of you. I call it a draft because I keep finding little typos and stuff like that," said Noel Langdon, Fiscal Office, as staff walked committee members through a spreadsheet comparing appropriations made from opioid settlement proceeds since 2023 with the current H.218 proposal.

The fiscal presentation laid out the fund receipts and prior appropriations that the committee must weigh. Langdon reported $25,900,000 in settlement payments plus about $167,000 in interest for a total revenue figure of approximately $26,100,000. He said about $14,000,000 had been appropriated across acts from 2023–2025, with roughly $1,200,000 spent, about $10.7 million obligated but unspent, and about $12,000,000 unobligated on the ledger. H.218, as introduced, would propose roughly $9.9 million in new appropriations from the special fund, leaving approximately $2.1 million uncommitted if the committee chooses not to reallocate currently unobligated lines.

Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel, reviewed the statutory framework that created the special fund and the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee. "So the existing language was put into 1 subchapter, and it created a new subchapter, subchapter 2, pertaining specifically to the opioid settlement," McLean said, describing the law placed in Title 18 and the advisory committee's membership, staggered terms, voting requirements and reporting duties.

McLean noted the statute names the Department of Health as the lead state agency and single point of contact to request released settlement funds from national settlement administrators. The law requires the advisory committee to "vote on its recommendations" and, if supported by a majority, to submit those recommendations to the Department of Health and simultaneously to relevant General Assembly committees. The department must submit a spending plan to the General Assembly informed by those recommendations annually on or before Jan. 15.

Committee members pressed staff on a number of practical issues. One member observed that several past appropriations remain unobligated or unspent and asked whether common reasons (lack of proposals, hiring delays, or providers pausing projects) might explain the pattern. Langdon cautioned each line "probably has a story" and recommended committee members ask sponsoring representatives or agencies for specifics before deciding how to reallocate funds.

Members also asked about municipalities that were parties to opioid litigation and therefore may receive separate settlement dollars. McLean and others emphasized that the advisory committee and the state's special fund apply only to funds received by the state; municipalities that were direct settlement parties receive separate disbursements outside the state special fund. McLean said staff could follow up with the attorney general's office to document which Vermont municipalities received direct settlement money.

Law and practice questions noted during the briefing included: the statute's enumerated purposes (prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, data and evaluation), the advisory committee's representational requirements (including individuals with lived experience and municipal appointees), statutory constraints intended to conform to settlement terms, and the statutory preference that special-fund expenditures "supplement and not supplant" existing state or federal programs. Committee members also discussed terminology updates in the chapter (for example replacing the older acronym MAT with MOUD) and planned a cleanup amendment to align statutory language.

No formal votes were taken during the briefing. The committee scheduled follow-up testimony from advisory committee members and departments at a subsequent meeting; Commissioner Levine was scheduled to present the administration's budget recommendations later in the session.

The briefing emphasized that available dollars change over time as additional settlement disbursements arrive and that each settlement carries its own duration and release schedule. McLean and staff agreed to follow up with the attorney general's office for a detailed history of settlement payments and the statutory timelines that govern availability.