Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances changes to opioid abatement board authority and funding use after amendment
Summary
The Judiciary Committee advanced Senate Bill 574 to clarify the Opioid Abatement Board’s data and spending authority, including allowing up to 10% of funds for statewide projects; the committee adopted an amendment to retain investment income in the fund.
The committee advanced Senate Bill 574, a measure that revises how the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board may evaluate grant applicants and spend settlement funds, after adopting a committee amendment changing several fiscal and governance details.
Senator Hace explained the bill would give the board discretion to determine what data is relevant to grant applications because prior required data proved difficult for some subdivisions to obtain. The bill author said the change is intended to make eligibility determinations more flexible and to reflect the reality of local data availability.
The committee adopted an amendment that (1) states the board shall approve all statewide opioid abatement projects described in the subsection and (2) allows the fund’s investment income and returns to remain in the abatement fund rather than flow to general revenue. The author and staff said the change would allow the board to use up to 10% of funds for statewide projects such as naloxone distribution, public-awareness campaigns or a comprehensive addiction-treatment database; the author noted $12 million was distributed to 85 local governments, schools and counties in the initial round.
Committee members asked about oversight, whether the AG’s office requested the change (the author confirmed it was a request of the Attorney General), whether there is a sunset on the provision (no sunset language is in the bill), and how the board is appointed. Macy Whitehouse from the Attorney General’s Office testified the board is nine members: one appointed by the governor, one by the state auditor and inspector, one by the state treasurer, the attorney general (or designee), one by the state superintendent, two by the speaker of the House and two by the Senate pro tem.
After debate that included concerns about using up to 10% for statewide awareness (some called for tighter guardrails to prevent name-recognition spending), the committee voted 6 ayes and 2 nays to advance the bill as amended.
Why it matters: The bill changes eligibility and spending rules for opioid-settlement funds distributed at the local level. The amendment keeps investment returns in the fund, which would increase dollars available for grants and statewide efforts according to proponents.
What’s next: The bill moves to the full Senate. Sponsors said the opioid abatement board will make final decisions about statewide projects and allocation of the 10% described in the bill.
