Committee considers bill to bar state purchases of opioid antagonists from settlement-linked companies

Lawmakers heard competing arguments on a bill that would prohibit the state from purchasing opioid-antagonist products from companies involved in opioid litigation and settlements.

Sponsor Senator Mike Yakawich said the measure is "a bill of conscience" aimed at ensuring the state does not financially benefit companies he and others say contributed to the opioid epidemic. "I come here with a happy heart and with a heavy heart," Yakawich told the House Health and Human Services Committee as he opened the hearing.

Proponents—including tribal representatives and the Montana Medical Association—urged the committee to recognize harms communities experienced during the opioid crisis and supported a policy that would avoid purchasing from settlement-linked manufacturers. Patrick Yawake (spoke in support) and Jean Branscum of the Montana Medical Association each urged a due pass.

Informational witnesses from state agencies and the Department of Justice said the state presently can secure supply but warned of procurement complexities. Brent Mead, bureau chief for the Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Protection, said companies that make opioid-antagonist products sometimes enter licensing or distribution agreements that could sidestep a statutory ban. "I would not be surprised to see more agreements like this where you have a company that has been the target of litigation ... enter into a licensing agreement with a company that has not settled with any state," Mead told the committee.

Megan Peel, administrator for the Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities Division at DPHHS, said the state has distributed roughly 33,000 naloxone kits in the last federal fiscal year under a federal grant and estimated a per-kit price just under $50. Peel described the procurement path most commonly used: local pharmacies or purchasing hubs rather than direct buys from manufacturers.

Committee members asked whether a "supplier of last resort" clause might be needed to prevent an unintended shortage or price spike. Representatives raised concerns that excluding settlement-linked manufacturers could narrow the supplier pool or encourage licensing work-arounds; Mead said legal and procurement workarounds are possible and that antitrust concerns could arise if consolidation narrowed supply.

Witnesses described the distribution of opioid-settlement dollars in Montana: Mead said 70% goes to the Montana Opioid Abatement Trust, 15% to subdivisions and 15% to the state; he said roughly $30 million of settlement money had been paid to the state at that time and that opioid-antagonist availability is a priority in the trust's guidance.

No committee vote occurred at the hearing. Members suggested amendments such as a supplier-of-last-resort clause and sought further analysis of procurement, pricing and legal implications.