Sponsor proposes barring state purchases of opioid antidotes from companies tied to opioid settlements

Sen. Mike Yakawich opened a committee hearing on Senate Bill 112, a measure that would limit state procurement of opioid antagonists (commonly called naloxone or Narcan) from manufacturers that were defendants in major opioid litigation and settlements.

Proponents, including tribal advocates and the Montana Medical Association, framed the bill as both a public‑health and moral response to pharmaceutical companies that played a role in the opioid crisis. "We must recognize the harm that these companies have done in communities across the state," a tribal representative told the committee, citing higher overdose death rates among American Indian and Alaska Native populations.

The Department of Justice provided informational testimony and cautioned about procurement and market effects. Brent Mead, bureau chief of the Office of Consumer Protection, said current settlement structures and licensing arrangements mean manufacturers or licensees unrelated to state litigation could still supply antagonist products. "There is a risk of sort of narrowing that supply pool," Mead said, and he noted that private licensing relationships (examples given included a recent licensing agreement by a firm called ICMA) could allow companies to supply antagonist products even if they had been defendants in litigation.

Committee members raised concerns about unintended consequences, including whether restricting state purchases would reduce competition and raise prices or complicate purchases made by local agencies or schools. Mead described how Montana's opioid settlement dollars are managed: proceeds flow largely into a Montana Opioid Abatement Trust governed by a board; settlements include an "Appendix E" that lists approved abatement programs; and priority items include ensuring availability of opioid antagonists. He said procurement channels currently used include nonprofits and local pharmacies that have supplied naloxone kits under past purchases.

Witnesses also described the funding and distribution mechanisms. Megan Peel (identified in testimony) said the state uses federal and state grants, including a State Opioid Response grant and a statewide distribution model called OENDP (Opioid Education Naloxone Distribution Program), with a purchasing hub and six regional distribution areas. Peel said purchases historically used local pharmacies and that procurement practices have not tracked manufacturer identity closely; she warned a strict interpretation of SB 112 could affect those arrangements.

Several committee members suggested amendments to soften future supply constraints, including a "supplier of last resort" clause to allow buying from unaffected manufacturers if supplies became limited. Sponsor Yakawich said he brought the bill to make a policy statement and is open to amendments. The hearing record does not show a committee vote on the bill.