House budget shifts liquor commission funding to opioid trust; behavioral-health leaders warn of service gaps

Katia Fox, director of the Division for Behavioral Health at the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee that the House budget would replace the liquor-commission tied funding for the governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Other Drugs with an HB 2 appropriation drawn from the opioid abatement trust fund.

Fox said the liquor commission historically contributed about 5% of gross revenues — roughly $10,700,000 a year — to an alcohol fund that the governor’s commission used flexibly. “If the governor's commission now [uses] opioid abatement funds, those restrictions start to apply,” Fox said, noting the opioid settlements impose parameters on allowable uses of the money.

The change, Fox said, keeps the dollar amount but shifts its source. “That means the 10.7 will remain the same. However, the funding source changes to the opioid abatement trust fund,” she said. Because opioid-abatement dollars are often restricted to opioid-specific responses, Fox warned the reallocation could cut funding for programs that address alcohol, methamphetamine and cocaine and for services that the commission had funded to fill gaps in the broader substance-use system.

Nathan White, chief financial officer for DHHS, told senators the department is already concerned about available balances in the trust. “As of today, based on the obligations ... there’s a balance of about $400,000,” White said, adding that HB 2 language may force termination and liquidation of contracts effective May 1 or later to free up money to cover the $10.7 million appropriation the House proposes for the governor’s commission.

Fox and committee members highlighted specific program impacts they expect if the funds become restricted to opioid-only use. Fox said the “doorways” program — a set of nine access points for treatment and referral — is primarily supported by the state opioid response grant but has also received governor’s commission funding to make it substance-agnostic. “The doorways are primarily funded by the state opioid response grant … the governor’s commission has made significant investments in the doorways so that they can address all types of addiction,” she said. If the governor’s commission must use only opioid-settlement funds, Fox said, some doorway services that address alcohol and other substances could lose funding.

Committee members asked whether the department could backfill lost flexible funds from other sources. Fox said the department’s flexibility has “diminished” and that reductions will force prioritization; she cautioned that backfilling non-opioid programs may not be possible. Senators also raised concerns about specific contract and grant obligations the trust has already committed to, including housing projects and shelter assistance.

Why this matters: Senators and department officials said the technical shift in HB 2 — replacing liquor-commission-derived funding with an opioid-settlement appropriation — risks reducing the state’s ability to fund non-opioid substance-use prevention and treatment and could force contract terminations to meet statutory direction in HB 2.

The committee asked DHHS staff for follow-up details on the trust fund balance, the contracts that might be affected and the exact fiscal mechanics of the House proposal. Fox and White said they would provide supporting documentation to the committee.

The department framed the shift as a trade-off between preserving current dollar levels and losing the flexibility that previously let the governor’s commission fill gaps across substances.