Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naloxone Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor urges ban on state purchases of naloxone from companies tied to opioid settlements; DOJ flags supply risks
Summary
Sen. Mike Yakawich’s SB 112 would prohibit state purchases of opioid antagonists from manufacturers involved in opioid litigation; tribal leaders, medical groups supported it as a moral stance while the Department of Justice warned about potential supplier consolidation and procurement tradeoffs.
Senator Mike Yakawich told the House Health and Human Services Committee he brought Senate Bill 112 as a "bill of conscience," asking the state to avoid purchasing opioid antagonists from companies that played a role in fueling the opioid epidemic.
"Don't pay the arsonist for starting the fire," Yakawich said, summarizing the bill's intent to prevent the state from buying naloxone or equivalent products from companies involved in opioid settlements.
Tribal representatives and medical groups urged support. Patrick Yawaki, representing Fort Belknap and other tribal communities, said Indigenous people in Montana have particularly high overdose-death rates and that tribal settlements underscore the harm done by some manufacturers. Jean Branscum, CEO of the Montana Medical Association, described naloxone as lifesaving and supported consideration of the policy.
As informational witness, Brent Mead of the Department of Justice outlined practical procurement concerns. He said multiple manufacturers and licensing arrangements exist — for example, Hikma Pharmaceuticals and an exclusive licensing deal between another company and Emergent Biologics — and warned that companies subject to settlements can retain marketing or licensing pathways that would complicate a strict purchase ban. "I would not be surprised to see more agreements like this where you have a company that has been the target of litigation... that would, I think, get around this bill," Mead said.
DPHHS administrator Megan Peel told lawmakers the state distributed just over 33,000 naloxone kits in the last federal fiscal year at a price just under $50 per kit, using a federal State Opioid Response grant and an OENDP regional distribution model. Committee members raised concerns the bill could narrow the market, raise prices, or complicate purchases through local pharmacies; Mead said DOJ could "live with" the bill under current settlement circumstances but noted legal mechanisms exist to address anticompetitive effects if they appear.
Lawmakers discussed adding a "supplier-of-last-resort" clause to ensure access if the market narrowed. Yakawich said he was open to amendments and framed the bill as precedent-setting policy.
The committee heard proponents and informational witnesses and closed the hearing; no committee vote was recorded at this meeting.
