Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harm Reduction Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing in Concord as lawmakers consider banning state funding for organizations that distribute syringes
Summary
Sen. Keith Murphy’s SB 549 would bar state and local governments from funding organizations that distribute drug paraphernalia, including syringes. DHHS warned of legal conflicts and potential public-health and fiscal harms; dozens of providers and advocates urged rejection, saying syringe services reduce overdoses and infections.
Sen. Keith Murphy opened testimony on Senate Bill 549 by showing photographs of syringes found in public spaces in Manchester and describing constituents’ safety concerns. Murphy said state and local funding that supports distribution of syringes and related paraphernalia should not be allowed and suggested redirecting those dollars toward treatment.
Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services told the committee the bill, as drafted, contains apparent legal and technical conflicts with existing statutes and regulations that already authorize certain syringe-service activities. Jenny O’Higgins, DHHS legislative liaison for behavioral health, said lines in the draft both carve out and restrict funding in ways that would be confusing to implement and could unintentionally block funding streams that currently support infection-prevention services, HIV case management and naloxone distribution.
Dr. Jonathan Ballard, DHHS chief medical officer, told the committee that while the fiscal note shows potential short-term savings of about $1.7 million in grants, removing support for syringe-service programs could shift larger costs to emergency medical services, hospitalizations and Medicaid for treatable infectious complications. Ballard referenced a study of Kentucky data and an internal review suggesting potential Medicaid cost increases if services were eliminated.
A broad coalition of public-health providers, recovery organizations and civil-rights and medical groups spoke against the bill during a lengthy public-comment period. Witnesses — including the HIV/HCV Resource Center, SOS Recovery Community Organization, Revive Recovery Resource Center, the New Hampshire Harm Reduction Coalition, researchers and clinicians — said syringe-service programs do far more than hand out syringes: they provide naloxone distribution, wound care, referrals to housing and treatment, testing for HIV and hepatitis C, case management and safe disposal. Multiple witnesses said evidence shows these programs reduce transmission of infectious diseases and prevent overdose deaths; several cited local data on overdose reversals and decreases in syringe litter after program interventions.
Kathy Stratton of the New Hampshire Medical Society and other physicians urged careful statutory drafting and flagged regulatory oversight questions; ACLU-NH warned the bill would insert the legislature into day-to-day public-health response and could chill evidence-based services. Supporters of the bill reiterated concerns about improperly discarded syringes in public spaces and urged stronger disposal and local-control measures if programs continue.
The hearing record includes extensive written and oral testimony on both sides. DHHS requested clarifying language to avoid conflicts with RSA provisions that currently authorize certain syringe-service activities (references in testimony include RSA 318-b1 and RSA 318:43 as read into the record); the department also asked the committee to consider the possibility that banning funding could have larger downstream public-health costs.
The committee did not take a vote on SB 549 following the hearing and indicated staff and sponsors would likely work on technical drafting and fiscal questions before any action.
