Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Funding Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Human Services advances amendment shifting prevention allocations to opioid abatement fund, asks Health Department and OSAC to review
Summary
The committee considered an Appropriations Committee amendment to H.660 that moves four previously recommended substance misuse prevention items into the opioid abatement special fund, adds $640,000 to that fund, and asks the Department of Health—with input from OSAC—to review what should remain in the prevention fund versus the opioid settlement fund.
House Human Services Chair opened Tuesday’s session to consider an Appropriations Committee amendment to H.660 that shifts four programs from the substance misuse prevention fund into the opioid abatement special fund and asks the Department of Health to review appropriations with input from the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee (OSAC).
The Appropriations Committee member presenting the amendment said the committee made two technical and two substantive changes and moved certain items because the prevention fund was oversubscribed. "Our committee really is not familiar with substance misuse prevention programming," the committee member said, arguing that the Department of Health and OSAC are better positioned to recommend which programs should be continued in the prevention fund and which should be funded through opioid settlement dollars.
Why it matters: committee members said the state’s opioid settlement money will decline over time, so they sought a process to determine which programs should be transitioned into base funding. The amendment adds about $640,000 to the opioid abatement special fund; the presenter said the total committed from the opioid settlement fund would be $6,616,277, which, after included reversions, drops to $5,163,990.
A joint fiscal office staff member described one change as technical: the reversion language was rewritten to align with standard budget practice. "It's just a technical correction to make it clear that it's a reversion," the staff member said.
Representative Bishop asked whether OSAC had been part of drafting the language and whether the word "appropriateness" could be too vague. Committee members replied that the Department of Health would do the analysis and that the advisory committee would be asked to weigh in, particularly on whether ongoing programs should be moved into base funding.
The chair summarized the split between the Human Services policy committee and the Appropriations Committee: the policy committee had recommended the four items remain in the substance misuse prevention fund, while Appropriations preferred to shift them pending review. She said she would ask Senator Lyons to take testimony and that prevention experts at the Department of Health will be asked to provide data and outcomes for further consideration.
The committee conducted a nonbinding straw poll by show of hands to gauge favorability of the amendment; members indicated informal support and the chair said the committee would move the bill forward for further consideration.
Next steps: the amendment will be carried forward and Department of Health review (with advisory committee input) is expected before final decisions on which programs, if any, should transition to base funding.
