Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers question use, oversight and contracting of opioid settlement funds and naloxone procurement
Summary
Committee members asked DDAAP about multiyear contracts funded by opioid settlement money, county discretion over 85% of funds, and why some state contracts use brand‑name naloxone rather than generics; officials said counties have discretion under Exhibit E and the trust reviews spending annually, and that procurement is negotiated with General Services.
Legislators focused several lines of questioning on opioid settlement funds, how multiyear contracts are handled and whether the Commonwealth is using cost‑effective naloxone products.
Dr. Letika Davis Jones said the department has entered multiyear contracts that are funded in part from opioid settlement allocations and that 85% of settlement dollars go to counties and litigating subdivisions while 15% come to the Commonwealth and are appropriated by the General Assembly.
"We do have commitment for our opioid settlement funds," Dr. Davis Jones said, explaining that funds have been earmarked for several initiatives and that the department must plan when payments are expected. She noted counties set priorities for their allocations and that the opioid trust annually reviews county expenditures to determine whether activities align with approved uses.
Representative Brown asked whether multiyear contracts contain clauses that void obligations if future appropriations do not materialize; department staff said contracts include provisions to address separation from grantees and that funds would be reallocated if unavailable.
Representative Reichert and others asked whether the department could increase savings by switching from brand‑name naloxone to generic products. Dr. Davis Jones said procurement is negotiated through the Department of General Services, that the department continually reviews contract pricing and vendor options, and that she would follow up with specifics on current contractor arrangements.
Representative Danzo asked whether the opioid settlement trust provides transparent, year‑by‑year reporting of county expenditures. Dr. Davis Jones directed members to the opioid trust website and said the trust posts information about county uses; she emphasized that counties may be required to return disallowed funds identified in trust reviews.
The hearing produced no formal vote. Members requested follow‑up on contract clauses, current naloxone product choice and price comparisons, and county spending reports from the opioid trust.
