Follow the Opioid Settlement Agreement

 

To the Editor,

I currently serve on the county’s Opioid Settlement Fund Committee, the group tasked with reviewing and recommending whether applications for opioid settlement funds should be approved or denied. In that role, I have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding governing these funds and the guidelines that outline how they are intended to be used. Because of that responsibility, I feel it is important to speak when the public purpose of these funds is misunderstood or misrepresented.

The opioid settlement funds were not created as a general revenue source for counties or cities. These funds were provided through national settlements with the explicit intent that they be used to address the opioid crisis through prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts in our communities.

When counties received these funds, they also agreed to follow a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly outlines the specific and limited ways the money can be spent. The terms of that agreement are public and available for anyone to review. That document exists for a reason: to ensure settlement funds actually help the people and families affected by addiction rather than becoming another pool of discretionary government spending.

None of the approved uses in that agreement include using opioid settlement money to pay for items counties or cities might otherwise fund through their general budgets. These funds were not intended to fill budget gaps or help governments avoid difficult budget decisions.

Because of the importance of these funds, it would be beneficial for everyone involved—both those serving on the Opioid Fund Committee and members of the County Board—to carefully review the Memorandum of Understanding that governs how these dollars are to be used. Taking the time to revisit that guidance helps ensure decisions remain consistent with both the intent of the settlement and the rules that accompany it.

Simply because our area may not currently have local facilities that provide treatment or recovery services now does not mean the funds can be redirected to unrelated purchases. The absence of local programs does not change the purpose of the settlement of funds.  And just because a community may need new equipment or a vehicle does not mean opioid settlement dollars should be used to pay for it.

There is also a concern when gray areas in the MOU are searched out and stretched in an effort to make a request appear to fit within the guidelines. Trying to force a funding request into a category where it clearly does not belong is, quite simply, attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole.

For example, using opioid settlement dollars to purchase a new K-9 unit costing $65,000—especially when that unit reportedly removed a total of 286 pills from the street last year—makes it difficult to see how such spending aligns with the intended focus on prevention, treatment, and recovery.

Similarly, opioid settlement funds should not be used to cover shortfalls in paying EMS salaries. Funds previously approved by the county for that purpose ultimately had to be repaid to the opioid fund following direction from the State Auditor’s Office, reinforcing that these dollars must be used within the guidelines established in the settlement agreement.

Just because a community may need new equipment or a vehicle does not mean opioid settlement dollars should be used to pay for it.

Serving on the Opioid Fund Committee carries out an important responsibility, and it is one that should be taken seriously. These funds represent an opportunity to address a devastating crisis, and decisions about how they are used should always reflect that purpose.

Communities across the country have lost thousands of lives to the opioid crisis. The settlement was meant to ensure the money goes towardreal solutions—programs that prevent addiction, provide treatment, and support recovery.

If these funds are not used to address addiction, then we are missing the very reason they exist.

If counties or cities wish to fund other priorities, those decisions should be made transparently through the normal budget process. Opioid settlement funds were created to combat addiction—not to solve unrelated budget challenges.

 

Sincerely,
Donna Amandus