A significant portion of the nearly $50 billion allocated from opioid settlements is being utilized without direct input from those most affected by the crisis: individuals with substance use disorders. This has led to questions regarding the efficacy of these funds in addressing the core issues of opioid addiction.
A new analysis reveals that people directly impacted by substance use disorders seldom have a say in how the money from opioid settlements is spent. Despite substantial settlement funds, many areas are investing in methods that some advocates argue are not the most effective in preventing overdoses. These include investing in equipment for scanning jail inmates for contraband and systems designed to neutralize unneeded prescription medications.
In West Virginia, Jackson County opted to use more than $500,000 of its settlement money on a first-responder training center and a shooting range, alongside $35,000 allocated to a quick response team that assists overdose survivors. Josh George, who is in recovery, criticized these decisions, noting that funds could have supported the county’s only recovery house, which relies heavily on volunteers.
Over the last eight years, various stakeholders, including drugmakers and pharmacy chains, have agreed to settlements to address lawsuits initiated by governments accusing them of propelling the opioid crisis. The opioid epidemic, a persistent issue since the late 1990s, has shifted from prescription drugs to substances like heroin and fentanyl, the latter being particularly lethal.
The settlement funds, which began distribution in 2022, are meant to continue until at least 2038. While these agreements demand the funds be used to combat the opioid crisis, they provide considerable leeway in execution. Christine Minhee, from Opioid Settlement Tracker, points out that less than $1 in $7 of the funds is managed by boards that include individuals with current or past drug use experience. Places lacking formal requirements might still feature such members.
Public health experts stress the importance of directing funds towards proven strategies that prevent drug use and enhance racial equity. However, some regions follow standard government spending procedures without assessing community needs or consulting experts. For instance, Renville County, Minnesota spent its settlement money on a body scanner to detect drugs on inmates. Sheriff Scott Hable defended the expenditure, noting the scanner’s utility in identifying contraband without strip searches.
This method of spending has drawn criticism from public health advocates like Alicia House of the Steve Rummler Hope Network. They argue that such decisions do not reflect the most urgent community needs and fail to prioritize life-saving measures.
In West Virginia, where the opioid impact is severe, the funds remain contested. Dick Waybright, Jackson County Commission President, defended the spending on training facilities, emphasizing sustainable investments. Meanwhile, community advocates like Tonia Ahern, who lost her son to an overdose, work towards developing community guidelines to better direct these funds.
There is an ongoing debate on how best to steer these financial resources, with some advocating for a transparent and inclusive decision-making process, prioritizing the voices of those who have firsthand experience with addiction.
As opioid settlements continue to be distributed, the inclusion of voices from those directly affected by substance use disorders remains limited. Without their input, there is concern that the allocated funds may not adequately address the epidemic’s root causes or provide the most effective solutions. Efforts to involve those with lived experiences in decision-making could prove critical in ensuring that resources are used to save lives and foster recovery.
Source: News4jax
