Across the United States, settlement money is being distributed to combat the opioid addiction and overdose epidemic that has plagued the nation for decades. However, there are concerns that some of this funding may not be utilized effectively to address the crisis. With over 800,000 deaths linked to opioids since 1999, including a significant number involving illicitly produced fentanyl, advocates are urging state and local governments to use the money wisely to implement proven methods to prevent further deaths.
The opioid crisis has resulted in more than 100 settlements between drugmakers, wholesalers, pharmacies, and state and local governments in the past decade. These settlements, totaling more than $50 billion over nearly two decades, come with requirements for improved prescription monitoring and the public disclosure of company documents. The goal is to use the funds to provide treatment for those struggling with opioid addiction, reduce the likelihood of drug overdoses, and create an environment that discourages drug use.
While the majority of the funds will be controlled by local governments, concerns have been raised about their capacity to effectively allocate the money. The fear is that resources may not be directed to projects that address the root causes of addiction and overdose. It is crucial that communities conduct assessments of their needs, gather public input, and devise strategic plans for using the funds to combat the crisis. The hope is that by using the settlement money wisely, towns and cities can make a significant impact on reducing opioid-related deaths.
Personal tragedies, such as the death of Navy veteran King Shaffer Jr. from a fentanyl and heroin overdose, have motivated families like Suzanne Harrison’s to take action. Harrison and her family launched a nonprofit in honor of her brother to provide access to treatment and recovery programs in New Jersey. By partnering with Burlington County, they have been able to distribute overdose antidotes and run programs for children affected by addiction. This approach has been more effective than leaving the allocation of funds solely to local governments, as it ensures the money is used for initiatives that directly address the crisis.
In some New Jersey communities, the spending of settlement funds has been criticized for lacking community needs assessments and strategic planning. While efforts to connect individuals with treatment services and provide resources like school supplies and mental health information have been made, the lack of comprehensive planning has raised concerns among experts. Advocates stress the importance of involving organizations with expertise in addiction prevention and treatment to ensure the funds are used effectively to combat the opioid epidemic.
In contrast to New Jersey, Arkansas has taken a collaborative approach by pooling settlement funds through the Arkansas Opioid Recovery Partnership. This initiative has allowed for the distribution of grants to various projects aimed at addressing the crisis, such as hiring overdose investigators and peer recovery specialists. By centralizing the decision-making process, underserved parts of the state have been able to benefit from funding to improve treatment, recovery, and prevention systems. This approach serves as a model for comprehensive and strategic use of settlement funds to combat the opioid epidemic on a broader scale.
