Mississippi lawmakers remove restrictions on local opioid settlement funds
Mississippi lawmakers on Thursday removed a key provision from an opioid settlement reform bill that would have required local governments to spend settlement funds on addiction prevention efforts. The unanimous decision by six negotiators means the bill, now headed to the full House and Senate, no longer specifies how local entities should allocate their share of the settlement money.
Since 2022, Mississippi has received over $130 million from lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies linked to the opioid epidemic. The state is projected to receive about $421 million by 2040. While all states received settlement funds, Mississippi is among the few that has allocated most of its share on legal fees, rather than addiction prevention. Local governments, which control about 15% of the funds, have spent less than $1 million on overdose prevention, according to Mississippi Today.
In response to concerns, House Public Health and Human Services Committee Chairman Rep. Sam Creekmore, R-New Albany, initially proposed legislation to require local governments to use their funds for public health measures. However, negotiators dropped that requirement, citing a lack of consensus. Creekmore expressed disappointment but said he supported the bill overall.
Sen. Nicole Boyd, R-Oxford, a lead sponsor, said the legislation reflects legal advice that funds allocated to local governments were meant as reimbursement for past expenses, not abatement. The bill also aims to enhance oversight of the state’s larger settlement funds, which are expected to total over $350 million, by strengthening advisory council rules and contracting with third-party evaluators.
James Moore, a recovery advocate from Hattiesburg who lost his son to an overdose, voiced support for some bill provisions but expressed disappointment that local funds can still be spent on non-addiction-related purposes. Moore said families affected by the epidemic would likely have pushed lawmakers to preserve restrictions that tie funds to public health efforts if the issue had been debated publicly.
Source: Original Article
