By GARRETT BERGQUIST
WISH-TV | wishtv.com
Drug abuse treatment advocates said Friday they hope some cities reconsider their plans to opt out of the opioid settlement.
Indiana is supposed to receive up to $507 million from the $26 billion settlement with opioid manufacturers that was concluded last summer. State lawmakers approved legislation that would send 70 percent of the total into the state’s coffers for the sole purpose of funding opioid addiction treatment and prevention programs. A number of Indiana cities have since opted out of the agreement, instead pursuing their own lawsuits. This reduced the money Indiana could receive from the settlement.
On Wednesday, in an effort to bring those cities back into the fold, the Indiana House unanimously approved a fix. Under the bill, 35 percent of the settlement money would go to cities, towns and counties to fund their treatment programs.
The move heartened advocates, including Brandon George, the Indiana Addiction Issues Coalition director. He said grants are the primary source of funding for drug abuse treatment programs in Indiana, and organizations that provide such services must re-apply for grants every year. George said the settlement money will provide a steady flow of funding for some 10 to 15 years.
“This bill looks like it’s really going to get help get the cities, towns and municipalities back to the table,” George said, “which will ensure that Indiana can get as much money as possible out of the settlement, and that is by far the No. 1 concern.”
Natasha Newcomb, deputy chief of addiction services for Hamilton Center in Terre Haute, said her case workers are seeing more people with opioid addictions than ever. She said Hamilton Center provides services in 11 counties, including an opioid program in Plainfield, and each of those counties has a different set of needs.
“Maybe they need more outpatient substance abuse treatment in that county, (then) we will work to get a provider to be able to provide that service,” Newcomb said. “We really work to be a support for the communities that we serve. If they have an identified need, we do what we can to fill that need.”
Newcomb said giving local officials more access to the settlement money is a smart move because local officials know where the service gaps are and which areas have been hit the hardest. She said letting those officials opt back into the settlement means her organization could afford to start more programs.
George said the key with any legislation related to the opioid settlement is to ensure money goes to opioid addiction services. He said advocates want to avoid a repeat of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Funding from that agreement was supposed to cover tobacco prevention and cessation programs but, in many cases, went to other uses, such as economic redevelopment in historically tobacco-dependent areas.
George said the bill the House approved would keep the settlement money focused on addiction services. He said he hopes the Senate keeps it that way.