In the wake of a significant overdose crisis that has claimed over 9,000 lives in Mississippi since 2000, a strategic plan is being formed to allocate the substantial financial settlements obtained from pharmaceutical companies involved. While lawyers and lawmakers have crafted a distribution scheme, there are growing concerns among public health advocates and those deeply affected by the crisis that the funds may not be exclusively used to combat the epidemic.
Mississippi stands to gain $370 million from pharmaceutical companies that have profited amidst the addiction crisis. Of this amount, 85%, or approximately $315 million, is earmarked for state and local governments, with the Mississippi Legislature controlling this majority share. Over the past years, following initial settlements secured by the state’s attorney general in 2021, there has been ambiguity regarding how the state’s portion would be allocated and if it would effectively address the ongoing crisis.
State legislators made strides early this year by passing Senate Bill 2767, which provides a general framework for disbursing $259 million of the settlement funds. This includes forming a 15-member advisory council, comprising representatives from state government agencies, elected officials, and law enforcement, to create a grant application process for initiatives addressing the opioid addiction crisis.
Once applications are reviewed and recommendations made, the Legislature will retain the authority to approve or reject the council’s funding suggestions. Additionally, lawmakers have the discretion to allocate the remaining $56 million for any related or unrelated purposes. However, there has been no response from influential figures such as House Speaker Jason White and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann regarding their funding priorities.
Senator Nicole Boyd, who led the bill’s sponsorship, mentioned borrowing strategies from surrounding states to best address the opioid crisis impacts. She emphasized the wide-reaching influence of the crisis across multiple sectors, highlighting the necessity of comprehensive recommendations from various stakeholders.
Nevertheless, the legislation leaves certain aspects open, including the specifics of the grant application process, its public launch date, and evaluation criteria. This has prompted concern from public health advocates and individuals affected by addiction about the advisory council’s composition, where funds might be diverted unrelatedly, and the Legislature’s decisive control over fund allocation.
Jane Clair Tyner, whose 23-year-old son Asa Henderson tragically died due to substance abuse, emphasized that the funds should fortify Mississippi’s public health and protect those prone to overdosing. She cautioned against using these resources as a flexible financial reserve for the Legislature.
Originally, the plan didn’t envision the Legislature having such control over the settlement dollars. In 2021, as Mississippi was negotiating settlements, Attorney General Lynn Fitch released an agreement directing only a small fraction to the Legislature, with a substantial portion intended for the University of Mississippi Medical Center to establish an addiction medicine institute. The Legislature later modified this agreement to ensure funds address the state’s critical addiction challenges, employing an advisory council to identify these needs.
While this setup represents the highest percentage of settlement funds under legislative control in any state, experts like Dr. Caleb Alexander from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggest a diverse approach towards prevention and treatment efforts, potentially undercut by the legislative oversight. Alexander stressed the importance of dedicating all resources to the epidemic, asserting that alternative uses are unnecessary, given the abatement costs dwarf the available funds.
Senator Boyd expressed confidence in the Legislature’s motivation to target addiction, framing certain funds as “nonabatement” to enable broader strategies that might not fit within conventional definitions. This flexibility aligns with the national settlement agreements’ framework, although these agreements do recommend focusing resources on the opioid crisis.
Jason McCarty, former executive director of the Mississippi Harm Reduction Initiative, expressed relief that the initial plan to route most funds to UMMC is rejected. However, he voiced concerns that none of the committee’s voting members are required to have firsthand recovery experience. Boyd defended the committee’s composition as necessary to manage the complexities of the issue accurately.
As the timeline progresses, McCarty hopes for a responsible allocation of all funds to credible organizations dedicated to reducing opioid harm. He identified a pressing need for more housing and treatment resources, particularly for new parents, as potential areas the funding could enhance. Given the ongoing toll of overdose deaths, he urged expedited distribution and utilization of these crucial funds.