Iowa Senate panel kickstarts debate on spending opioid settlement money
Senate Study Bill 1226 would provide a $12 million grant for Community and Family Resources, an addiction recovery and treatment center in Fort Dodge and $30 million to Iowa HHS for efforts to 'abate the opioid crisis in the state,' taking into account recommendations from the seven district behavioral health advisory councils throughout the state.
Iowa state universities propose tuition increases for all students
Moving forward, the bill states 75% of unobligated money from the settlement fund will go to HHS and 25% will go to the Attorney General's office, to be disbursed 'in accordance with the requirements of the master settlement agreements.' Each year, the two entities will have to submit their recommendations on appropriating the funds for the next fiscal year to lawmakers as a bill, again with consideration for regional behavioral health advisory council recommendations.
Sen. Tim Kraayenbrink, R-Fort Dodge, said this bill will not necessarily be the final version of the legislation, but that he wanted to get the conversation started early to ensure that opioid settlement funding is distributed.
'We've been in negotiations a little bit with the House,' Kraayenbrink said. 'And I just think, rather than holding on and waiting for additional negotiations, we need to get a bill (moved) … and hopefully come to a resolution on what's going to happen.'
There is currently more than $56 million in Iowa's Opioid Settlement Fund, received as settlement in lawsuits brought by states against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies for their roles in the opioid epidemic. Iowa will receive more than $325 million from these settlements between fiscal years 2021 through 2039, according to the AG's office. The funds are split, with half going to local governments and half to the state — with both levels of government obligated to use at least 85% of the funds received for opioid addiction treatment and prevention services.
Lawmakers set up the Opioid Settlement Fund in 2022 to collect and distribute this money given to the state. However, the Legislature has not dispersed any of the fund's money in the past two sessions — disagreements between the House and Senate on how to allocate these funds were not resolved before the session ended in 2024.
Fertilizer byproduct leak causes fish kill in Fort Dodge creek, DNR says
The House had moved in 2024 to designate money to go to specific nonprofits — $3 million to Youth and Shelter Services and $8 million to Community and Family Resources. In the Senate proposal this year, $12 million was allocated for Community and Family Resources. Executive Director Michelle De La Riva told lawmakers at the subcommittee meeting the funding would go toward a new campus providing resources like a detox program and adolescent residential program.
When asked if other programs could be given direct funding in the 2025 bill, Kraayenbrink said more allocations could be made as negotiations occur between the two chambers.
'I don't know if I really see it being exactly like this when it's done, but this is just to get the momentum going,' he said.
Amy Campbell with the Iowa Behavioral Health Association praised the measure for including input from the district behavioral health advisory councils in the distribution of the funds. She said these councils will be able to see funding needs in their communities as disbursement begins from local governments and through the state.
'We think one of the good parts of this bill is actually getting that local input from the regional advisory board, since they will be on the ground and they're going to start seeing the gaps as the new system kind of comes online,' Campbell said. 'And I think they're in a good spot to be able to provide advice on that.'
The House had offered an amendment creating a grant program for settlement funds through HHS in addition to establishing an advisory council to oversee and make recommendations about funding these grants each year. The advisory council was not approved by the Senate, leaving the settlement funds undistributed last year. Kraayenbrink said he was not sure if House members would pursue this oversight component again, but said he wanted to ensure that negotiations begin on the Opioid Settlement Fund.
'I just felt, from a prudent standpoint of the Senate, is that I just can't sit and watch nothing happen again,' Kraayenbrink said. 'It's time that we at least move, and kind of force the conversation to be had.'
Income tax increases may become more difficult with Iowa Senate passing constitutional amendment
Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, said she supported starting the conversation on the settlement fund.
'I'm glad to see that we have this bill before us, because Iowans have been waiting too long with this money stuck in the freezer,' Petersen said. '… These dollars need to be getting out the door to help Iowans. We lost over 1,000 Iowans in the past five years, and we know people are struggling.'
The bill moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for further consideration.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators defend the NIH
WASHINGTON WATCH Senate appropriators came out hard in support of the National Institutes of Health on Thursday, giving the agency a $400 million funding boost for the 2026 fiscal year. How so: The Senate Appropriations Committee upped the agency's budget to $48.7 billion in the 2026 funding bill that cleared the panel with a 26-3 vote Thursday. If the bill becomes law, it would increase cancer research by $150 million; Alzheimer's research by $100 million and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, research by $25 million. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research on Women's Health would each get a $30 million boost. Research on maternal mortality, diabetes and rare diseases would also see an increase, among others. Why it matters: The funding boost is a rebuke from both Republicans and Democrats to the Trump administration's demand to decrease the NIH funding in the next fiscal year by as much as 40 percent, or $18 billion. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the legislation 'prioritizes funding to help make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the budget increase was a message to 'the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration. This committee's resounding message is: 'Yes, Congress has your back.'' Murray urged scientists to continue their research in the U.S. despite the efforts of other countries to lure them away. The appropriators also adopted an amendment Thursday that would limit the Trump administration's control over NIH research funding. An amendment in the bill's manager's package limits the administration's plan to shift funding for most NIH grants from a multiyear schedule to an upfront single-year payment. The amendment states that no funds appropriated in the fiscal 2026 spending bill can be used to increase the proportion of grants fully funded in the first year of the award, compared with fiscal 2024. The NIH can only increase that proportion of forward-funded grants if the agency ensures it isn't cutting grants to do so. What's next: The bill is cleared for floor action. But congressional leaders haven't started bipartisan negotiations toward overall government funding totals, increasing the odds that lawmakers will again resort to a stopgap funding patch before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Peacock feathers have reflective structures that can amplify light into a laser beam, Science reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WORLD VIEW A draft United Nations plan to make the world healthier no longer includes several targets cracking down on sugary drinks, trans fats and tobacco to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases globally. Struck down: A target of 80 percent of countries taxing sugary drinks at levels recommended by the World Health Organization by 2030, POLITICO's Rory O'Neill reports. That goal was a pillar of the initial draft, which will take the form of a nonbinding political declaration world leaders are expected to endorse at a Sept. 25 meeting in New York, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. The latest version has also dropped commitments to eliminate trans fats and aims instead to reduce them to the 'lowest level possible.' It also requires front-of-pack labels with nutritional information. A requirement for health warnings on tobacco packaging to be graphic and accompanied by elements that make it unattractive to consumers is also gone. The new draft has softer language on tobacco advertising, requiring countries to restrict it instead of eliminate it. 'Make no mistake, the Declaration in its current form is a backslide,' said Alison Cox, director of policy and advocacy at the NCD Alliance, in a statement. The alliance is a Switzerland-based civil society group working to promote chronic disease prevention. Why it matters: World leaders aim to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes by 2030 through prevention and treatment and to improve mental health and well-being globally. Noncommunicable diseases killed 18 million people under age 70 in 2021, according to the WHO. Most deaths were in low- and middle-income countries. The aims align with the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda, but it's unclear how much the U.S. is involved in drafting the final text. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Negotiators are meeting this week in New York to discuss the text.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Senate Committee Endorses NIH Budget Increase, Goes Against Trump's 40% Cut
You know that whole checks and balances thing laid out by the U.S. Constitution? It's where Congress is not supposed to automatically agree with what the Executive Branch of the U.S. government wants to do. Well, on Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee essentially checked what U.S. President Donald Trump has been trying to do to the National Institutes of Health and showed that it doesn't quite agree. In its budget for the U.S. government's 2026 fiscal year, the Trump Administration had proposed a rather massive $18 billion cut to he NIH, which would amount to a 40% chop in funding from fiscal year 2025 levels. But the Senate Committee ended up voting for kind of the opposite: a bill and budget that would give the NIH a $400 million budget increase. The Senate Budget Would Include Modest Increases For The NIH This budget increase would include a $30 million bump in funding to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a $50 million bump to the National Cancer Institute, bringing the total funding to these two institutes up to $6.59 billion, and $7.37 billion, respectively. There's also an $12 million increase in funding for the longstanding BRAIN Initiative, which has supported different researchers across the country to study and better understand, you guessed, the brain. That's after this heady initiative had suffered cuts for the past two years. All in all, the currently proposed Senate budget would leave the NIH's total budget for FY 2026 at $48.7 billion. The Senate Budget Includes All 27 NIH Institutes And Centers Not only that. The preliminary budget that emerged from the Senate committee kept all current 27 NIH institutes and centers essentially intact. That's notable because it goes against the Trump Administration's plan to go bye-bye-bye to many of these centers and institutes and effectively shrink the NIH. For example, soon after he took office, Trump issued an Executive Order that has led to the termination of numerous federal grants that mention diversity, equity or inclusion in some way. Many of these grants were originally issued by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. But the Senate Committee kept the NIMHD budget for FY 2026 essentially the same as it was this past year. The Senate Budget Does Not Include The AHA Plan From RFK, Jr. And there weren't any AHA moments in the Senate budget, so to speak. AHA is the acronym for the Administration for a Healthy America, the name of the agency that U.S. Department of Health and Human Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been wanting to create. Kennedy has sought to eliminate many existing health programs across different government agencies and then roll them into the new AHA. But the Senate bill made no mention of this plan and basically ignored it. I am reaching out to contacts at HHS and NIH for their reactions. The Senate Budget Maintain NIH Funding Rates For Indirect Costs Finally, the Senate committee essentially said, 'Oh, no you don't' to the Trump Administration's plans to cap funding for indirect cost payments at a 15% rate. Such a rate would be well below what they've been for most universities, academic medical centers and other research organizations, as I've detailed previously in Forbes. That's prompted lawsuits against the Trump Administration that led to a federal judge blocking the proposed indirect cost funding change and the Trump Administration appealing the ruling. The Senate Committee Vote For The NIH Bill Was A Bipartisan 26-3 And the vote wasn't a party all the time situation either. The committee voted 26-3 for all of the above, which meant that the vote wasn't simply split across party lines as so many Congressional votes seem to go these days. No, this looked like bipartisan opposition to what the Trump Administration wants to do to the NIH. Prominent Republican supporters of the bill included Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Could this be a 'Back to the Future' situation where the NIH has support from both major political parties? Perhaps. Historically, at least until recent years, the NIH has enjoyed bipartisan support, probably because most people are in favor of the whole find-and-fund-new-ways-to-prevent-and-treat-disease thing that the NIH has been doing. Of course, the budget wrangling is far from done. The Senate still has to go through the rest of the appropriations process, which undoubtedly will include more wheeling and dealing and maybe at least a few social media posts from who knows who. Then there's the other side of Congress, the House of Representatives, that has to go through the whole appropriations thing as well. Plus, the White House and its Office of Management and Budget have continued to take steps that appear to bypass Congress's authority to oversee the budget for the NIH. For example, last week, the NIH had implemented what would be a major shift in how it issues grant funding to external researchers. The longstanding policy was that if you were awarded say a five-year grant, the funding for each year would come from that year's NIH budget. Going forward, the NIH wants to change it so that the entire five years of funding would be issued from the NIH budget year corresponding to the first year of the grant. This would severely limit and drop the number of awards that the NIH could issue in a given year. And earlier this week, the OMB tried to put a pause on the NIH issuing any new grants, as I described in Forbes. But when blowback ensued, the White House put a pause on this pause, reversed course and allowed the NIH to issue funding to external researchers again. The concern is that such shifts in policies and pauses as well as grant terminations may be ways to slash the NIH budget without the approval of Congress. Nevertheless, after several months of the Trump Administration cutting and terminating NIH grants, contracts, personnel and influence seemingly with impunity, this marks the first big, concrete pushback from Congress. It is a reminder that it's Congress and not the White House or the rest Executive Branch that ultimately decides who gets what money. Congress was bestowed that power by that thing called the U.S. Constitution. This separation of powers was done to prevent any single branch or person from becoming too powerful and basically take over the country.
Politico
8 hours ago
- Politico
Trump's top brass turnover hits HHS
With help from Robert King Driving the Day YOU'RE FIRED! Since taking office, President Donald Trump has brusquely removed a number of top officials from their positions across departments who didn't align politically with his administration. That upheaval has included a string of high-profile firings across the nation's health agencies. The pattern of dismissals highlights the growing tension between science and politics as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. implements his Make America Healthy Again agenda and reshapes federal policy on disease prevention, food and vaccines. Most recently, the FDA's top vaccine regulator, Vinay Prasad, was given the boot after just three months on the job. The president ordered his removal this week, overriding Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who opposed the move. Background: Earlier this month, close Trump ally Laura Loomer began attacking Prasad, writing on her website that he was a 'progressive leftist saboteur undermining President Trump's FDA.' Other conservative voices, like former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and The Wall Street Journal editorial board, piled onto the criticism of Prasad and his approach to rare disease therapies under the FDA's purview — a concern that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) raised with the White House on Monday, a day before Prasad was fired. Prasad's predecessor, Dr. Peter Marks, was also unceremoniously pushed out of the position four months ago, after leading the FDA's vaccine division for more than eight years. In March, Marks abruptly resigned from his post as the FDA's top vaccine regulator under pressure from Kennedy after his team concluded they needed a fresh start as part of a broader HHS reorganization. The ouster came as Marks had grown increasingly concerned by Kennedy's attitude toward vaccines and was particularly at odds with the secretary over his tepid response to the Texas measles outbreak. 'If Peter Marks does not want to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency, then he has no place at FDA under the strong leadership of Secretary Kennedy,' an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO in a statement at the time. Zooming out: And there's also been upheaval among Trump's nominees for top positions at HHS. The White House abruptly scrapped former Florida Rep. David Weldon's nomination to lead the CDC in March, just hours before his confirmation hearing, after determining he didn't have the support to win confirmation on the Senate floor. Some Senate Republicans had expressed concerns about Weldon's fringe views on vaccines. Trump also withdrew his first nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, in May, a day before her scheduled Senate confirmation hearing. The decision came after reports that Nesheiwat, an urgent care doctor and former Fox News contributor, obfuscated facts about her medical education. At the time, Loomer seized on the controversy and encouraged Trump to pick someone else. Hours after pulling Nesheiwat's nomination, Trump tapped wellness influencer Casey Means to serve as surgeon general. Means, the sister of top Kennedy adviser Calley Means, is still awaiting confirmation. WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. President Donald Trump gave drugmakers an ultimatum yesterday: Lower your prices or face unknown consequences. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. Eye on Insurers STRONG EARNINGS FOR TWO KEY PLAYERS — Major health insurers Aetna and Cigna both reported strong financial results for the second quarter of 2025 on Thursday, despite the rising medical cost trends plaguing other major insurers this year. At CVS Health's Aetna, which shook up its leadership last year after it struggled to control costs with more members seeking medical care, has seen continual improvements in cost savings throughout 2025, executives said during an earnings call Thursday. Making improvements at Aetna 'has been a top priority' the company executed by enhancing its operations through technology and reducing 'friction for our members and health care professionals,' said David Joyner, CEO of CVS Health. He pointed to changes Aetna made to its prior approval requirements — bundling prior authorizations for certain services like maternity care. 'We're starting to see the results of these efforts, delivering better experiences while also allowing us to better navigate this elevated utilization environment,' he said. At Cigna, executives reaffirmed their 2025 guidance on Thursday. Its pharmacy business, Evernorth Health Services, drove a spike in revenue in the second quarter, even as its insurance segment's revenue declined. Cigna's cost trends were elevated in the second quarter but still in line with its expectations, said Cigna President and COO Brian Evanko during an earnings call. Key context: Other key players in the health insurance space, including Centene, Molina Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group, have slashed their yearly guidance over the past few months, citing rising medical costs across Medicaid, Obamacare and Medicare Advantage. At the Agencies CMS FINALIZES HOSPITAL PAY BUMP — The Trump administration finalized on Thursday a $5 billion increase in payments to hospitals for inpatient care, Robert reports. The pay bump from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services takes effect in the next federal fiscal year that begins in October. It also includes a $2 billion bump in payments to hospitals with a high amount of charity care. Vaccines COVID VACCINE CONFUSION — Most Americans don't expect to get a Covid-19 vaccine this fall, according to a KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust published today. Nearly 60 percent of adults said they likely wouldn't get the shot, while 40 percent said they would 'definitely' or 'probably' get it — mostly older adults (55 percent) and Democrats (70 percent). Among Republicans, 59 percent said they would 'definitely not' get the vaccine. Most adults who plan to get the shot said they're concerned about the vaccine's availability and whether their insurance will cover it. Why it matters: The findings come after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, announced in May that the government would no longer recommend Covid vaccines for healthy pregnant people and children. The move has sparked pushback from public health experts and doctors — including some who sued Kennedy — arguing the move violated longstanding norms governing U.S. immunization policy. The agency ultimately didn't pull the recommendation from the CDC vaccine panel's childhood schedule and instead downgraded it to 'shared decisionmaking' — a differentiation that doctor groups say has made it harder for providers to counsel patients and for practices to assess insurance coverage. Kennedy and other top HHS officials have said there isn't sufficient data to show that healthy children and healthy pregnant women benefited from Covid vaccination. In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC's independent vaccine panel and replaced them with several vaccine skeptics. The panel recommends vaccines that insurers are then largely obligated to cover with no cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act. More findings: About half of parents with children under 18 said they don't know whether federal agencies recommend healthy children get the Covid vaccine this fall, according to the KFF poll. About 20 percent of adults said Kennedy's vaccine policy changes are making people safer, while 36 percent said they're making people less safe. The remainder said they don't know enough to say (31 percent) or that Kennedy's changes won't make a difference (13 percent). The national poll was conducted from July 8 to 14 online and by telephone among 1,283 U.S. adults. In the States KRATOM WARS — Federal health officials' push to schedule a controversial herbal supplement as a controlled substance has revived efforts among California lawmakers to regulate the product, called kratom, POLITICO's Rachel Bluth reports. Earlier this week, HHS took initial steps toward classifying a derivative of kratom, 7-hydroxymitragynine, as a controlled substance after seeing a rise in overdoses and emergency-room visits linked to products containing 7-OH. The designation would place restrictions on the substance's production, distribution and possession. Washington's efforts to assert control have spurred California Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains to revisit her earlier attempt to regulate kratom in the state, which stalled partly because of competing messaging lawmakers received from makers of products that use leaves of the kratom plant and those using newer, more potent derivatives. Key context: The faction of the industry making natural leaf-based products, which previously had been the target of suspicion from drug enforcement and public health officials, is seizing on the opportunity to make the case that natural leaf products should be legitimized through regulations and 7-OH cordoned off as a separate, more dangerous product. Proponents of the products say they can be a substitute for opioid pain relievers. The 7-OH manufacturers, meanwhile, dispute claims that their products are opioids or resemble heroin. They see themselves as offering newer, better products that entice customers and leave legacy brands behind. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Carmen Paun reports on the Senate Appropriations Committee's approval of a 2026 funding bill for HHS. The Associated Press' Mike Stobbe reports on the fall in U.S. childhood vaccination rates last year as the share of children with exemptions rose to an all-time high. BioPharma Dive's Delilah Alvarado reports on Moderna laying off 10 percent of its workforce as part of an effort to cut expenses amid slowing vaccine sales.
