logo
Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis

Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis

In the fallout of over 9,000 Mississippians dying of overdoses since 2000, lawyers and lawmakers have set up a plan to distribute the hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations that catalyzed the crisis. But public health advocates and Mississippians closest to the public health catastrophe worry the setup could enable these dollars to be spent on purposes other than ending the overdose epidemic.
Mississippi is expected to receive $370 million from pharmaceutical companies that profited while people struggled with addiction. That payout is set to be split between the state and local governments, with 85%, or about $315 million, being controlled by the Legislature. For years after the state attorney general's office helped finalize the first settlements in 2021, it was unclear how the state would distribute its share and how much would be used to prevent the crisis from persisting.
State senators and representatives took a major step toward answering these questions earlier this year. They nearly unanimously passed Senate Bill 2767, a law that outlines a general framework for how about $259 million of the funds will be distributed.
A 15-person advisory council — made up of representatives for state government agencies, elected officials and law enforcement officials — will develop a grant application process for organizations focused on addressing the opioid addiction crisis.
After evaluating the applications and making a list of which grants should be funded, the Legislature will decide whether to approve or deny each of the council's recommendations.
The state lawmakers can spend the remaining $56 million they control for any purpose — related or unrelated to addressing addiction.
House Speaker Jason White and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who wield massive power over lawmakers and how state funds are spent, did not respond to questions from Mississippi Today about their priorities for the funds.
Sen. Nicole Boyd, a Republican from Oxford and the bill's lead sponsor, said she and other senators borrowed some ideas from surrounding states to determine how these funds could best prevent more fallout from the opioid crisis.
'It involves everything, from child welfare services to the judicial system to medical care to mental health services,' she said. 'It is a crisis that has affected every aspect of society, and we needed a comprehensive group of people making those recommendations.'
However, the bill leaves some questions unanswered, like how the application process will work, when it will open to the public and how grants will be evaluated.
Public health advocates and Mississippians impacted by addiction expressed concern about the advisory council's makeup, the $56 million carveout for expenses unrelated to the opioid crisis and the Legislature's final decision-making power. They said those provisions could cause some of the corporate defendants' dollars to be spent on issues other than addressing and preventing overdoses.
Jane Clair Tyner, a Hattiesburg resident, lost her 23-year-old son Asa Henderson in 2019 after he struggled for years with substance use disorder. Until last month, through her former job with the Mississippi overdose prevention nonprofit End It For Good, she worked to ensure that fewer parents have to go through the pain her family experienced.
She said the only ways these state settlement dollars should be spent are on improving Mississippi public health and keeping people who are at risk of overdosing safe.
'That's what it should go towards, but not to the Legislature,' she said. 'This is not a rainy day slush fund.'
An evolving plan
It wasn't always the plan for the Legislature to control so much of the settlement dollars. In 2021, when Mississippi and other states were in the midst of negotiating settlements, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch published an agreement between the state and local governments that would send only 15% to the Legislature's general fund.
The agreement said that the bulk of the money – 70% – would be sent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center to build a new addiction medicine institute. But Mississippi law says the Legislature is the ultimate decision maker for how this type of state settlement money gets spent, according to Fitch's Chief of Staff Michelle Williams.
So lawmakers passed their bill to change the plan.
The Legislature changed the arrangement to make sure the money goes to where the state's most pressing addiction needs are, said Boyd. The advisory council, which will be supplemented by at least 22 additional nonvoting members, is a good way to have those needs captured, she said.
As for the Legislature having final approval power, Boyd said that and other provisions were put into the bill to keep some power with lawmakers if the council becomes ineffective or political.
It's the highest percentage of any state's opioid settlement share that will be controlled by a Legislature, according to the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program and OpioidSettlementTracker.com's state guides.
Dr. Caleb Alexander, an epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, served as one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses for some of the opioid lawsuits. Alexander has also helped U.S. cities and counties develop blueprints for how to use the settlements to quell their opioid crises.
He said using the money on a variety of prevention, treatment and recovery strategies, rather than one big project, is likely a better way to save lives and prevent more addiction. But having the Legislature, rather than an apolitical body of addiction experts, play such a large role is not the setup he would suggest.
'I would have some concerns that it may gum things up,' he said.
Additionally, Alexander said creating ways for funds to not be used to address the opioid epidemic, as the 2025 bill does, is 'a shame.' While the settlement agreements say that 70% of the funds must be spent on addressing addiction, there is nothing that prevents all the money from being used for the crisis, and most statesare doing that.
He said the settlements define a wide variety of uses as addressing the epidemic — from first responder training to medication research and development — and he doesn't see a scenario where it makes sense to spend the money on other uses.
'The costs of abatement far outweigh the available funds for every city or county that I've examined,' he said.
Boyd said she believes her colleagues in the House and Senate are all motivated to use this money to address addiction as a mental health condition. She said the new bill categorizes some funds as 'nonabatement' to free them up for ways to address addiction that may not fit neatly into the settlements' list of uses.
The attorney general's original plan was the first to categorize a percentage of the funds as not needing to be used to stop the opioid crisis. Williams said it was written that way to match the terms of the national settlement agreements, although the settlement for the largest payout says spending on purposes other than addressing the opioid crisis is 'disfavored by the parties.'
She said Fitch would love to see all the funds be spent on addiction response and prevention, like the One Pill Can Kill campaign the office runs.
'But it's the Legislature's prerogative,' she said.
'Where are the people in recovery?'
Jason McCarty, the Mississippi Harm Reduction Initiative's former executive director, said he's glad the plan is no longer to send such a large portion of the settlement funds to UMMC. Organizations like the Initiative, he said, also could use additional support to keep Mississippians from dying.
And he's concerned that while a peer recovery specialist will serve as a nonvoting member, none of the committee's 15 voting members must be people who've experienced addiction.
'Where are the people in recovery?' he asked. 'We're the subject matter experts.'
Boyd said many of the voting committee roles are representatives of state agencies that she expects will help administer the settlement grants, like the Department of Mental Health. And there were only so many people who the Legislature can assign spots.
'It was no slight to anybody,' she said. 'It's just, this is a completely complex issue.'
The Mississippi governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house will each assign two people to the committee, and Boyd said it's possible they will choose people in recovery.
The bill says council members need to be appointed by early June.
However the process plays out, McCarty hopes all the state's funds go to reputable organizations focused on preventing more opioid-related harm. In Mississippi, he sees a lack of housing and treatment options, especially for new parents, as areas that this money can help address.
And as hundreds of Mississippians continue to die from overdoses each year, he said the state government has to move quickly and responsibly to make these funds available.
'We don't have a year to wait. It needs to go out quicker.'
___
This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day

Bloomberg

time26 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day

An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.

Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?

Medscape

time30 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?

CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store