We have money to fight Kentucky's opioid crisis. Let's not waste it.
For decades, Kentucky has been on the front lines of the opioid crisis, suffering deeply as addiction, overdose and despair ripped through our communities. But today, for the first time in a generation, we have the tools — and the funding — to finally fight back.
Thanks to landmark settlements with pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, states and municipalities across the country will receive over $50 billion in opioid abatement funding over the next 18 years. Kentucky alone is poised to receive more than $800 million. These funds represent an unprecedented opportunity to reverse the damage done and build a recovery system that works — not only for those battling substance use disorder (SUD) today but for future generations as well.
But with this opportunity comes a responsibility that we cannot afford to squander.
Already, we're seeing the warning signs. A yearlong investigation by KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) Health News, along with researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and the national nonprofit, Shatterproof, found many jurisdictions used settlement funds on items and services with tenuous, if any, connections to addiction.
These choices may help balance ledgers, but they fundamentally betray the purpose of these funds. This money was not awarded to maintain the status quo. As Robert Kent, former general counsel for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, put it, 'Certainly, the spirit of the settlements wasn't to keep doing what you're doing. It was to do more."
Kentucky must not follow this path.
To be sure, the temptation is real. Counties face budgetary constraints, state agencies are stretched thin and public servants are overdue for raises. But the long-term cost of misusing these funds will far exceed any short-term relief. Not only could such decisions lead to clawbacks of funds or disqualifications for future disbursements under the terms of the settlement agreements, they would also represent a tragic missed opportunity to finally turn the tide in our battle against addiction.
Gerth: I work with people battling addiction. Trump's tariffs won't stop fentanyl. | Opinion
Fortunately, Kentucky has already shown it knows how to lead.
In 2022, our legislature passed a landmark initiative — the Behavioral Health Conditional Dismissal Program. Backed by $10.5 million in opioid settlement funds, this four-year pilot program provides an alternative to incarceration for individuals charged with certain non-violent, non-sexual misdemeanors and Class D felonies. Instead of jail, eligible participants are evaluated by medical professionals and offered treatment for SUD and/or other mental health conditions. The goal is to use data to create a replicable, collaborative model that breaks the cycle of addiction, reduces recidivism and restores lives.
Early signs are promising, and the legislature is rightly considering expansion. This is exactly the kind of innovative, evidence-based programming that Kentucky should prioritize as we distribute settlement funds.
Other models from across the country offer inspiration as well. In several jurisdictions, police departments are now pairing with mental health professionals for real-time crisis intervention. These partnerships reduce trauma for both officers and individuals in crisis, lead to more humane outcomes and, ultimately, save taxpayer dollars by reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and incarcerations.
The opioid epidemic has already claimed more than 600,000 lives nationally. While recent data from the CDC show a hopeful 17% decline in opioid overdose deaths between July 2023 and July 2024, this drop is not a sign to become complacent — it's a sign that smart policy and targeted investment can work.
Opinion: Pope Leo and the Catholic Church, not Trump, should point the way for our future
And we'll need them. More potent synthetic opioids like nitazenes and dangerous additives like xylazine ('tranq') are beginning to enter the illicit drug supply. Without aggressive investment in innovative treatment options and infrastructure, public education, harm reduction and law enforcement support, we risk falling behind again just as we're beginning to catch up.
Let this be a turning point — not a footnote.
Kentucky's business leaders, health care providers, civic institutions and elected officials must all align around one unifying principle: These funds will be used for their intended purpose — to address the opioid crisis.
That means rejecting the temptation to misuse funds to paper over fiscal problems or bankroll unrelated projects. It means providing accountability and transparency. And it means staying focused on building a future in which fewer families grieve, fewer children are left behind and more Kentuckians live free from the grip of addiction.
This is our shot. Let's not waste it.
Vickie Yates Glisson is a lawyer and arbitrator who focuses her practice on health care and health insurance issues. She is president and founder of VYBG Consulting, PLLC and former secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: KY can't afford to waste funds to fight the opioid crisis | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republicans are also sweating Medicaid cuts in Big Beautiful Bill, poll finds
More than four in 10 Republicans are worried about the Medicaid cuts being contemplated as a part of President Donald Trump's domestic policy mega-bill, a reminder that key parts of President Donald Trump's base also stand to be adversely impacted by the sprawling legislation. One-third of respondents to the new KFF poll identify as MAGA Republicans, reflecting the overall enrollment in the joint state/federal health care program. Among enrollees, more than a quarter are Republican, including 1 in 5 who identify as MAGA Republicans, according to the pollWhil. Republicans who control the U.S. Senate now have the bill, which passed the U.S. House by a single vote late last month. The upper chamber is contemplating its own changes to the legislation, which would blow up the deficit and impose sweeping social service cuts as it seeks to make Trump's first-term tax cuts permanent. The poll found that a large majority of rural Americans and those with lower household incomes, another key part of Trump's base, are worried that Medicaid reductions would lead to more children and adults losing coverage. They said they also feared it would harm health care providers in their communities and make it more difficult for them and their families to access care, according to the poll. Those findings broke down along partisan lines. Nonetheless, half of rural Republicans said they were worried about people becoming uninsured, according to the poll. Rural health care providers, who often rely on Medicaid funding, may be "especially vulnerable to the decreased federal spending included in the reconciliation bill," according to KFF pollsters. Public views on how the Republican White House's policies will impact the nation's health care system are largely partisan. But overall, most of the public says the administration's policies will weaken Medicaid and Medicare, including most Democrats and independents. Republicans said they expect those policies to strengthen or have no impact on these programs. Read More: A 'historic battle': Mass pols protest Medicaid cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' | John L. Micek Among Republican Medicaid enrollees, however, 'views are mixed with similar shares saying the policies will strengthen, weaken, or have no impact on the program they rely on,' according to the poll. In Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey and her allies in the state Legislature have predicted grim consequences for MassHealth, as Medicaid is known in the Bay State. As it's currently written, the bill that passed the U.S. House by a single vote last week would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion over a decade, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. That would cost the state's health care system $1.75 billion, affecting 250,000 people statewide, MassLive previously reported. This is my classroom. ICE isn't welcome here. What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump Harvard relinquishes possession of slave photos after years-long dispute Trump says Musk has 'lost his mind' as he disses peace offering Judge blocks Trump admin from banning Harvard international students from entering US Read the original article on MassLive.
Axios
20 hours ago
- Axios
D.C. schools are banning cellphones, joining almost half of the nation
D.C.'s public schools will enforce a cell phone ban starting next school year, the district said on Friday. Why it matters: D.C. joins nearly half the country in the bipartisan push to limit students' cellphone use in the classroom. D.C. middle schools and several of its high schools already implemented the ban, the district said. Catch up quick: Phone bans have gained momentum across Democratic and Republican state legislatures in recent years. Arizona, Arkansas and New York 's governors signed bills into law this year to implement bans. By the numbers: As of April, 11 statewide phone bans or restrictions were implemented and seven states issued policy recommendations, according to health nonprofit KFF. An additional 17 states introduced legislation to ban or restrict cellphone use in schools. State of play: The phone bans are aimed at boosting students' attention during class as they struggle to recover from COVID learning loss. Screen time is also partially at fault for a youth mental health crisis, research has found. What they're saying: "Piloting a phone-free program in our middle schools demonstrated that storing students' personal devices throughout the school day enriches academic, social, and emotional learning," Lewis Ferebee, D.C. schools chancellor, said in a statement. "From increased classroom engagement to reduced anxiety and stronger student relationships — DCPS is ready to scale the program so we can keep driving outcomes that positively impact our students." What we're watching: Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) reintroduced a bipartisan bill in February to study the effects of cellphones in schools, but the legislation has not seen movement since. The bill proposes $5 million annually for five years for a pilot program to provide schools with secure containers for the phones. It would allow exceptions for students with health conditions, disabilities and non-English speakers.
Newsweek
20 hours ago
- Newsweek
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican. A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees. This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. Why It Matters Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks. While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans. In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA. "As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does." The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees. Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do." House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors. Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found. "It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances." Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify." What Happens Next Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage. "The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed." "Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."
