Senate panel kickstarts debate on spending opioid settlement money
Iowa lawmakers are trying again pass legislation designating how to spend money from the state's Opioid Settlement Fund. (Photo by Darwin Brandis/iStock Getty Images Plus)
A Senate subcommittee moved forward a bill Monday allocating $42 million from the Opioid Settlement Fund to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to combat the impacts of the opioid crisis.
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.
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.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
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.'
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.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
GOP Candidate Says Number of Women on Birth Control 'Concerning'
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. A Minnesota GOP Senate candidate has said that he finds the number of women on birth control "concerning" because the pills not only change female hormones but also change the kind of men women are attracted to. Adam Schwarze told Heartland Signal, a local radio show reporting predominantly in the Midwest, that birth control was making women more attracted to "beta" men as opposed to "alpha cavemen." Newsweek has contacted Schwarze via social media for comment. Why It Matters Access to birth control and reproductive rights has come into the spotlight since President Donald Trump started his second term as president, and requests for contraceptives, including long-term birth control and "morning after" pills and abortion pills, soared after his election victory. After Roe v Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, taking the constitutional right to abortion away from American women, concerns about what the Trump administration's plans are for reproductive rights have been escalating. While the Republican base in America is comprised of a large proportion of religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians and Catholics, who oppose birth control, a 2024 Navigator Research survey found that 74 percent of Americans believed birth control should be easier to access. File photo: birth control pills. File photo: birth control pills. Serge Pouzet/Sipa via AP What To Know Schwarze also told Heartland Signal that because of the influence birth control pills are having on women and their attractions, U.S. society as a whole is becoming more "pacified." "It's actually kind of concerning because it's changing our culture and values because of birth control," he said, adding it was "fascinating but also scary." Saying that a lot of women are now using birth control, he added: "We are changing our society away from men who are alphas, providers, protectors, doers, builders for these effeminate girly boys." According to research by KFF last year, 82 percent of American women of reproductive age reported having used some form of contraception in the past 12 months. There are some studies that have indicated the birth control pill, i.e. an oral contraceptive, could influence what features women are attracted to in men, with one 2013 study finding that "initiation of pill use significantly decreased women's preferences for male facial masculinity." A 2011 study also investigated the relationship outcomes of women using the pill but stated that "we know neither whether these laboratory-measured effects are sufficient to exert real-world consequences, nor what these consequences would be." The reasons behind possible changes to attraction have been attributed to female hormone levels, however there is still limited research on the subject and more rigorous studies are needed in order to determine whether birth control changes what kind of men women are attracted to. What People Are Saying Minnesota GOP Senate candidate Adam Schwarze said during a radio interview with Heartland Signal: "There is a study that's getting popularity and more widely known that women on birth control, it actually changes your hormones and your attractions, so women who are on birth control, and this is more Democrats who are on birth control than conservatives because of some religious reasons, but it actually changes who you are attracted to and there's multiple reports on this, ... of girls who leave birth control when they want to start families or just decide to do a different method of pregnancy prevention, that they leave their partners because they are not attracted to them because birth control makes you attracted to betas." What Happens Next The Trump administration has passed an executive order to prevent federal funding of elective abortion, alongside ending "the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion," however, it is not yet clear if the administration plans to alter women's access to birth control.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate Democrats file bill to prevent ban on transgender military service
Democratic lawmakers will submit a bill in the Senate on Tuesday that would reverse the Pentagon's new ban on transgender military service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria who now face being forced out if they had not previously self-identified as transgender. The "Fit to Serve Act" would prohibit the Defense Department from banning transgender service members from serving in the military. If passed, the law would prevent the Defense Department from denying access to healthcare on the basis of gender identity, and it would also prohibit the military from forcing service members to serve in their sex assigned at birth. It would also make it illegal for the military to discriminate against service members on the basis of gender identity. MORE: Transgender US service members will be separated from military, Pentagon memo says The Defense Department's policy was required by an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office that banned transgender individuals from serving in the military. In outlining the policy in a memo issued in late February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote that " individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service." "We recruit and train the best and bravest to protect our country -- losing highly qualified service members, who meet strict standards to join the military, makes us less safe," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is the lead sponsor of the bill that is being filed in the Senate on Tuesday, which was first announced last month. "By prohibiting this discrimination on the basis of gender identity, this legislation will help to ensure transgender individuals who are qualified to serve may do so" said Sen. Marie Hirono, D-Hawaii, one of the bill's co-sponsors. Under the Pentagon's new policy, transgender service members had until June 6 to self-identify and begin the process of voluntary separation. With the passing of that deadline, the Pentagon has begun a process of involuntary separation of service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is defined as "psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one's sex assigned at birth and one's gender identity." Ahead of that deadline, the Pentagon said more than 1,000 service members had self-identified as having been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. It is unclear whether that number increased ahead of the deadline or how officials had reached that estimate. National Guard and Reserve service members have until July 7 to self-identify for voluntary separation. MORE: Transgender service members say they face 'heartbreaking' decision amid Trump ban: Leave military or get kicked out The Pentagon's new ban went into effect in early May shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could enforce the ban on transgender people in the military while legal challenges to the ban proceed in lower courts. Navy Cmdr. Emily Shilling, who is a lead plaintiff in one of the legal challenges, told ABC News that she has chosen to voluntarily separate. "Yes I am 'volunteering' to retire but I do want to make it clear that myself and most others I have spoken to in SPARTA feel it is under duress," said Shilling who is the president of Sparta Pride, an organization advocating for 2,400 transgender people in the military. "For me, it's the only way I believe I can continue to uphold my oath," said Shilling. "I'm stepping away from active duty service, but not service to my country. My fight is only beginning." Defense officials have said that as of last December, about 4,240 current active-duty, Guard and Reserve service members had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There are more than 2.1 million military service members serving on active-duty, Guard and the Reserves. Advocacy groups have put the actual number of transgender service members as being much higher, at around 15,000. Since 2014, the total number of diagnoses for gender dysphoria among service members was 5,773, with 1,000 of those having gone through gender-affirming surgery, according to a defense official. The total costs for treatments, hormones and surgeries during that time frame was $52 million, said the official. With the end of the voluntary separation period, transgender service members now face what could be a lengthy process that could end with their separation from military service. The process will begin with military commanders being told to identify people in their units who have a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. Once they have done that, a referral to an annual health checkup will be initiated, beginning what could be a lengthy process that could lead to their removal from the military. Pentagon officials have said those evaluations will be conducted during regularly scheduled annual physicals meaning it could be months before they take place. The Pentagon incentivized service members with gender dysphoria to voluntarily separate ahead of the June 6 deadline by offering benefit payment packages that would be more than double what would be received if they were to separate involuntarily. Those who voluntarily separated would not have to risk paying back the recruitment or retention bonuses they may have earned during their military service. The Democratic senators argue that instead of improving military readiness the implementation of the ban will have the opposite effect. "This ban undermines our military readiness and national security by removing thousands of talented, experienced service members and signaling to potential recruits that the military does not respect them, their colleagues, their family, or their friends simply because of who they are," said a description of the Fit to Serve Act. "It also wastes billions of taxpayer dollars invested in training these troops to become leaders to keep all of us safe." The bill is co-sponsored in the Senate by Warren, Hirono, Tammy Duckworth (Illinois), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), Ed Markey (Massachusetts), Ron Wyden (Oregon), Jeff Merkley (Oregon),John Fetterman (Pennsylvania), Chris Van Hollen (Maryland), Bernie Sanders (Vermont), Andy Kim (New Jersey), and Cory Booker (New Jersey). Congressmen Adam Smith (Washington) Mark Takano (California), Chrissy Houlahan (Pennsylvania), Sara Jacobs (California), and Eric Sorensen (Illinois) are sponsoring the legislation in the House of Representatives. "By prohibiting this discrimination on the basis of gender identity, this legislation will help to ensure transgender individuals who are qualified to serve may do so," Hirono said. It remains to be seen how much bipartisan support the legislation could gain and whether it will be able to clear Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House. "If you are willing to risk your life for our country and you can do the job, it shouldn't matter if you are gay, straight, transgender, Black, white or anything else," said Duckworth who added that the ban "is disruptive to our military, hurts readiness and not only does nothing to strengthen our national security -- it actively makes things worse." "The Fit to Serve Act is a declaration that we will not stand by while our courageous troops are under political assault. Transgender service members meet the same rigorous standards, deploy worldwide, put in the same hard work and demonstrate the same dedication as any of their colleagues" said Jennifer Pike Bailey, Government Affairs Director of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the advocacy groups supporting the legislation. "President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are taking away their jobs, cutting off their health care benefits, and disregarding the immense sacrifices these service members and their families have made. It's a slap in the face to all who serve and puts our military readiness at risk," she added. "At a time when the United States faces growing threats around the world, banning them from the All-Volunteer Force will make Americans less safe," said Luke Schleusener, CEO of Out in National Security. "This legislation underscores that the fight to honor the service of thousands of transgender Americans in uniform -- and to strengthen America's national security -- is far from over." ABC's Deena Zaru contributed to this report.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House says it will spare some Aids programs that were on the chopping block
The White House is trying to reassure House Republicans that Donald Trump's plans to slash funding to Aids projects around the world will spare a number of key prevention programs. House Speaker Mike Johnson and his fellow GOP leaders in the lower chamber of Congress are racing to shore up support ahead of a vote on a $9.4bn package of spending cuts Thursday. Congressional Republicans have expressed particular concern over planned cuts to former commander-in-chief George W Bush's signature President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), which has been credited with saving millions of lives across the globe since 2003. As part of an effort to allay those worries and rally the troops, the House GOP leadership has vowed to retain treatments offered under PEPFAR as well as a number of other prevention schemes, according to Capitol Hill sources cited by Politico. Speaker Johnson's whip team reportedly spent Monday evening frantically texting Republicans and calculating probable votes for the 'rescissions' package, which, in addition to cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign Aids funding, also targets public broadcasters like NPR and PBS, both of whom are currently suing Trump's administration over the withdrawal of federal funding. Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, told appropriators last week that the administration is seeking to take 'an analytical look' at Aids prevention and instead prioritize funding for 'life-saving treatment' for sufferers as part of its scaling back of PEPFAR. 'It is something that our budget will be very trim on,' he said of prevention funding. 'We believe that many of these nonprofits are not geared towards the viewpoints of the administration. And we're $37 trillion in debt. So at some point, the continent of Africa needs to absorb more of the burden of providing this healthcare.' Trump's cuts to Aids prevention funding, enacted under an executive order he signed within hours of returning to the Oval Office in January, have been forecast to have disastrous results. A crisis that had been on course to be brought under control by 2030 will now be extended at the cost of an estimated 4m more lives, according to forecasts from the United Nations Aids agency. The disruption to global HIV programmes by the U.S. is also projected to lead to more than 3m more Aids orphans than was previously anticipated by the end of the decade. But the president himself has insisted that it is Europe that needs to step up and invest more to help the nations worst-hit by the disease. 'Nobody does anything but the United States… Other countries should be helping us with that,' he told reporters onboard Air Force One last month. 'We're the only country. Where are the others? Where is France? Where is Germany? We've spent billions and billions of dollars.' A documentary investigation by The Independent, which includes reporting from remote areas in Uganda and Zimbabwe, has recently demonstrated that Trump's brutal severing of aid – and abrupt halt in medication – is already tearing lives apart. Earlier this year The Independent revealed Trump's slashing of foreign aid has derailed the projected end of the Aids pandemic and could lead to four million extra deaths by 2030. Figures show the number of Aids-related deaths could jump from six million to 10 million in the next five years unless funding is reinstated, according to forecasts from the UN Aids agency (UNAIDS). The unprecedented disruption to global HIV programs by the U.S. is also projected to lead to more than three million more Aids orphans than previously expected by the end of the decade.
