40% Local Share
Where do these monies live?
This share is distributed directly to Idaho’s participating cities and counties according the percentages listed in the Exhibit B of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement.[1] A county and its incorporated cities may agree amongst themselves to modify their intra-county allocation.[2] Non-participating local governments’ allocations are redirected to Idaho’s public health districts.[3]
What can this share be spent on?
With limited exceptions,[4] this share must be spent on the uses described in Exhibit A of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement,[5] which is identical to the national settlement agreements’ (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E, Schedule B (“Approved Uses”) and includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies.[6]
Idaho’s agreement reiterates the national settlement agreements’ requirement that at least 70% of the state’s opioid settlement funds overall be spent on prospective abatement purposes but does not assign specific abatement thresholds to each share.[7]
Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?
Localities decide autonomously (but must report spending). Decisionmakers for cities and counties will ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Exhibit A uses. Participating local governments may choose to redirect their shares to their public health districts,[8] and all spend is subject to auditing and oversight by the state.[9]
Prior to spending their share of settlement funds, a local government’s governing body (i.e., board of county commissioners or city council) must pass a resolution or include in its budget an authorization of funds for specific approved purposes.[10]
Are supplantation uses prohibited for this share?
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, Idaho does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the 40% local government share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Can I see how this share has been spent?
Yes (public reporting required). Limited details on expenditures are included in local governments’ annual financial reports. Local governments that receive settlement funds must submit to the state Attorney General “an annual financial report specifying the activities and amounts it has funded,” and the state Attorney General must make these reports publicly accessible on its website.[11]
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
What else should I know?
In an August 2023 legal opinion, the Idaho Attorney General noted that settlement funds “be spent [only] on ‘persons with OUD and any co-occurring [substance use disorder/mental health (SUD/MH) conditions,” and that “if a person suffers from SUD, but it is a non-opioid addiction, then funding for that person’s care does not qualify.”[12]
Citations
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.1, B.4, A.13 (“‘Participating Local Government’ shall mean a county or city within the geographic boundaries of the State who participates in this Agreement and who participates in the National Settlement Agreements and/or Future Resolutions” and includes (1) all counties within the State of Idaho; and (2) cities within the State of Idaho who are either involved in Opioid Litigation or who have a population of over 10,000”). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.4. ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.4. See also Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. A.5 (defining “Litigating Participating Local Governments” as “Participating Local Governments that filed an initial complaint in the Opioid Litigation by September 1, 2020”), A.10 (defining “Non-Participating Local Government” as “a city or county who is not a Participating Local Government”), A.13 (defining “Participating Local Government”). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.4 (share is deposited “after payment of funds into the Idaho Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund as provided in Section C.5”), C.5(a) (establishing “a supplemental Idaho Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund”), C.5(b) (“The Idaho Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be funded by ten percent (10%) of the LG Share from the National Settlement Agreements and Future Resolutions not exempt under Section C.7. …. If some or all of the Participating Local Governments believe that ten percent (10%) will not be sufficient to cover a deficiency in attorney’s fees those Participating Local Governments can enter into an agreement to hold back an additional amount of up to two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the LG Share allocated to those Participating Local Governments under Exhibit B to be put into the Idaho Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, … in no circumstance may the overall amount withheld exceed twelve and one-half percent (12.5%)”), C.5(e) (reverting excess funds in Back-Stop Fund to local share), C.7 (providing that Section C’s attorneys’ fees and costs provisions do not apply to monies obtained from Purdue, Mallinckrodt, or “other future resolutions”). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.2 (“All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall only be utilized for Approved Purposes”), A.2 (“‘Approved Purpose(s)’ shall mean those uses identified in the agreed Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A”). ↑
The national settlement agreement’s “Approved Uses” list is Schedule B of its Exhibit E, a document that “provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses.” Distributor Settlement Agreement, Sec. I.SS. ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.2 (“no less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the funds must be used for Opioid Remediation with at least seventy percent (70%) of funds used solely for future Opioid Remediation”). Note that other settlement agreements require a higher percentage of funds be spent on opioid remediation. See, e.g., CVS Settlement Agreement, Sec. V(B)(1) (minimum 95.5% opioid remediation spending); Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Sec. V(B)(1) (minimum 95% opioid remediation spending); Walmart Settlement Agreement, Sec. V(B)(1) (minimum 85% opioid remediation spending). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.4. ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. D.3 (“Opioid Funds are subject to the financial audit requirements for Participating Local Governments and Participating Health Districts as provided under Idaho Law, and shall be separately accounted for in any such audit”), D.6-8 (describing State’s power to reduce payments to participating local governments and health districts that misspend their funds). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. D.2 (“The budget or resolution should: (1) indicate that it is an authorization for expenditure of Opioid Funds, (2) state the specific Approved Purpose the governing body intends to fund as identified in Exhibit A, and (3) state the amount dedicated to each Approved Purpose for a stated period of time”), A.3 (“‘Governing Body’ means (1) for a county, the board of county commissioners; (2) for a municipality, the city council; and (3) for a health district, the district board of health”). See also Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.6 (providing that state, participating local governments, and participating health districts may also coordinate spending to collect data and best practices on effective uses of funds). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. D.4 (“Each annual financial report must include the following information: (1) the amount of Opioid Funds available at the beginning of the fiscal year; (2) the amount of Opioid Funds received during the fiscal year; (3) the amount of Opioid Funds disbursed or applied during the fiscal year, broken down by Approved Purposes set forth in Exhibit A; (4) the amount of Opioid Funds available at the end of the fiscal year”) ↑
Stephanie N. Guyon. “Re: State Opioid Settlement Fund Spending Guidance.” Idaho Office of the Attorney General. August 31, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2024. Note that while the Idaho Attorney General’s legal opinion is based, in part, on state laws that do not apply to the 40% local share, it’s underlying reasoning as to the uses permitted by Exhibit A of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement would apply equally to funds from this share. ↑
Last updated
