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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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. ↑
The State-Directed Opioid Settlement Fund (“State Fund”) holds the state’s 40% share of opioid settlement funds.[1]
With limited exceptions,[2] this share must be spent on the uses described in Exhibit A of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement,[3] 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.[4]
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.[5]
Idaho Behavioral Health Council guides, state legislature and governor decide. Idaho’s State Fund is appropriated by its state legislature to state agencies based on requests from the governor.[6]
The Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) describes a multi-step decision-making process:
IBHC solicits input from state agencies and the public.[7]
IBHC votes on priority recommendations and submits them to the governor (these recommendations are available on IBHC’s website).[8]
The governor then incorporates the IBHC’s recommendations into state agencies’ budgets,[9] which the legislature then approves and appropriates.[10]
The state may also coordinate with participating local governments and public health districts to collect information about successful programs and share best practices.[11]
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% state share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Yes (public reporting required). View the “Funded by the Legislature” resource for each fiscal year on the Idaho Behavioral Health Council’s website. You can also view annual financial reports and non-remediation use reports on the Idaho Attorney General’s website. Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement requires the Idaho Attorney General to post on its website an annual report of expenditures from the 40% state share.[12]
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
The IBHC’s recommendations inform more than just settlement spend. For example, based on the IBHC’s recommendations for Fiscal year 2024, “[t]he Legislature funded almost $90 million in behavioral health initiatives,” with only “approximately $2 million provided annually by the state-directed opioid settlement fund.”[13]
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.”[14]
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.1, B.3; and Idaho Code Secs. 57-825(1) (“There is hereby established in the state treasury the state-directed opioid settlement fund, to be managed by the state treasurer, Moneys in the fund shall consist of:”), (1)(a) (“Moneys received by the state of Idaho pursuant to settlements and judgments obtained by the state relating to opioids”). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.3 (share is deposited “after payment of attorney’s fees and costs to the State’s outside counsel as provided in Section C”), C.4(a) (“As a means of covering any deficiencies in payment for outside counsel retained by the State specifically for Opioid Litigation, five percent (5%) of the State Share and five percent (5%) of the HD Share from the National Settlements and Future Resolutions not exempt under Section C.7 shall be sent to outside counsel prior to payment to the State-Directed Opioid Settlement Fund and the Public Health District Fund. No funds from the LG Share shall be used to pay attorney’s fees for outside counsel for the State”), C.4(c) (“Any remaining funds in the account in excess of the amounts needed to cover the deficiency in attorney’s fees as provided in this Section shall revert back to the State Share and HD 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”); Idaho Code Sec. 57-825(2) (“must be used only in accordance with the terms of the applicable settlement or judgment and for purposes relating to opioid abuse prevention and recovery programs”). ↑
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 Code Sec. 57-825(2) (“Moneys in the state-directed opioid settlement fund shall be used as determined by legislative appropriation, provided that such moneys must be used only in accordance with the terms of the applicable settlement or judgment and for purposes relating to opioid abuse prevention and recovery programs”). See also Idaho Opioid Settlement Fund (“IBHC Opioid Recommendation Process“). Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) website. Accessed August 21, 2024 (“The IBHC has no spending authority itself. Priorities from the IBHC are submitted to the Governor for incorporation into the state budget process. During this process, the Governor’s Office and the Division of Financial Management work with various state agencies to include suitable recommendations in the Governor’s budget. Final appropriation authority rests with the Legislature. The Joint Financial Appropriations Committee (JFAC) and the Legislative budget staff also review each state agency’s budget and determine how the IBHC recommendations are funded”). ↑
See Idaho Opioid Settlement Fund (“IBHC Opioid Recommendation Process“). Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) website. Accessed August 21, 2024 (for example, For FY 2025, IBHC accepted submissions via email until May 25, 2024). ↑
Idaho Code Sec. 57-825(3) (requiring the IBHC to recommend uses of State Fund monies to the Governor and Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee). ↑
Idaho Code Sec. 57-825(3) (“Such recommendations must be submitted to the governor on or before September 1 in the year before the legislative session in which the Idaho behavioral health council recommendations are presented to the joint finance-appropriations committee”). ↑
Idaho Code Sec. 57-825(2) (“Moneys in the state-directed opioid settlement fund shall be used as determined by legislative appropriation”). See also Idaho Opioid Settlement Fund (“IBHC Opioid Recommendation Process“). Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) website. Accessed August 21, 2024 (“Final appropriation authority rests with the Legislature. The Joint Financial Appropriations Committee (JFAC) and the Legislative budget staff also review each state agency’s budget and determine how the IBHC recommendations are funded. Due to the variability of funding from the opioid settlement fund and flexibility of the state budgeting process, the IBHC submits its recommendations as priority requests rather than specific budget items”). ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. B.6. ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Sec. D.3. ↑
Idaho Opioid Settlement Fund (“IBHC Opioid Recommendation Process“). Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) website. Accessed August 21, 2024. ↑
Stephanie N. Guyon. “Re: State Opioid Settlement Fund Spending Guidance.” Idaho Office of the Attorney General. August 31, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2024. ↑
Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of Idaho’s opioid settlement shares are spent:
40% state share: Idaho state legislature and governor
40% local share: decisionmakers for cities and counties
20% Health Districts share: Public Health Districts’ Boards of Health
This share is distributed directly to the Public Health District Fund, which sits in the state treasury and divides itself across the state’s seven regional public health districts.[1] Settlement funds are allocated to each regional health district according to the percentages listed in Exhibit C of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement.[2] District boards of health are appointed by majority vote of all county commissioners of counties located within the public health district.[3]
Non-participating local governments’ allocations are redirected to Idaho’s public health districts.[4]
With limited exceptions,[5] this share must be spent on the uses described in Exhibit A of Idaho’s opioid settlement allocation agreement,[6] 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.[7]
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.[8]
District boards of health decide (but must report spending). The district boards of health for each of the state’s seven regional public health districts will ultimately decide specific expenditures for their district’s opioid settlement-funded “divisions” of the greater Public Health District Fund.[9] These districts work with but are not part of any state agency,[10] and all district expenditures of opioid settlement funds are subject to auditing and oversight by the state.[11]
Prior to spending their share of settlement funds, a participating public health district’s board of health must pass a resolution or include in its budget an authorization of funds for specific approved purposes.[12]
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, Idaho does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the 20% health districts share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Yes (public reporting required). Limited details on expenditures are included in public health districts’ annual financial reports. Public health districts 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.[13]
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
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.”[14]
Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. B.1, B.5. See also Idaho Opioid Settlement Intrastate Allocation Agreement Between the State of Idaho, Health Districts, and Eligible Local Governments, Secs. A.4 (“‘Health Districts’ shall mean the seven regional public health districts created pursuant to Title 39, Chapter 4, Idaho Code”), A.14 (“‘Participating Health District’ shall mean a Health District who agrees to participate in this Agreement and in the National Settlement Agreements and/or Future Resolutions”). ↑
Idaho Code Sec. 39-411(3). ↑
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.5 (“The HD Share shall be paid directly to the Public Health District Fund after payment of attorney’s fees and costs to the State’s outside counsel as provided in Section C”), C.4(a) (“As a means of covering any deficiencies in payment for outside counsel retained by the State specifically for Opioid Litigation, five percent (5%) of the State Share and five percent (5%) of the HD Share from the National Settlements and Future Resolutions not exempt under Section C.7 shall be sent to outside counsel prior to payment to the State-Directed Opioid Settlement Fund and the Public Health District Fund”), C.4(c) (“Any remaining funds in the account in excess of the amounts needed to cover the deficiency in attorney’s fees as provided in this Section shall revert back to the State Share and HD 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 Code Sec. 39.422(1) (“Each division within the fund will be under the exclusive control of its respective district board of health and no moneys shall be withdrawn from such division of the fund unless authorized by the district board of health or its authorized agent”). ↑
Public Health Districts. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare website. Accessed August 21, 2024 (“Idaho public health districts work closely with Health and Welfare and other state and local agencies. Each district has a board of health appointed by county commissioners within that region. The districts are not part of any state agency”). ↑
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 Code Sec. 39.422(1) (“Each division within the fund will be under the exclusive control of its respective district board of health and no moneys shall be withdrawn from such division of the fund unless authorized by the district board of health or its authorized agent”); 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 20% health district 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. ↑