State Share
Where do these monies live?
Oklahoma’s opioid litigation proceeds are initially held in the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Settlement Fund), which is sometimes referred to as “Fund 383.”[1] Any monies not distributed to the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund (Revolving Fund) described in the previous section are what constitute the state’s share for the purposes of this Community Guide.[2]
These remaining monies have historically been appropriated by the legislatures to state agencies such as the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.[3]
*Oklahoma’s MOU, which applies to the state’s largest settlement (with Distributors McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health), requires a 75%-25% split between the state and litigating localities,[4] with those counties, municipalities, and towns receiving their shares directly.[5] The legislature’s 2024 allocations of the state’s greater Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (“Settlement Fund”) appropriated about $25.8 million to the Revolving Fund, 22.5% of which was earmarked for distribution to non-litigating subdivisions.[6]
What can this share be spent on?
In general,[7] and with limited exceptions,[8] the state share must be spent on “approved purposes,” which for the state’s Distributors settlement proceeds is defined to mean the over 20 expenditures described in state law.[9] This state-specific list includes some of the categories in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E, Schedule B (“Approved Uses”), such as prevention, treatment, and targeted efforts to address the needs of those involved in the criminal legal system.[10] Oklahoma’s state-specific list also mentions decreasing the oversupply of licit and illicit opioids twice,[11] and notably limits harm reduction strategies to naloxone distribution.[12]
Though the state defines approved purposes to mean “evidence-based, forward-looking” strategies and programs,[13] two of the allowable uses in state law permit reimbursement uses of funds (law enforcement and attorneys’ fees).[14]
For funds deriving from most other settlements, this share must be spent on the uses described in the national settlement agreement’s more general (and non-exhaustive) Exhibit E.[15]
Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?
State legislature and agencies decide. The legislature ultimately appropriates monies from the state’s share of the Settlement Fund to state agencies and departments, who largely decide for themselves how to spend their bulk appropriations to “address the impact of opioids on the state and its residents.”[16] In past years, the legislature has appropriated monies to the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, the State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, and the Office of the Attorney General.[17]
Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Oklahoma does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses settlement funds from the state share. This means that the state share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Can I see how this share has been spent?
No (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share.
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
What else should I know?
Not applicable.
Citations
See, e.g., 2024 OK HB 2924, Sec. 1 (appropriating $20 million from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund [“Fund 383”] to the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund “to be … expended in accordance with law”), 2021 OK HB 2900, Sec. 70 (appropriating about $7.98 million from the “Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Fund 383)” to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority), and 2020 OK HB 4140, Sec. 1 (appropriating $10.22 million from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund [“Fund 383”] to the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund). See also Jillian Taylor. ‘I hope it makes a huge different’: What $23 million in opioid settlement funds could mean for Oklahomans. KOSU. February 1, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“After the $23 million is spent, there will be $4 million left in the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund under the nine-member Opioid Abatement Board’s oversight for local communities. [The attorney general’s deputy general counsel] said there’s also about $34 million another fund, the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund, which is controlled by the Legislature”). ↑
See, e.g., the appropriations bills in the previous footnote and Long Story Short: After slow start, opioid settlement money expected to flow to cities and counties. KGOU. December 27, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Opioid Abatement Board has about $27 million available for local communities, school districts and public trusts. The Legislature controls another $37.6 million sitting in the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund. Additional funds are expected in coming years since some settlements call for multi-year payouts”). ↑
See, e.g., 2021 OK HB 2900, which contains a number of appropriations from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Fund 383) to various state agencies, including the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (Sec. 70), the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Sec. 74), the Department of Corrections (Sec. 105), the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (Sec. 112), and the Office of the Attorney General (Sec. 118). ↑
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain Opioid Litigation Proceeds (Distributor MOU) B.1 (75% to “the State” and 25% to “Litigating Political Subdivisions”).The MOU defined “litigating political subdivision” to mean “counties, municipalities, or towns located within the geographical boundaries of the State listed on Exhibit A.” Distributor MOU A.5. Note that the state-local allocation varies across different settlements vary for Oklahoma. For settlements with retailers (encompassing CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart), the allocation is reversed with 25% going to the state and 75% going to litigating pollical subdivisions. See Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 1. For the settlement with Teva, all of the funds are allocated to the litigating political subdivisions. See Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 1. ↑
Distributor MOU B.4 (Exhibit B of the MOU provides a list of litigating political subdivisions and allocation percentages). ↑
2024 OK HB 2924, Secs. 1-2. ↑
Monies appropriated from Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Fund 383) to state agencies are required to be spent to “address the impact of opioids on the state and its residents.” See, e.g., 2021 OK HB 2900, where appropriations totaling over $28 million from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund across the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, the Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, and the Office of the Attorney General were all required “to address the impact of opioids on the state and its residents.” (See Secs. 70, 74, 105, 112, and 118). ↑
See, e.g., Distributor MOU B.7 (defining “Net Opioid Funds” to include settlement amounts “less any costs and expenses incurred by the State in the investigation, preparation, prosecution, mediation, arbitration, or settlement of the legal or equitable claims of the State against a Distributor, exclusive of attorneys’ fees), Distributor MOU D.1-2 (requiring Litigating Political Subdivisions’ and the state’s litigation costs related to settlements with Distributors to be deducted only from their respective shares), and Distributors Oklahoma Settlement Agreement Sec. V.B-C (describing state and participating litigating subdivisions’ attorneys’ fees and costs). ↑
Distributor MOU B.3 (requiring both the state’s and political subdivisions’ monies to be spent on “approved purposes … as set forth in Section 30.5”) and Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1) (listing over 20 approved purposes). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(a),(b), and (i). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(d) and (m). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(n) (“[S]upport efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms including through increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for use by first responders, persons who have experienced an overdose event, families, schools, community-based service providers, social workers and other members of the public”). Compare with the national settlements’ Exhibit E, Schedule B, Sec. H, titled “Prevention Overdose Deaths and Other Harms (Harm Reduction)” and inclusive of strategies such as naloxone training and distribution, but also support for syringe service programs, drug checking, and mobile outreach. ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(u).
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(o)-(p). ↑
See, e.g., Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 2 (“The State and [Litigating Political Subdivisions] agree that … all amounts received by the [Litigating Political Subdivisions] and the State from the Retailer Agreements will be used for Opioid Remediation (as defined in the respective Retailer Agreements), except as allowed by Section V.B.2”) (emphasis added) and Allergan State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 2 (“The State and [Litigating Political Subdivisions] agree that … all amounts received by the [Litigating Political Subdivisions] and the State from the Allergan Settlement will be used for Opioid Remediation (as defined in the Allergan Settlement), except as allowed by Section VIII.C”) (emphasis added). The exceptions in each pertain to the small percentage of “unrestricted” funds for each settlement that do not need to be spent on opioid remediation. Different settlements have different thresholds for required spending on opioid remediation. ↑
See, e.g., 2021 OK HB 2900, where appropriations totaling over $28 million from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund across the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, the Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, and the Office of the Attorney General were all required “to address the impact of opioids on the state and its residents.” (See Secs. 70, 74, 105, 112, and 118). ↑
See, e.g., 2021 OK HB 2900, which contains a number of appropriations from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Fund 383) to various state agencies, including the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (Sec. 70), the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Sec. 74), the Department of Corrections (Sec. 105), the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (Sec. 112), and the Office of the Attorney General (Sec. 118). ↑
Last updated
