50% Local Share
Last updated
Michigan
Last updated
Excepting several set-asides,[1] this share is distributed directly to Michigan’s counties, municipalities, and townships according to the allocations in Michigan’s state-subdivision agreements.[2]
With limited exceptions,[3] local governments must spend their collective 50% share on the opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) ,[4] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies.
Michigan’s state-local agreements reiterate the national settlement agreements’ requirement that at least 70% of funds be spent on prospective abatement purposes but do not assign this responsibility to a specific share.[5]
Localities decide autonomously. Decisionmakers for the counties, municipalities, and townships will ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Exhibit E uses.[6] Examples of certain counties’ plans and uses of settlements funds may be found .[7]
MDHHS provides local decisionmakers with technical support through its Technical Assistance Collaborative, a coalition of academic institutions that educate and individually assist local governments on best practices.[8]
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Michigan does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of opioid settlement funds from its 50% local share. This means that counties, cities, and townships may spend their monies from this share in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Up to each locality (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share.
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
In June 2024, the Michigan Association of Counties published the results of a survey that found that the “vast majority” of responding counties have created separate funds to hold their opioid settlement monies apart from other sources of funds and are not combining funds with other local governments.[9]
See prior section for footnotes on the Administrative Fund, Special Circumstance Fund, and attorneys’ fees. ↑
Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement for Allocation of Distributor Settlement Agreement and Janssen Settlement Agreement (“Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement”), Secs. (providing that “amounts will be deducted for the … Administrative Fund, Litigating Local Government Attorney Fee Fund, [and] Special Circumstance Fund” prior to distribution), (defining the “Administrative Fund” as “0.3% of the Local Government Share”), (defining the “Special Circumstance Fund” as “5% of the Local Government Share”), (attorney costs), (attorneys’ fees), (describing Special Circumstance Fund); Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement for Allocation of Allergan, Teva, CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens Settlement Agreements (“Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement”), Secs. (defining “Administrative Fund”), (defining “Litigating Local Government Attorney Fee Fund”), (defining “Special Circumstance Fund”), (providing for deductions for Administrative Fund, Litigating Local Government Attorney Fee Fund, and Special Circumstance Fund), (litigation costs), (attorney fees), (Special Circumstance Fund). But see Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. (providing for reversion of set asides to the Local Government Share); Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. (same). ↑
Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. (“50% … Local Government Share”), (“remainder … after offsets shall be distributed to Participating Local Governments”); Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. , (same). Non-participating, non-county local governments’ shares are reallocated to their counties, and non-participating counties’ shares are reallocated to participating local governments. Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. , (defining “Participating Local Governments”); Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. , (same). See also Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. ; Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. ; First Addendum to the Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement for Allocation of the Distributor Settlement and Janssen Settlement Agreement, Sec. (discussing amendments to final allocation percentages). ↑
Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. (“‘Opioid Remediation’ is the term as defined by the Settlements”), (“All Settlement Payments shall be utilized by Participating Local Governments and the State for Opioid Remediation, except as otherwise allowed by the Settlements. A minimum of 70% of Settlement Payments must be used solely for future Opioid Remediation”); Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. , (same). Note that non-opioid remediation expenditures are capped under the national settlement agreements. See, e.g., the and settlements, Secs. V.B.1, V.B.2 (requiring states and subdivisions to spend a minimum 85% of funds on opioid remediation, which the settlements define to mean Exhibit E); CVS Settlement Agreement, (minimum 95.5% opioid remediation spending); Walgreens Settlement Agreement, (minimum 95% opioid remediation spending); Walmart Settlement Agreement, (minimum 85% opioid remediation spending). See Distributor Settlement Agreement, Sec. (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). ↑
Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. ; Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. . ↑
Michigan Distributor and Janssen State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. ; Michigan Subsequent Settlement State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. . See also . Michigan Opioid Advisory Committee. Accessed August 19, 2024 (“The OAC and the State legislature have no direct influence over spending practices of Michigan’s subdivisions” and “retain authority for spending decisions”). ↑
As of June 2024, this section of the state Attorney General’s website hosted information about certain counties’ plans for and uses of settlement funds, i.e., , , , , , , , and . But see Ron French and Robin Erb. . Bridge Michigan – Michigan Health Watch. June 14, 2024. Accessed August 20, 2024. ↑
MDHHS: (“MDHHS has contracted with Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University to provide technical assistance to local governments to ensure they have resources available to make the most impactful investment decisions for opioid settlements for their communities. Together with MDHHS, the universities have formed the Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) to share information with local governments regarding best practices for opioid-related issues. The TAC provides individualized technical assistance to counties requesting it, as well as educational webinars and resources that are available to all local governments across Michigan”; “As of October 2023, 21 counties have engaged with the Technical Assistance Collaborative for technical assistance on evidence-based investments for their opioid settlements”). ↑
. Michigan Association of Counties. June 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“Thirty (30) of the 83 counties, or 36 percent (36%), completed the survey”). ↑
