All pages
Powered by GitBook
1 of 3

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Decision Making

Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of Michigan’s opioid settlement shares are spent:

  • 50% state share: (within parameters established by the )

  • 50% local share: decisionmakers for counties, cities, and townships

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
Michigan state legislature

50% State Share

Where do these monies live?

The Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund (“Recovery Fund”) holds the state’s 50% share of opioid settlement funds.[1]

What can this share be spent on?

With limited exceptions,[2] monies in the Recovery Fund must be spent on the opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[3] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies.

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Opioid Advisory Commission recommends, state legislature appropriates, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services decides (within parameters established by the Michigan state legislature). The Michigan state legislature ultimately appropriates monies from the Recovery Fund,[4] with the Opioid Advisory Commission (OAC) providing non-binding recommendations.[5] In practice, Recovery Fund expenditures are determined by a complicated network of “key agencies,” including Michigan’s state legislature, the governor’s office, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), the OAC, and the Opioids Task Force, among others.[6]

  • MDHHS has previously described a decision-making process in which it drafted a spend plan, sought and incorporated community and partner feedback, and reached internal consensus on which subset of Exhibit E interventions to prioritize,[7] with the legislature ultimately appropriating funds after consulting the recommendations of the .[8]

  • Early on, the legislature appropriated significant sums from the Recovery Fund to state agencies, primarily MDHHS, and largely deferred to those agencies on how to spend the funds.[9] However, legislative appropriations in more recent years include funding over which MDHHS maintains significant discretion but also more targeted expenditures with varying levels of specificity from the state legislature.[10]

Please note: The OAC is different from the . The OAC was established via legislation, exists within the , and primarily advises the state legislature.[11] In contrast, the was established by executive order, operates as an advisory body within MDHHS, and primarily advises state agencies.[12]

Yes, supplantation is prohibited. The Michigan Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund, which holds the 50% state share, is explicitly required by state law to “be used to create or supplement programs or services” and explicitly prohibited from being “used to replace any other governmental funds that would otherwise have been appropriated or expended for any other program or service.”[13]

Yes (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Visit Michigan’s page, which includes a summary of current initiatives funded with state settlement monies and annual reports on prior investments. Annual financial reports are organized according to the subsets of Exhibit E categories prioritized by MDDHS each year (e.g., primary prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery support).[14]

Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for the most up-to-date information on states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.

Not applicable.

  1. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement for Allocation of Opioid Settlement Agreements (“Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement”), Sec. ; Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Secs. 12.253(1)-(2). See also . Michigan Opioid Advisory Committee. Accessed June 4, 2026 (noting that the State Share includes 100% of proceeds from the McKinsey settlement). ↑

  2. Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Sec. 12.253(8) (authorizing use of monies from the Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund for opioid-litigation costs and attorney fees). ↑

  3. Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Sec. 12.253(6) (“the department of treasury shall expend money from the Michigan opioid healing and recovery fund, on appropriation, in a manner and for purposes consistent with the opioid judgment, settlement, or compromise of claims from which the money was received”); Michigan 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”). 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”). See also
. Resources for the Michigan Opioid Settlement. Accessed June 4, 2026 (“Exception: Specific to the
,
provides a list of allowable uses of funds”). ↑
  • Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. 12.253(6). ↑

  • Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. 4.1851(13)(c)(iv). See also What is the Opioid Advisory Commission? OAC. January 2024. Accessed June 4, 2026 (“The OAC was established per Public Act 84 of 2022 (MCL 4.1851) and is a state-designated entity to advise Michigan’s legislature on funding and policy related to services and supports for substance use disorders (SUD) and co-occurring mental health conditions — this includes making recommendations for the use and management of state opioid settlement funds”).↑

  • 2023 Annual Report: A Planning Guide for State Policy Makers. OAC (“final spending authority [resides] with legislative appropriation, attorneys general, the Department of Health, or the state agencies responsible for substance use services”). ↑

  • See, e.g., Opioid Strategy and Implementation of Opioid Settlements, slide 12 (“Opioid Settlements Spend Plan Development”). Natasha Bagdasarian and Jared Welehodsky, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Undated presentation. Accessed June 4, 2026. See also 2024 Michigan Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund Annual Financial Report. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. March 31, 2023. Accessed June 4, 2026; Fiscal Year 2025 Opioid Settlement Budget, slide 11 (“FY25 Opioid Settlement Proposed Spend Plan = $23.2 million”). Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian and Amy Epkey, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. February 28, 2024. Accessed June 4, 2026. ↑

  • Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Secs. 4.1851(13)(a)-(c); Opioid Advisory Commission. Michigan Legislative Council. Accessed June 8, 2026 (“The commission makes an annual report to the Governor, the Attorney General, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the chairs of the Senate and House appropriation committees”). ↑

  • See, e.g., 2023 Mich. Pub. Act 119, Sec. 917(1) (appropriating $23.2 million to MDHHS from the Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund “to create or supplement opioid-related programs and services in a manner consistent with the opioid judgement, settlement, or compromise of claims pertaining to violations, or alleged violations, of law related to the manufacture, marketing, distribution, dispensing, or sale of opioids”); See also, e.g., Michigan’s Opioids Settlement – MDHHS FY23 Spend Plan Programming Planning Overview. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Undated document. Accessed June 8, 2026 (“In July 2022, the Michigan Legislature approved the Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund (settlement funds) appropriation of the FY 22 supplemental request ($16 million) and FY 23 authorization ($23.2 million) to MDHHS without restrictions”). ↑

  • See 2025 Mich. Pub. Act 22, Secs. 917(1)(a)-(f) (gross appropriations of $55 million to MDHHS from the Opioid Hearing and Recovery Fund stipulating specific allocations across various types of programs and interventions, such as $3 million for “naloxone distribution” and $2.5 million for “oversight and grants management”) and Sec. 1930(1)-(2) (one-time appropriation from the Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund of approximately $76.75 million similarly stipulating general investments such as $1.75 million for “access to treatment in jails,” alongside more specific items, such as $5 million to “a nonprofit organization that is … located in a city with a population greater than 600,000 … and operates as a certified community behavioral health clinic to create a 30-bed residential treatment program for young adults with a substance use disorder and expand the substance use disorder workforce"). See also 2024 Mich. Pub. Act 121, Secs. 917(1) (appropriating approximately $19.2 million for MDHHS “to create or supplement opioid-related programs and services in a manner consistent with the opioid judgment, settlement, or compromise of claims pertaining to violations, or alleged violations, of law related to the manufacture, marketing, distribution, dispensing, or sale of opioids”), 917(2) (requiring MDHHS to allocate $4 million “to establish a peer recovery support services program for eligible participants”), 1930(a)-(d) (requiring MDHHS to allocate grants ranging from $2 to $3.62 million to organizations meeting very specific criteria such as “a nonprofit organization that is organized under the laws of this state, that is exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, 26 USC 501, and is located in a city with a population greater than 10,000 that is located in a county with a population between 36,500 and 36,850, according to the most recent federal decennial census, to expand a women’s recovery center that provides residential substance use disorder services, behavioral and physical health care, social services, and housing assistance”), 1930(e) (requiring MDHHS to provide $1.88 million “to supplement grants to recovery community organizations”), (requiring MDHHS to provide $2 million for “tribal communities, with the distribution method and types of uses of these funds determined in collaboration with the United Tribes of Michigan and each sovereign nation”), (requiring MDDHS to provide $10 million “to department-designated community mental health entities for regional specific programming and supports to be used in collaboration with municipal opioid settlement funds”).

  • Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Secs. 4.1851(1), (13)(b). Note, however, that the OAC’s annual report is submitted to both the legislature and state executive branch. Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Sec. 4.1851(13)(c) (“By March 30 of each year, provide a written report to the governor, the attorney general, the senate majority leader, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the chairs of the senate and house of representatives appropriations committees”). ↑

  • Michigan Executive Order 2022-12, Secs. 1(a), 2(b); 2023 MDHHS Opioid Annual Report. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed June 8, 2026 (“The OAC is a legislative commission, whereas the Executive branch called for the formation of the Michigan Opioids Task Force. The OAC is tasked to review initiatives/activities related to SUD services and establish priorities to address SUD/co-occurring conditions for purpose of recommending funding initiatives to the legislature. The Michigan Opioids Task Force is charged with identifying root causes of the opioid epidemic and implementing response actions. The OAC reports to the Legislative Council Administrator and overall purpose is to advise the legislature, whereas the Michigan Opioids Task Force reports to MDHHS. The OAC’s role is advisory. The Michigan Opioids Task Force will be required to report to the Governor regularly and will be expected to issue an annual report”). ↑

  • Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. Sec. 12-253(7). ↑

  • See, e.g., Michigan Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund Spend Plan Detail FY25 Ongoing Appropriation and Work Project Funding. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. May 30, 2025. Accessed June 8, 2026. 2024 Michigan Opioid Healing and Recovery Fund Spend Plan Detail. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. March 31, 2024. Accessed June 8, 2026. ↑

  • Are supplantation uses prohibited for this share?

    Can I see how this share has been spent?

    What else should I know?

    Citations

    Opioid Advisory Commission
    Michigan Opioids Task Force
    Michigan Legislative Council
    Michigan Opioids Task Force
    Settlement Spending
    Everything Table
    II.3
    2023 Annual Report: A Planning Guide for State Policy Makers
    I.P
    II.2
    Distributor
    Janssen
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    I.SS
    Michigan’s Opioid Settlements Frequently Asked Questions
    Mallinckrodt settlement
    Schedule A

    50% Local Share

    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 agreement.[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 agreement reiterates the national settlement agreements’ requirement that at least 70% of funds be spent on prospective abatement purposes but does not assign this responsibility to a specific share.[5]

    Local governments may request guidance from the Michigan Department of Attorney General on the settlements or state-local agreement, including whether proposed expenditures qualify as opioid remediation. The Michigan Department of Attorney General may also issue such guidance on its own.[10] For example, in 2026, the Michigan Department of Attorney General released on uses of funds that it does not consider opioid remediation or abatement. As of June 2026, the list contained general categories such as “[a]ctivities or programs that are not indicated in Exhibit E or otherwise evidence-based or evidence-informed,” as well as specific types of expenditures, such as law enforcement equipment.[11]

    1930(f)
    1930(g)
    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 here.[7]

    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.

    Yes (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Localities are required to report expenditures to the state.[12] As of June 2026, the state’s Department of Attorney General Opioids website hosts a downloadable report of local government expenditures covering January 2023 through December 2025.

    Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Everything Table for the most up-to-date information on 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 had 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] The Michigan Association of Counties also maintains a robust inventory of resources to support county planning, spending, and transparency.

    1. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement for the Allocation of Opioid Settlement Agreements (“Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement”), Secs. II.4 (providing that monies will be deducted from the local government share for the Administrative Fund, Litigating Local Government Attorney Fee Fund, and Special Circumstance Fund), I.A (defining the “Administrative Fund” as “0.3% of the Local Government Share”),I.H (defining the “Litigating Local Government Attorney Fee Fund”), I.Z (defining the “Special Circumstance Fund” as “5% of the Local Government Share”), II.8 (attorney costs), II.9 (attorneys’ fees), II.10 (describing Special Circumstance Fund); But see Sec. II.13 (providing for reversion of set asides to the Local Government Share). ↑

    2. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. II.3 (“50% … Local Government Share”), II.11 (“remainder … after offsets shall be distributed to Participating Local Governments”). Non-participating, non-county local governments’ shares are reallocated to their counties, and non-participating counties’ shares are reallocated to participating local governments. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. II.7, I.Q (defining “Participating Local Governments”).For final allocation percentages across Michigan’s local governments for the various settlements, refer to of Michigan’s State-Subdivision Agreement. As of June 2026, the Michigan Association of Counties also maintained that details the estimated funding going to each of Michigan’s counties, disaggregated by specific settlement. ↑

    3. See prior section for footnotes on the Administrative Fund, Special Circumstance Fund, and attorneys’ fees. ↑

    4. Michigan 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"). 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”). ↑

    5. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. ↑

    6. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, Sec. See also . Michigan Opioid Advisory Committee. Accessed June 9, 2026 (“The OAC and the State legislature have no direct influence over spending practices of Michigan’s subdivisions” and “local entities . . . retain authority for spending decisions”). ↑

    7. As of June 2026, this section of the state Attorney General’s website hosted information about certain counties’ plans for and uses of settlement funds, i.e., , , , , and .↑

    8. [Reserved]. ↑

    9. . Michigan Association of Counties. Accessed June 9, 2026.

    10. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, .

    11. . Michigan Department of Attorney General. Last Revised May 12, 2026. Accessed June 9, 2026.

    12. Michigan State-Subdivision Agreement, Secs. (starting in FY26, localities required to “provide documentation sufficient to show the receipt and expenditure of funds”), (defining “reporting local governments” as those identified in the State-Subdivision Agreement’s Exhibit D), and (listing local governments required to submit reporting).

    Where do these monies live?

    What can this share be spent on?

    Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

    Exhibit E
    guidance for localities

    Are supplantation uses prohibited for this share?

    Can I see how this share has been spent?

    What else should I know?

    Citations

    Exhibit A
    a dashboard
    I.P
    II.2
    Distributor
    Janssen
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    Sec. V(B)(1)
    I.SS
    II.2
    . II.2
    2023 Annual Report: A Planning Guide for State Policy Makers
    Opioids
    Monroe County Opioid Analytics Dashboard
    Calhoun County: Use of Opioid Settlement Funds
    Eaton County: Strategic Plan
    Kalamazoo County: Allocation of Settlement Funds
    Lenawee County: Opioid Action Plan
    Opioid Settlement Resource Center
    Sec. II.14(a)
    Settlement Spending Guidance and Non-Remediation List
    II.14(b)
    I.W
    Exhibit D