Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of Oklahoma’s opioid settlement shares are spent:
Opioid Abatement Board share: Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board
State share: Oklahoma state legislature and state agencies
Litigating subdivision direct share: local officials for counties and cities
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]
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 law.[9] This includes some of the categories in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E, (“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) .[15]
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]
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.
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 for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
Not applicable.
See, e.g., , 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”), , Sec. 70 (appropriating about $7.98 million from the “Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund (Fund 383)” to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority), and , 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. . 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 ’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 . 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”).
Opioid Abatement Board share: Yes (required). Though the Oklahoma has not established recurring opportunities for the public to provide input on uses of the Opioid Abatement Board share,[1] it does require political subdivisions applying for grants from this share to provide an opportunity for public input.[2] Specifically, prior to applying for a grant from the Abatement Board, political subdivisions must:
This share is distributed directly to counties, municipalities and towns.[1]
Oklahoma’s , 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, and its
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). ↑
“[I]dentify and engage a group of local stakeholders, such as a governance committee or advisory council, to coordinate assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation activities according to established principles of the Board”[3]
“[E]ngage in meaningful consultation” with a variety of listed stakeholders, including “individuals and families impacted by the crisis”[4]
“[P]rovide an opportunity for public comment”[5]
Conduct “a needs assessment to examine local data and identify community needs pertaining to opioids” which is then used to develop a grant application[6]
Explain in the grant application “how [the political subdivision] evaluated and assessed the needs in [the] political subdivision to identify and deploy the projects or abatement efforts [the political subdivision is] seeking to fund”[7]
Look for opportunities to engage in these processes when your local government (e.g., city, county, or school district) applies for funding from the Abatement Board, and watch for other opportunities to weigh in on city and county spending decisions, such as city council meetings and town halls. You can also attend meetings of the Abatement Board, which publishes meeting information on its website but is not obligated to reserve opportunities for public comment in its meetings.[8]
State share: No opportunities available (not required). The state has not established recurring opportunities for the public to provide input on uses of its share.[9]
Litigating Subdivision Direct share: Up to each locality (not required). Local governments are not required to seek public input on their direct distributions from this share. However, each may choose to seek such input. Watch for opportunities to weigh in on city and county spending decisions, such as city council meetings and town halls.
It depends. Political subdivisions can apply for funding from the Opioid Abatement Board Share.[10],[11] Details on the grant application process and current opportunities for political subdivisions are available here. Local governments may create grant programs to distribute settlement funds. The existence, parameters, and processes for local settlement grant programs will vary by locality, so stay alert for new opportunities. Visit the Opioid Settlement Community Grant Portal (OpioidSettlementTracker.com and Legal Action Center) for the most up-to-date information on settlement grant opportunities for community organizations.
A single resource containing updates specific to the state share could not be found.[12]
For updates on the Litigating Subdivision Direct share, a good starting point is to check the websites for your county board of commissioners, city council, or local health department (see, e.g., Mayes County’s website).
Not applicable.
If you see this change, email [email protected]. ↑
Note that the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board imposes these requirements via its grant application and accompanying guidance. There is no legal requirement that the Board condition funds from this share on a political subdivision conducting community engagement and/or allowing for public input. See, e.g., Abatement Grant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Question 13 (“Under this requirement, a political subdivision must … provide the opportunity for public comment”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
Abatement Grant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Question 13. Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. The “established principles of the Board” may be a reference to the Healthy Minds Policy Initiative’s December 2023 “,” which is linked to by the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Grant . ↑
(“Under this requirement, a political subdivision must engage in meaningful consultation with local health departments, hospitals, schools, public safety service providers, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, prevention specialists, treatment providers, first responders, individuals and families impacted by the crisis and other subject matter experts”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
(“Under this requirement, a political subdivision must … provide the opportunity for public comment”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
(“As a part of the meaningful consultation, a political subdivision must also provide evidence that it conducted a needs assessment to examine local data and identify community needs pertaining to opioids. Based on the needs assessment, an eligible political subdivision will then formulate a plan that becomes part of a submitted application for a grant award”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed July 4, 2024. ↑
. Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. December 20, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
Documents from the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board indicate the Board is subject to the state open meetings law, which generally requires the public be allowed to attend meetings. See from the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board’s Special Meeting on (stating that the Board is required by the state open meetings law to set the date, time, and place of regularly scheduled meetings); Okla. Stat. tit. 25, Sec. 303. But see (Jul. 9, 2002) (“public bodies are not required to provide an opportunity for citizens to express their views on issues being considered by a public body”). ↑
If you see this change, email .) ↑
“Political subdivision” is defined to include municipalities, school districts, counties, and public trusts (municipal or county hospitals and public trusts for certain medical teaching hospitals). See Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(9) (defining “political subdivisions” by reference to certain provisions of Section 152 of Title 51 of the Oklahoma Statutes) and Okla Stat. tit. 51, Sec. 152(11)(a)-(d) (defining “political subdivisions” to mean the above). See also OAC Sec 75:50-1-1 (defining “political subdivision” by reference to Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(9)). ↑
(describing that non-profits cannot apply for grant funding from the Opioid Abatement Board share but that “[non-profit organizations] … may partner with an eligible political subdivision that they serve for purposes of implementing a specific approved opioid abatement project”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
If you see this change, email . ↑
Some of Oklahoma’s state-local agreements applying to specific settlements, such as Teva, also rely on Exhibit B for the distribution of funds from this share.[3]
In general, and with limited exceptions,[4] this 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.[5] 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.[6] Oklahoma’s state-specific list also mentions decreasing the oversupply of licit and illicit opioids twice,[7] and notably limits harm reduction strategies to naloxone distribution.[8]
Though the state defines approved purposes to mean “evidence-based, forward-looking” strategies and programs,[9] two of the allowable uses in state law permit reimbursement uses of funds (law enforcement and attorneys’ fees).[10]
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.[11]
Localities decide autonomously. Decisionmakers for the counties, municipalities, and towns will ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on approved uses.[12] Each may also choose to direct its shares to another political subdivision, “such as but not limited to the county or counties in which a municipality is located.”[13]
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Oklahoma does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses settlement funds from the Litigating Subdivision Share. This means that the Litigating Subdivision Share may be spent 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 Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
Not applicable.
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain Opioid Litigation Proceeds (Distributor MOU) A.5 (defining “litigating political subdivision” as “counties, municipalities, or towns located within the geographical boundaries of the State”) and B.4. Exhibit B of this MOU provides a list of litigating political subdivisions and allocation percentages. See also Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 3 (“The LPS Share of each Retailer Settlement shall be paid by the Retailers directly to into settlement funds for each respective settlement established for the [Litigating Political Subdivision]”) and Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 4 (“The Teva Global Settlement shall be paid by Teva directly into a settlement fund established for the [Litigating Political Subdivision]”). ↑
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain Opioid Litigation Proceeds (Distributor MOU) B.1 (75% to “the State” and 25% to “Litigating Political Subdivisions”).The MOU defines “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 . ↑
See, e.g., ↑
See, e.g., (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), (requiring Litigating Political Subdivisions’ and the state’s litigation costs related to settlements with Distributors to be deducted only from their respective shares), and Sec. V.B-C (describing state and participating litigating subdivisions’ attorneys’ fees and costs). ↑
(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’ , 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., (“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 (“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. (“The Teva Global Settlement shall be paid by Teva directly into a settlement fund established for the [Litigating Political Subdivisions]”). ↑
See, e.g., (describing Litigating Political Subdivisions’ direct receipt of funds and requirement to expend only on approved purposes). ↑
. Funds for litigating political subdivisions receiving less than $500 automatically go to the county for use at the county or regional level. . ↑
(January 2024)
(February 9, 2024)
(December 2021)
(Dec. 11, 2023)
(mail order)
Yes. Oklahoma state law establishes the to develop, implement, and monitor a grant process for the disbursement of monies from the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund to political subdivisions in the state.[1] Specifically, the Abatement Board is authorized to:
Develop and implement a grant application, submission, and evaluation process[3]
Establish an appeals process for denials of grant applications and “denials of specific fund use requests”[4]
Oversee political subdivisions’ grant expenditures “to ensure grant proceeds are used exclusively for approved purposes”[5]
Suspend grant awards if a political subdivision fails to comply with Board procedures or use grant funds for nonapproved purposes[6]
Information about Abatement Board meetings, including meeting agendas and minutes, is available on the Board’s website.
No. The Abatement Board is not required to include any member(s) with lived and/or living experience.
The composition of the nine-member (9) Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board is defined by state law:[7]
One member appointed by the governor
One member appointed by the state auditor and inspector
One member appointed by the state treasurer
One member appointed by the state superintendent of public instruction
Two members appointed by the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives
Two members appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate
The state attorney general or their designee, who serves ex-officio and only votes in instances of a tie
You can view a list of current Abatement Board members here.
Terms: Members of the Abatement Board serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority and can be removed without cause.[8]
No (up to each locality). Local governments in Oklahoma are not required to establish opioid settlement advisory bodies. However, localities may choose to establish advisory councils that include members with lived and/or living experience to help ensure that settlement spending reflects community priorities.
Each member of Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Boad is prohibited from voting on any issue in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest.[9]
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(A), (C). Political subdivisions are defined to include municipalities, counties, school districts, and public trusts “where the sole beneficiary or beneficiaries are a city, town, school district or county.” Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Sec. 152(11)(a)-(d); Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(9). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(1); Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(3) (defining “eligible participant” to mean “any political subdivision impacted by the opioid crisis”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(2). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(3). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(4). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(5) (“the Board shall resume such allocations once the Board has determined the eligible participant has adequately remedied the cause of such suspension”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(A)(1)-(7). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(B). ↑
Id. ↑
and state agencies
Local officials for cities and counties
Decision-making Process
The Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board awards grants from this share to political subdivisions according to criteria and requirements described in state law and Board regulations.
Political subdivisions must adopt a resolution before spending grant funds.
Oklahoma state legislature appropriates monies to state agencies and departments
Localities decide autonomously
Supplantation
Unclear
Not prohibited
Not prohibited
Grant Funding
Yes. See the page.
No
Up to each locality (availability and processes will vary)
Public Input
Yes (political subdivisions applying for funds are required to consult community and provide opportunities for public comment)
No opportunities available (not required)
Up to each locality (not required)
Advisory Body
Yes (required). See the .
The Opioid Abatement Board is not required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience.
No (not required)
Up to each locality (not required)
Expenditures
No public reporting required (only intrastate)
Neither public nor intrastate reporting required
Neither public nor intrastate reporting required
Updates
For updates on the Opioid Abatement Board share, visit the Opioid Abatement Board’s and Attorney General’s Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Grant .
A single resource containing updates specific to the state share could not be found.
For updates on the Litigating Subdivision Direct share, a good starting point is to check the websites for your county board of commissioners, city council, or local health department. See, e.g., .
$652.42 million[1]
[1] Total is rounded. See . Accessed September 1, 2024.
State-Local Agreements (; ; ; and ); Settlement Agreement (); Legislation (); Emergency Rules ()
The Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund (Revolving Fund) contains the Opioid Abatement Board-controlled share of Oklahoma’s opioid litigation proceeds.[1] Revolving Fund monies are disbursed as grants by the Abatement Board to political subdivisions,[2] which are defined to include municipalities, school districts, counties, and public trusts (municipal or county hospitals and public trusts for certain medical teaching hospitals).[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]
With limited exceptions,[7] monies in this share must be spent on “approved purposes,”[8] which the state defines to mean the over 20 types of strategies described in state law.[9] This includes some of the categories in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E, (“Approved Uses”), such as prevention, treatment, and targeted efforts to address the needs of those involved in the criminal legal system.[10] However, Oklahoma’s state-specific list also mentions decreasing the oversupply of licit and illicit opioids twice,[11] notably limits harm reduction strategies to naloxone distribution,[12] and includes a catch-all category of allowable abatement expenditures “identified by the Oklahoma Abatement Board as consistent with the purpose of [this] Act.”[13]
Though the state defines approved purposes to mean “evidence-based, forward-looking” strategies and programs,[14] two of the allowable uses in state law permit reimbursement uses of funds (law enforcement and attorneys’ fees).[15] The Abatement Board has provided guidance that states that law enforcement interdiction activities — including “patrol, investigation, and arrest activities” — are unauthorized uses of funds from this share.[16]
Opioid Abatement Board decides. The Oklahoma has the ultimate power to disburse monies from this share to political subdivisions,[17] which are defined to include municipalities, school districts, counties, and public trusts (municipal or county hospitals and public trusts for certain medical teaching hospitals).[18] The Abatement Board is empowered to develop grant disbursement, application, and evaluation processes to distribute monies from the Revolving Fund.[19] State law also requires the Abatement Board to oversee grants to ensure that they are used on approved purposes.[20]
The Abatement Board’s rules describe factors it must consider when making its awards, including that account for local impact (rates of opioid use disorder (OUD), overdose deaths, and opioids distributed),[21] as well as a for maximum grant award amounts based on population size (for example, the maximum funding award for a county with a population between 25,001 and 75,000 is $150,000).[22]
When submitting grant applications, participating political subdivisions must also submit a resolution, ordinance, abatement plan, or abatement budget to the Abatement Board.[23] Subdivisions may submit joint applications,[24] and each may contract and partner with nonprofit organizations to use their grant awards on approved purposes.[25]
Applications are scored according to the rubric in of the Abatement Board’s rules, which considers factors such as the evidence base for a proposed project and whether the application aligns with community efforts.[26] The Abatement Board “may” review grant applications according to a process that includes an initial screening, peer review, and Board review and approval.[27]
Unclear. There is conflicting information about whether Oklahoma explicitly prohibits or explicitly permits supplantation uses of funds from the share:
The Abatement Board’s explicitly prohibit the use of grant funds “for costs that will be reimbursed by another funding source” and provides that the Board may “require a grant recipient to demonstrate through accounting records that funds received from another funding source are not used for costs that will be reimbursed by the Board.”[28] This provision effectively operates as a bar against “double-dipping” on funding sources and may limit some, but not most, forms of supplantation.[29]
The asks applicants to identify whether the proposed project is a “proposed supplement or enhancement to a project or effect already in place on or after January 1, 2015” and whether “grant funds requested [will] replace prior local or state funds for the requested project(s).”[30]
No (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share. Grantees are required to submit quarterly reports to the Abatement Board to ensure funds are being used for approved uses,[33] but the Abatement Board’s do not require publication of these reports online.
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
Not applicable.
OAC Sec. 75:50-1-2 (“‘Revolving Fund’ means the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund established under 74 O.S. Sec. 30.6” and “‘Board’ means the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board established by 74 O.S. Sec. 30.7”) and OAC Sec. 75:50-3-4(b) (“The Board shall conduct disbursement of opioid grant awards from the Revolving Fund”). Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.6(A) (creating the "Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund” and providing that the fund will “be a continuing fund, not subject to fiscal year limitations, and shall consist of all opioid funds obtained through a settlement or judgment by the Attorney General on behalf of the State of Oklahoma related to opioid litigation involving pharmaceutical supply chain participants ”) and Sec. 30.6(A)(1)-(2) (Fund consists of monies designated for deposit into it or monies appropriated to it by the legislature). See, e.g., , Sec. 1 (appropriating $10.22 million from the Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund [“Fund 383”] to the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund) and , 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”). See also . Oklahoma Attorney General webinar slides. February 9, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (describing “$23,000,000 in available grant award funding” in the “Abatement [ed. note: Revolving] Fund” from legislative appropriation and bankruptcy deals with Purdue and Mallinckrodt). ↑
However, the Abatement Board’s “” provides that supplantation uses are explicitly permitted for political subdivisions, “but only for abatement strategies, programming and services that started on or after January 1, 2015.”[32]
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(9) (defining “political subdivisions” by reference to certain provisions of Section 152 of Title 51 of the Oklahoma Statutes) and Okla Stat. tit. 51, Sec. 152(11)(a)-(d) (defining “political subdivisions” to mean the above). See also OAC Sec 75:50-1-1 (defining “political subdivision” by reference to Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(9)). ↑
(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.” . 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 . All of the Teva settlement proceeds are allocated to the litigating political subdivisions. See . ↑
(Exhibit B of the MOU provides a list of litigating political subdivisions and allocation percentages). ↑
, Secs. 1-2. See also . Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The fund currently contains upwards of $27,000,000.00”) and . 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”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(p) (defining “approved purposes” to include “reimburse[ment for] attorney fees and allowable expenses directly related to opioid litigation incurred as part of legal services agreements entered into before May 21, 2020”) and Sec. 30.7(C)(1) (describing the Board’s powers and duties to include the creation of “procedures for the disbursement of opioid grant awards to eligible participants, to be used … to fund and reimburse costs related to approved purposes”) (emphasis added); OAC 75:50-1-2 (defining “approved purposes” to include “uses of funds that are reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the grant project, and allocable to the grant project”); (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), (requiring Litigating Political Subdivisions’ and the state’s litigation costs related to settlements with Distributors to be deducted only from their respective shares), and Sec. V.B-C (describing state and participating litigating subdivisions’ attorneys’ fees and costs). See also . Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“Are indirect costs authorized as a part of a political subdivision’s implementation of a grant?” “Yes. Indirect costs are permitted but may not exceed 5% of the total grant award”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.8(B) (providing that after an initial disbursement of funds by the Board (which has already taken place), remaining monies in the Revolving Fund can be awarded as grants, “provided such awards shall only be utilized by eligible participants for approved purposes”); See generally Opioid Abatement Board regulations. 41 Ok. Reg. 801 (codified at OAC 75:50-1-1 through 75:50-3-7, in addition to Appendices) (requiring throughout that Revolving Fund grants be spent on “approved purposes,” defined to mean “the same as 74 O.S. Sec. 30.5(1)”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(a)-(v) (defining “approved purposes” to mean 22 specified interventions). See also (requiring that net opioid settlement funds after payment of attorneys' fees must “be used for the abatement of the Opioid crisis … consistent with the definition of … "approved purposes" as set forth in [Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5]”). ↑
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’ , 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)(v). ↑
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 also OAC Sec. 75:50-3-2(c) (“All approved purposes listed in an Applicant's Application and Form shall relate to strategies, programming and services occurred on or after January 1, 2015, to be eligible for opioid grant award funding”). ↑
See . Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“Can the funds be used for law enforcement interdiction efforts?” “No. Use of abatement funds for police salaries would have to be directly tied to abatement efforts (treatment, education/prevention, criminal justice involved, recovery, harm reduction) and not for interdiction (patrol, investigation, and arrest activities)”). ↑
OAC Secs. 75:50-3-4(b) (“The Board shall conduct disbursement of opioid grant awards from the Revolving Fund”), 75:50-3-3(a) (“The amount of a grant award is determined solely in the discretion of the Board. The Board is not required to fund a grant in the amount requested by the Applicant”), and 75:50-1-2 (limiting definitions of “applicant” and “recipient” to “eligible participants,” who are defined to “mean[] the same as [Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(3)]). Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(3) (“‘Eligible participant means any political subdivision impacted by the opioid crisis”) and Sec. 30.5(9) (defining “political subdivision” by referencing Oka. Stat. tit. 51, Sec. 152(11)(a)-(d)). ↑
Oka. Stat. tit. 51, Sec. 152(11)(a)-(d) (defining “political subdivisions” to mean the above municipality, school district, county, or public trust). See, e.g., Opioid Abatement Board awards first round of grants. Oklahoma Attorney General press release. June 4, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board today awarded $11 million in grant awards to 71 cities, counties, schools districts and public trusts to help address Oklahoma’s opioid crisis”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(1)-(3). OAC Secs. 75:50-3-1 (Board rules on grant application process), 75:50-3-2 (detailed Board rules on restrictions and requirements for grant awards from the Revolving Fund) and 75:50-3-4 (application review and disbursement processes). But see OAC Sec. 75:50-3-1(c) (“The Board may delegate review of completed applications to the Office of the Attorney General and to whomever it finds qualified, capable, and possessing necessary capacity”). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(4) (responsibility of Board to “[m]aintain oversight over the expenditure of opioid grant awards to ensure grant proceeds are used exclusively for approved purposes”). The Board also has the power to suspend awards to grantees that misspend their awards. Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(C)(5). ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-2-1(c)(1)-(4). See also (Opioid Distribution Calculation Table) for how different criteria are weighed. ↑
(County Tiers). Note that the Board can exceed its maximum ranges if an applicant demonstrates extraordinary need and there are sufficient funds available for it to do so. OAC Sec.75:50-3-3(j). ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-2(a)(1)-(3). See also Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.7(D). ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-1(j). See, e.g., Diana Dickinson. . The Claremont Daily Progress. June 8, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“This comes after the Rogers County Board of County Commissioners submitted a joint application in March with the city of Claremore for $506,158 to the Oklahoma Attorney General. … By pursuing these funds together, the city-county must follow strategies and guidelines, defined by the Oklahoma Attorney General, for supporting individuals struggling with addiction and focusing on prevention and community education efforts”). ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-2(f). ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-4(a) and . ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-4(a). ↑
Okla. Admin. Code Sec. 75:50-3-4(i) The Board’s current emergency rules are effective until September 15, 2024, but the proposed permanent rules, adopted at the Board’s February 21, 2024 meeting, include identical language. ↑
For example, the provision would prohibit the use of funds from the “Opioid Abatement Board” share to reimburse a political subdivision for treatment expenses which will be reimbursed by Medicaid, but it would not prohibit the political subdivision from using funds to replace (i.e., supplant) expenses it would otherwise pay with general revenue funds. See, e.g., (“Has your political subdivision or public trust leveraged all other sources of funding (e.g., billing for billable services under an insurance plan, Medicare or Medicaid) available prior to applying for this grant?”). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. December 20, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
. December 20, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
(“Funds made available through the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Revolving Fund shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, other federal, state, and local funds. The supplement, not supplant, requirement ensures that Grant funds are expended to benefit the intended population defined in the Application, rather than being used to cover expenses that the Recipient would have paid out of other funds if Grant funds were not available”). Meeting Packet for the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board’s Special Meeting on December 20, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
See (“Is a political subdivision authorized to supplant existing funds with funds awarded by the Board?” “Yes, but only for abatement strategies, programming and services that started on or after January 1, 2015. For example, if a political subdivision were to decide to reduce or replace previously allocated funds with Board-awarded grant funds to support an existing abatement program, this would be supplanting and is not prohibited under the Act. However, the Legislature in passing the Act has expressed its intent and encourages “forward-looking” strategies, programming and services and the expansion of availability of the same. Therefore, supplanting is discouraged as the grant award funding available through the Opioid Abatement Board may be one-time funding. However, supplementing, adding to, expanding, or enhancing programs or services starting on or after January 1, 2015 is allowable”) (emphasis in original). Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board. January 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024. See also in the Meeting Packet for the Oklahoma Opioid Abatement Board’s Special Meeting on December 20, 2023 (identical to January 2024 FAQ). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑
OAC Sec. 75:50-3-7(c)-(d). ↑