Fifteen percent (15%) is allocated to an undefined “State Fund” and explicitly excluded from the 70% Opioid Abatement Special Fund.[1]
With limited exceptions,[2] this share may be spent either on reimbursements for past abatement expenditures or for forward-looking abatement.[3] Communications from the Vermont Attorney General refer to the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[4] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies, as the state’s list of approved uses.
The “State” decides. The “state,” which Vermont’s governing documents do not define, ultimately decides specific expenditures for this share.[5]
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Vermont does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of funds from its 15% 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 Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
Not applicable.
. September 14, 2021. Accessed August 28, 2024 (“15% to states to remediate for past expenses of the opioid crisis or for future abatement”). The September 2021 executive summary from the AG applies only to the Distributor and Janssen settlements. A subsequent memo from the AG in March 2023 addressed “second wave” settlements (Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walmart, and Walgrens) and confirmed that “15% [of these settlement funds go] to the State”). . March 23, 2023. Accessed August 28, 2024. See also 18 V.S.A. Sec. 4771 (“While an opioid litigation settlement may designate a portion of the monies for local or State use, this subchapter applies to only monies from abatement accounts funds”). ↑
See (“[A]pproved purposes can be found at Exhibit E to the [Settlement Agreements], which is attached to this memo”) and I.SS (“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”). ↑
(“[A]pproved purposes can be found at Exhibit E to the SAs, which is attached to this memo”). See also . Vermont Attorney General website. Accessed August 28, 2024 (linking to “”). ↑
(“15% to states to remediate for past expenses of the opioid crisis or for future abatement (the ‘State Fund’)”). ↑
Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of Vermont’s opioid settlement shares are spent:
70% Opioid Abatement Special Fund share: Vermont state legislature
15% local share: local officials for counties, cities, and towns
15% state share: the “State” (not further specified)
The Opioid Abatement Special Fund holds 70% of Vermont’s opioid settlement funds.[1]
In general, and with limited exceptions,[2] Vermont’s opioid settlements must be spent on the uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[3] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies.
State law further defines approved uses of the Opioid Abatement Special Fund with a 13-item list of “opioid prevention, intervention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, and evaluation activities,”[4] and Fund expenditures must prioritize reducing overdose deaths according to a 9-item list that includes activities such as “increasing access to medication-assisted treatment” and expanding syringe service programs.”[5] Taken together, the approved uses in Vermont state law substantially mirror those in the national settlement agreements’ Exhibit E.[6]
Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee and Department of Health recommend, state legislature decides. The Vermont state legislature ultimately decides expenditures for the Fund after consulting the recommendations of the Vermont Department of Health (DOH) and its Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee.[7]
The Committee was created to advise the state’s Governor, DOH, and General Assembly on spending priorities for the Fund.[8] In making its recommendations, the Committee is required to consult those with lived experience,[9] the , frontline support professionals, and “other stakeholders.”[10] It must also consider community abatement needs, provider perspectives, and the “ongoing challenges of the opioid crisis on marginalized populations, including individuals who have a lived experience of opioid use disorder.”[11] It must then annually present its recommendations to DOH and legislative leaders.[12]
Vermont’s statutory scheme requires DOH to submit a spending plan “informed by the recommendations of the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee.” [13] But according to a press release from the Governor earlier this year, “the law does not limit [the DOH Commissioner’s] discretion in making … final recommendations to the Governor for [the Governor’s] budget proposal or to the Legislature.”[14]
Yes, supplantation is prohibited. Vermont state law explicitly prohibits supplantation uses of funds from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund.[15] This means that funds from Vermont’s 70% Opioid Abatement Special Fund share must be spent in ways that supplement – rather than replace (or “supplant”) – existing state or local government resources.
Yes (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). DOH publishes a that includes budgeted amounts for activities funded by the Opioid Abatement Special Fund.[16]
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
In July 2024, the ACLU of Vermont sued DOH asserting violations of Vermont’s Open Meetings Law and its Public Records Law based on allegations that the DOH Commissioner (as non-voting Chair) “unilaterally” changed the Advisory Committee’s recommendations to remove funding for overdose prevention centers (OPCs) before presenting those recommendations to the legislature.[17]
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(a)(1) (“There is created the Opioid Abatement Special Fund”). See also 32 V.S.A. Sec. 585(a)(2) (defining a special fund). . September 14, 2021. Accessed August 28, 2024 (describing Vermont’s adoption of default allocation scheme: 70% to Abatement Fund, 15% to State Fund, and 15% to Subdivision Fund). The September 2021 executive summary from the AG applies only to the Distributor and Janssen settlements. A subsequent memo from the AG in March 2023 addressed “second wave” settlements (Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walmart, and Walgrens) and confirmed that “70% [of these settlement funds go] to the statewide Opioid Abatement Fund”). . March 23, 2023. Accessed August 28, 2024. ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(b)(13) (describing “the cost of the administrative, technical, and legal assistance provided to the [Opioid Settlement] Advisory Committee by the Department of Health” as a valid use of Fund monies). See also (“[A]pproved purposes can be fund at Exhibit E to the [Settlement Agreements], which is attached to this memo.) and I.SS (“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”). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(a)(1) (“The Opioid Abatement Special Fund shall consist of all abatement account fund monies … that must be utilized exclusively for opioid prevention, intervention, treatment, recovery, and harm reduction services”) and also (“The [Settlement Agreements] provides a default mechanism for distributing the Abatement Fund that comprises 70% of the settlement monies. The default mechanism requires the State to designate an agency that will request the monies for approved purposes. Those approved purposes can be found at Exhibit E”). See also I.SS (“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”). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(b)(1)-(13). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(c)(2) and (c)(8). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(b)(1)-(13) (largely corresponding to ) and 18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(c)(1)-(9) (largely corresponding to ). Compare, e.g., 18 V.S.A Sec. 4774(c)(1) (“promoting the appropriate use of naloxone and other U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs to reverse opioid overdoses”) with (“NALOXONE OR OTHER FDA-APPROVED DRUG TO REVERSE OPIOID OVERDOSES”) and ↑
See, e.g., 2024 Vermont Pub. Acts 113, (making numerous appropriations from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund, including $800,000 “for grants to providers for ongoing support for contingency management” and $150,000 “for a grant to Johnson Health Center to established a managed medical response partnership”). See also 18 V.S.A Sec. 4774(a)(1) (Fund is “administered” by DOH), Sec. 4774(a)(2) (“DOH] shall submit a spending plan to the General Assembly, informed by the recommendations of the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee” and “[DOH] shall disburse monies from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund pursuant to 32 V.S.A. chapter 7, subchapter 3”) and Sec. 4772(e) (“[T]he Advisory Committee shall present its recommendations for expenditures from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund …to the Department of Health”). ↑
18 V.S.A Sec. 4772(c) (describing one of the Advisory Committee’s duties as “providing recommendations to the Governor, the Department of Health, and the General Assembly on prioritizing spending from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund”). ↑
Specifically, the Advisory Committee must “demonstrate broad ongoing consultation with individuals living with opioid use disorder about their direct experience with related systems, including medication-assisted treatment, residential treatment, recovery services, harm reduction services, overdose, supervision by the Department of Corrections, and involvement with the Department for Children and Families’ Family Services Division.” 18 V.S.A Sec. 4772(c). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4772(c) (“[T]he Advisory Committee shall demonstrate consultation with individuals with direct lived experience of opioid use disorder, frontline support professionals, the Substance Misuse Oversight Prevention and Advisory Council, and other stakeholders to identify spending priorities as related to opioid use disorder prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services and harm reduction strategies for the purpose of providing recommendations”). The advises the Governor and the General Assembly on improvements to Vermont’s substance use prevention policies and programs. See Council’s for more. Accessed August 28, 2024. ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4772(c)(1)-(3). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4772(e) (“Annually, the Advisory Committee shall present its recommendations for expenditures from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund established pursuant to this subchapter to the Department of Health and concurrently submit its recommendations in writing to the House Committees on Appropriations and on Human Services and the Senate Committees on Appropriations and on Health and Welfare”). See, e.g. January 16, 2024. Accessed August 28, 2024 (“I am pleased to provide the recommendations of the Opioid Settlement Committee to the VT General Assembly for fiscal year 2025…”). ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(a)(2). ↑
. State of Vermont, Governor’s press release. February 16, 2024. Accessed August 28, 2024. ↑
18 V.S.A. Sec. 4774(a)(3) (“Disbursements from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund shall supplement and not supplant or replace any existing or future local, State, or federal government funding for infrastructure, programs, supports, and resources, including health insurance benefits, federal grant funding, and Medicaid and Medicare funds”) ↑
. DOH. Last updated August 21, 2024. Accessed August 28, 2024. ↑
. ACLU of Vermont press release. July 17, 2024. Accessed August 28, 2024. Read the complaint in full . ↑
The 15% local share is allocated to participating counties, cities, and towns according to Exhibit G of the national settlement agreements.[1]
Non-participating subdivisions’ amounts are reallocated to the Abatement Fund,[2] and Vermont’s counties may also redirect their shares to the Fund.[3]
With limited exceptions,[4] this share must be spent on the uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[5] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and other strategies.
Local governments decide autonomously. Decisionmakers for the participating counties, cities, and towns will ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Exhibit E uses.[6]
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Vermont does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of funds from its 15% local share. This means that the local 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 for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
Not applicable.
. September 14, 2021. Accessed August 28, 2024 (“15% to state subdivisions to be used to abate the opioid crisis”). (“Exhibit G provides the calculation of the relative allocation of funds available to the respective subdivision as a portion of the 15% subdivision settlement bucket” and “Vermont subdivisions with populations under 10,000 will be allocated modest sums as part of the subdivision bucket. If they sign a release, they will receive those sums directly. If they do not sign a release, the sums allocated to them will go to the Abatement Fund”). See also 18 V.S.A. Sec. 4771 (“While an opioid litigation settlement may designate a portion of the monies for local or State use, this subchapter applies to only monies from abatement accounts funds”). ↑
See, e.g., . October 11, 2022. Accessed August 28, 2024 (“Pursuant to … the … Distributor Settlement Agreement, the identified Non-Participating Subdivisions are ineligible to receive their allocated shares for the current Payment Year. The Directing Administrator has added the amounts allocated to these ineligible Subdivisions to the Abatement Accounts Fund”)... ↑
See (“[A]pproved purposes can be found at Exhibit E to the [Settlement Agreements], which is attached to this memo”) and I.SS (“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”). ↑
(“15% to state subdivisions to be used to abate the opioid crisis”), (“[A] subdivision will use any monies received for Opioid Remediation Uses … listed in Exhibit E”), and (“[A]pproved purposes can be found at Exhibit E”). See also I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation.”). ↑
(“15% to state subdivisions to be used to abate the opioid crisis”) and (“[A] subdivision will use any monies received for Opioid Remediation Uses … listed in Exhibit E”). See also 18 V.S.A. Sec. 4771 (“While an opioid litigation settlement may designate a portion of the monies for local or State use, this subchapter applies to only monies from abatement accounts funds”). ↑