LEGAL SETTLEMENTS ON THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF OPIOID ADDICTION IN THE WAKE OF THE OPIOID CRISIS

Abstract

Many public discussions surround the opioid crisis, a focal point asking how to effectively allocate legal settlement awards to address opioid addiction. While there have been a mix of proposals for fund allocations and how to prioritize funds, there has been no consensus among the states as to how to effectively allocate funds in order to establish prevention programs, harm reduction, and treatment services to mitigate societal costs. This study examines the best practices for allocation recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM), comparing them to funding allocation approaches of three states representative of diverse populations: Arkansas, Texas, and California. Data pertaining to opioid legal settlements for different opioid abatement categories are analyzed using a synthesis, to characterize the allocations employed by these three states to promote areas of harm reduction, prevention, and treatment in the wake of the opioid crisis. To effectively reduce mortality rates, communities must communicate their primary areas of concern to receive settlement allocations where most needed. Recommendations include outreach efforts to populations at risk of overdose, expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), focusing on evidence-based treatments, and collaborating with public safety programs.Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited.Civilian, Department of the Nav