The opioid epidemic has extracted an immense toll on Pennsylvania’s communities. Now, with over $2 billion in settlement funds set to flow into the state over the next two decades from companies involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of prescription opioids, we stand at a critical crossroads. This windfall presents an unprecedented opportunity to combat the opioid crisis, but Philadelphia’s controversial spending decisions threaten to undermine the entire initiative’s effectiveness.
While the city has received more than $20 million in settlement funds to date, its plan for the allocation of some of them within the Kensington neighborhood has raised serious concerns. Some believe the city runs the risk of falling prey to the kind of mission drift that plagued previous settlements, whereby money meant for specific public health crises ended up funding pet projects having little to do with the underlying issue the funds were meant to address. As the opioid crisis continues to claim lives on a daily basis, we cannot afford to make the same mistakes.
Kensington, home to what’s considered by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials to be the “East Coast’s largest open-air drug market,” certainly deserves substantial support. However, Philadelphia’s decision to spend settlement funds on home repairs and assistance for small businesses as part of a broader abatement plan for the community – albeit well-intentioned – strays too far from the settlement’s intended purpose of directly addressing the opioid crisis. That’s why the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust (PAOT) stepped in to reject those aspects of the Kensington spending plan, ensuring that the terms of the settlement are strictly followed.
Philadelphia’s leaders argue that addressing root causes of addiction like poverty and neighborhood deterioration will help prevent future addiction cycles. While this argument has merit in theory, it misses the urgent reality of the current crisis. When there are immediate, proven interventions available, directing funds toward general community improvements feels like a dangerous gamble with lives at stake.
Other Pennsylvania counties offer compelling examples of how these funds could be better utilized. Neighboring Chester County’s implementation of Project Sticker Shock, which aims to help combat underage drinking, as well as its initiatives to expand access to medications to reverse overdoses and treat addiction, demonstrates focused, practical approaches to prevention and response. Other counties, including Perry, Cumberland, and Allegheny, have prioritized medication-assisted treatment in their prisons – a critical intervention point for individuals at high risk of relapse or overdose upon release.
Philadelphia has appealed the decision of the PAOT to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania where this fundamental disagreement about how to best serve communities ravaged by opioid addiction will ultimately be settled. At stake is not only access to Philadelphia’s future settlement payments – which could be reduced or withheld by the PAOT if they lose and do not change their abatement spending plans – but that of the entire state as well. The terms of the settlement require that 85 percent of funds be spent on authorized uses. If this standard is not met, future payments to the state from the settlement could be jeopardized and previously divested funds could potentially be clawed back. Such an outcome would be catastrophic not just for Philadelphia, but for the entire state’s efforts to combat opioid abuse and must be avoided.
As Philadelphia awaits the court’s decision, the city should begin planning how to better utilize future settlement payments. While community development is vital, it shouldn’t come at the expense of direct interventions that can help curb the worst impacts of the opioid crisis. Its leaders would be wise to reconsider their approach and, instead, look to their neighbors for guidance on alternative applications of their funds.
The strategies employed by other Pennsylvania counties provide a clear roadmap: focused spending on proven interventions, direct support for at-risk populations, and careful adherence to settlement guidelines. Only through such disciplined, strategic allocation can we hope to maximize the impact of these historic settlements and make meaningful progress in combating the opioid crisis that has devastated so many of our communities.
The stakes are simply too high for anything less. Lives hang in the balance, and we cannot afford to squander this opportunity on well-meaning but misaligned initiatives when proven solutions to the opioid crisis are ready to be implemented.
