DOCUMENTS CITED THROUGHOUT THE SERIES (“PART 30”)

ACTUAL BUDGET LANGUAGE AT ISSUE

bill page for S2026

“111. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law or regulation to the contrary, of amounts received by the State pursuant to settlement agreements with opioid manufacturers and distributors and on deposit in the Opioid Recovery and Remediation Fund, $45 million is appropriated to the Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, for distribution as follows for the purpose of providing necessary care and treatment for victims of opioid-related health issues: $10 million to Hackensack, $15 million to RWJ Barnabas, $15 million to Cooper, and $5 million to Atlantic Health. All activities funded pursuant to this paragraph shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of the relevant settlement agreements and may include eligible administrative costs to the extent authorized by those agreements. Consistent with CMS guidelines and subject to any required federal approval, amounts appropriated pursuant to this paragraph may be utilized by the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services to maximize federal Medicaid funds.”

NJ’S OPIOID SETTLEMENT LAW (i.e., the statute ignored by the budget language to the left)

“(2) The Department of Human Services shall be designated the lead agency for the State for purposes of directing the disbursement and allocation of the State’s share of any moneys that are allocated to or otherwise received by the State as a result of a national opioid litigation resolution and for monitoring the use of moneys disbursed to counties or municipalities under a national opioid litigation resolution or under an agreement entered into pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2023, c.25 (C.26:2G-41), to the extent required by such agreements, and, in coordination with the State Comptroller and the Attorney General, ensuring that the use of such moneys complies with the purposes set forth in this act and is consistent with the terms of the applicable national opioid litigation resolution and any applicable agreement entered into pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2023, c.25 (C.26:2G-41).”

NJ COMPTROLLER’S REPORT (ostensibly re: Irvington, but truly about state oversight failures in general)

“Public entities entrusted with opioid funds have a legal and ethical obligation to spend them transparently and responsibly. These funds are meant to address an ongoing public health emergency that continues to claim lives.

…

State law designates the DHS as the lead agency for ensuring appropriate use of opioid funds, but DHS claims to have no oversight role involving local governments beyond collecting annual reports. It does not provide guidance to local governments on evidence-based or evidence-informed spending—despite having the expertise and institutional resources to do so. This undermines the intent of the settlements.”