County loses appeal to include wellness program in opioid relief funded initiatives.
Somerset County recently lost its appeal to use $30,000 of opioid trust funds for an outdoor recreation program, marking a significant moment in the ongoing scrutiny of opioid settlement fund usage in Pennsylvania. This decision is the first of what could be a series of disputes between the counties and the Pennsylvania Opioid Trust about how to best distribute settlement funds.
The controversy began when Somerset County directed a portion of its opioid settlement money to Movement Outdoors, a program designed to offer at-risk youth outdoor activities like biking, kayaking, skiing, and rock climbing. The program’s goal is to enhance both the mental and physical well-being of participants by providing healthy alternatives to risky behaviors (primarily drug use). County officials argued that the program aligned with the prevention strategies outlined in the opioid settlement guidelines, specifically citing federal recommendations for school-based programs designed to prevent drug abuse.
Erin Howsare, executive director of the Somerset Single County Authority for Drug and Alcohol, defended the idea, stating that it helped young people access outdoor opportunities in the Laurel Highlands by reducing the barriers of cost, transportation, and knowledge. Howsare said the program had “reached almost 400 students in the past two years,” making a measurable impact on at-risk youth. The initiative also encouraged mentorship and promoted a positive, healthy lifestyle for young people who might otherwise engage in risky behaviors.
Despite these efforts, the Opioid Trust’s dispute resolution committee voted 5-1 against Somerset County. The committee acknowledged the program’s positive impact but argued that it did not meet the criteria for using opioid settlement funds. In defending its decision, committee members emphasized that the funds were intended to specifically address issues directly related to opioid abuse and addiction, not broader community wellness programs.
Trust Chair Tom VanKirk praised the county’s work, stating that the program was “outstanding” and that he “wished more counties had similar initiatives.” However, he stressed the importance of staying true to the primary intent of the settlement funds – that being addressing the opioid crisis. Several other members of the Trust, including Mifflin County Commissioner Robert Postal, voiced their uncertainty about the program’s ability to specifically target at-risk youth for opioid abuse prevention.
This ruling shed light on the fact that opioid settlement initiatives must clearly target the opioid crisis and provide evidence of their effectiveness in preventing drug misuse specifically. The Trust members stressed the need for evidence-based approaches that focus on populations most at risk.
The trust has been broken into three working groups to review county proposals on how opioid funds are spent, but these meetings are closed to the public. This lack of transparency has left many local officials unsure about what qualifies as compliant use of the settlement money. In Somerset’s case, county officials believed their program adhered to the guidelines – however, misunderstandings between the parties ultimately lead to its denial.
Although Somerset County lost this appeal, the Opioid Trust did leave open the possibility of revisiting the funding issue. VanKirk noted that if the program could provide evidence that it directly prevented opioid misuse or if it could be justified as an evidence-based initiative, it might still qualify for settlement funds in the future. For now, Somerset County must decide whether to repay the $30,000, pull the money from future awards, or discontinue the program’s opioid settlement funding.
Sources:
Opioid trust says no in Somerset appeal
Somerset County loses opioid trust appeal in the first test of many
Join the conversation!