Water Pollution Control - Discharge Permits - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
HB0395 would restrict how Maryland state funds may be used to buy opioid overdose reversal drugs, such as naloxone, from certain manufacturers or distributors that were parties to opioid-related settlements with states because of their role in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of prescription opioids. Beginning July 1, 2025, the bill generally bars the use of state funds for these purchases when the seller is an opioid settlement party.
The bill includes two important exceptions. It allows purchases to continue under settlement agreements executed on or before September 1, 2024, if the seller is obligated to provide overdose reversal drugs as part of that settlement, and it also allows existing state contracts executed on or before June 30, 2025, to continue until their terms are fulfilled. However, any such state contract may not be renewed on or after July 1, 2025. The bill also states that it may not impair existing obligations or contract rights, and it takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB0395 adds a new section to the State Finance and Procurement Article, creating a procurement restriction tied to opioid settlement parties. In practice, it would limit the State’s purchasing options for overdose reversal medications and could require agencies to shift future procurement to vendors not covered by the settlement-party restriction, while preserving certain existing settlement-based supply arrangements and current contracts through completion.
The available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears targeted and policy-driven, with a clear public-health purpose of distancing state purchasing from entities involved in the opioid crisis while preserving existing contractual commitments.
The main potential point of contention is whether the procurement ban could reduce flexibility or increase costs for state agencies that buy naloxone and similar drugs, especially if settlement parties are major suppliers. Another likely issue is the bill’s carve-outs for preexisting settlement obligations and contracts, which balance the restriction against contract-rights concerns and may be viewed as either necessary protections or as loopholes depending on the perspective. No specific stakeholder positions are provided in the record.