HB0728 changes the allowable uses of Maryland’s Opioid Restitution Fund. Under the bill, money in the fund may continue to be used for a broad range of opioid abatement activities, including prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, crisis services, school education campaigns, enforcement of opioid prescribing and sales laws, research, and support for community recovery organizations. The bill also preserves the ability to fund certain pilot programs and program evaluations, subject to approval by the Opioid Restitution Fund Advisory Council.
The bill’s main new provision authorizes the fund to pay operating expenses and personnel costs for the Opioids Enforcement Unit within the Office of the Attorney General, but only for investigations, enforcement actions, and related activities aimed at recovering money from opioid-related judgments and settlements. It also requires the Attorney General to report annually, beginning by October 1, 2025, on the unit’s activity, including the number of investigations, lawsuits filed, and the disposition of those lawsuits. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and is set to sunset on June 30, 2029.
HB0728 amends State Finance and Procurement Article § 7-331 to expand the permitted uses of the Opioid Restitution Fund and to add a reporting requirement for the Attorney General’s Opioids Enforcement Unit. The practical effect is to allow settlement and judgment proceeds from opioid litigation to support the State’s own enforcement and recovery efforts, not just direct abatement and treatment-related programs. The bill also creates a temporary four-year authorization, after which the new authority expires unless renewed by the General Assembly.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears to have been treated as an administrative and enforcement-related adjustment to the opioid restitution framework rather than a controversial policy shift. The inclusion of a reporting requirement and a sunset provision suggests an effort to provide oversight and limit the duration of the new spending authority.
The most likely point of contention is the diversion of Opioid Restitution Fund dollars to cover the Attorney General’s enforcement unit operating and personnel costs, rather than reserving those funds exclusively for treatment, prevention, recovery, and harm reduction services. Supporters would likely view this as a way to strengthen the State’s ability to recover additional opioid-related funds and enforce judgments and settlements; critics could argue that restitution money should be directed primarily to direct public health responses. The bill’s reporting requirement and temporary sunset appear designed to address concerns about accountability and scope.