HB728 changes the allowable uses of Maryland’s Opioid Restitution Fund. Under the bill, the fund continues to support a broad range of opioid and substance use disorder abatement activities, including prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, crisis services, school education campaigns, enforcement of opioid laws, research, and evaluations of program outcomes. It also preserves support for community-based recovery organizations and certain pilot or demonstration programs approved by the Opioid Restitution Fund Advisory Council.
The bill’s main new authorization is to allow fund money to pay for operating expenses and personnel costs of 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 adds a reporting requirement directing the Attorney General to submit annual reports beginning October 1, 2025, describing the unit’s investigations, lawsuits filed, and the disposition of those lawsuits. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and is temporary, expiring June 30, 2029 unless renewed.
Impact
HB728 amends § 7-331 of the State Finance and Procurement Article to expand the permissible uses of the Opioid Restitution Fund. The practical effect is to let the State use settlement-derived opioid funds not only for public health and recovery purposes, but also to support the Attorney General’s Opioids Enforcement Unit in pursuing additional opioid-related recoveries. The bill adds a new reporting subsection requiring annual oversight information to the Governor and General Assembly, increasing transparency around enforcement activity funded or supported by the unit.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support. It passed the House by a wide margin (102-36) and the Senate by a smaller but still clear margin (34-13), indicating broad approval with some opposition. The available record does not include committee testimony or floor debate, so the overall sentiment can be inferred mainly from the strong passage votes and the bill’s enactment into law.
Contention
The likely point of contention is whether opioid restitution dollars should be used for enforcement-related operating costs rather than being reserved primarily for treatment, prevention, recovery, and harm reduction services. Supporters would view the change as a way to strengthen the Attorney General’s ability to recover additional funds from opioid defendants, while critics may argue that settlement money should be directed more directly to public health responses and community services. The new reporting requirement suggests some legislative concern about oversight and accountability for the enforcement unit’s use of resources.