SB 495 amends Maryland’s Opioid Restitution Fund law to expand the list of permitted uses for money in the Fund. In addition to existing uses for prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction, pilot programs, and evaluation, the bill authorizes Fund dollars to pay operating expenses and personnel costs for the Opioids Enforcement Unit within the Office of the Attorney General when those costs are tied to investigations, enforcement actions, and other efforts to recover money from opioid-related judgments and settlements.
The bill also adds a new reporting requirement. Beginning on or before October 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General must report to the Governor and General Assembly on the status of Opioids Enforcement Unit activity, including the number of investigations, lawsuits filed, and the disposition of those lawsuits. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and is temporary, expiring June 30, 2029 unless extended by later legislation.
Impact
The bill changes State Finance and Procurement Article § 7-331 by broadening the allowable expenditures from the Opioid Restitution Fund. It creates a new statutory basis for using settlement and judgment proceeds to support the Attorney General’s opioid enforcement operations, rather than limiting the Fund primarily to abatement, treatment, prevention, recovery, and related evaluation activities. It also imposes an annual reporting obligation on the Office of the Attorney General regarding enforcement-unit activity, increasing legislative oversight of how opioid-related recoveries are pursued and documented.
Sentiment
The recorded votes suggest the bill had substantial support in both chambers, passing the Senate 29-13 and the House 99-33. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the broad majorities indicate generally favorable sentiment toward giving the Attorney General additional resources to pursue opioid-related recoveries while maintaining some level of accountability through reporting. The temporary four-year sunset also suggests an effort to make the change subject to later review.
Contention
The main point of contention is the use of Opioid Restitution Fund money for government enforcement overhead rather than exclusively for direct abatement services. Supporters likely view the change as necessary to fund investigations and litigation that can increase recoveries from opioid defendants, while critics may argue that restitution dollars should be reserved for treatment, prevention, and recovery programs for affected communities. The reporting requirement appears designed to address concerns about transparency and the scope of enforcement spending.