Revise laws related to state purchase of opioid antagonists
Summary
SB 112 would restrict how Montana state funds and available federal funds may be used to buy opioid antagonists, including naloxone, after June 30, 2025. The bill bars purchases from any person that was a party to, or an affiliate or subsidiary of a party to, a settlement with a state arising from the manufacture, sale, or distribution of prescription opioids. It also prevents renewal of state contracts for opioid antagonists with those entities after that date.
The bill includes a grandfather clause for existing state contracts executed before July 1, 2025, allowing them to continue until their terms are fulfilled. It also requires any settlement-based agreement entered into before September 1, 2024, under which a person agreed to provide opioid antagonists to the state, to continue until the settlement obligations are completed. The measure would take effect immediately upon passage and approval and would be codified into Title 18, chapter 1, part 1 of Montana law.
Impact
SB 112 would amend Montana law governing state procurement of opioid overdose reversal drugs by limiting eligible vendors and restricting future contract renewals tied to opioid-settlement entities. In practical terms, it could change which manufacturers, distributors, or affiliated companies the state may use for naloxone purchases, while preserving existing contracts and settlement-based supply arrangements already in place. The bill would affect state purchasing practices, opioid response supply chains, and any agencies using state or federal funds to acquire opioid antagonists.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had strong support in the Senate, passing the Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee unanimously and advancing through second and third readings with only one dissenting vote each time. However, it ultimately died in a House standing committee after being tabled unanimously, indicating that while the concept had clear support in the Senate, it did not receive enough support to move through the House process. Overall, the available votes suggest broad initial approval but a lack of final legislative momentum in the House.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on purchasing opioid antagonists from companies tied to opioid settlement agreements. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a way to avoid directing public funds to opioid-industry entities, while opponents or hesitant members may have been concerned about narrowing the pool of suppliers, complicating procurement, or interfering with existing settlement-based distribution arrangements. The unanimous House committee motion to table the bill suggests the decisive resistance occurred at the committee stage rather than on the floor.