Why did the General Assembly take last week off? According to one former staffer, the reason is b/c the last time the Honorables spent five consecutive weeks in session, they all wanted to kill each other. They took the week off b/c presumably absence makes the heart less hostile. I’m speaking, of course, about those legislators who have hearts.
The House comes back to…not much. Once again, the bill raising the legal age for purchasing tobacco products from 18 to 21 has been removed from the originally-announced House Agenda. Apparently, according to the invaluable Matt Bittle, b/c at least one key legislator will be absent. The bill is now scheduled to be run on Thursday. Here’s today’s agenda, such as it is.
Today’s Senate Agenda is highlighted by SB 34(Hansen), which ‘creates a Prescription Opioid Impact Fund (“Fund”) through a prescription opioid impact fee (“Fee”) that is paid by pharmaceutical manufacturer’. The fund will generally have about $2.5 million annually to work with, which we can only hope makes a dent in the opioid crisis. However, there’s quite a bit of bureaucracy involved with this fund which, at least to me, raises questions about just what kind of impact it will have. To wit:
The Act also provides that Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services, after receiving recommendations from the Behavioral Health Consortium, the Addiction Action Committee, and the Overdose System of Care Committee, will award grants and contracts from the money in the Fund for the following activities: 1. Opioid addiction prevention. 2. Opioid addiction services, including the following: 3. Inpatient and outpatient treatment programs and facilities, including short-term and long-term residential treatment programs and sober living facilities. 4. Treating substance use disorder for the under-insured and uninsured. 5. Emergency assistance relating to prescription opioids, including purchasing Naloxone. 6. Administrative costs of implementing the Fee and Fund, up to 15% of the amount in the Fund.
Oh. After receiving input from three different committees, each with their own, and presumably, competing priorities, DHSS will try to address at least five different issues, minus 15% of the funding for the program, which will go to administrative costs. Looks like everybody will be feasting on leftover crumbs. I’m not optimistic about this initiative. Frankly, I think the pill-pushers are getting off really light here. Really light. But hey, it’s Delaware.
I close with this ‘swallows returning to Capistrano’ issue. Every now and then, someone brings up inequities in how the legislators’ suburban slush funds, aka the ‘Community Transportation Fund’, are allocated. Here’s the latest iteration. I don’t disagree with the argument. I just see no way that legislators will cede their role in this to DELDOT. Showing up at a civic association meeting w/o good news on road repairs? I don’t think so.
Back tomorrow with some real contentious bills in committee, including at least two from Rep. Kowalko that anyone who wants to run as a Democrat should support. You have been teased.