Bill Overview
Title: State Opioid Response Grant Authorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and otherwise changes the State Opioid Response Grant program. This program, which is managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, provides funding for states, territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to address the opioid crisis. Specific changes to the program include (1) expanding its scope to also address stimulant use and misuse, (2) establishing a funding methodology and minimum funding allocations, and (3) allowing the use of grant funds for recovery support services. The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to report on issues concerning the funding and other aspects of the program.
Sponsors: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by opioid and stimulant misuse
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The State Opioid Response Grant program targets the opioid crisis, an issue that affects millions worldwide.
- The bill expands to include stimulant misuse, broadening the scope to include users of other drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamines.
- The impacts include those receiving treatment, as well as their families and healthcare providers.
- Globally, opioid addiction affects millions, but this program specifically targets populations in the US.
Reasoning
- The State Opioid Response Grant program targets individuals and families affected by opioid and stimulant misuse, which impacts a significant segment of the US population.
- The policy's funding can directly aid treatment and recovery support, indirectly improving wellbeing by stabilizing families and communities.
- Consideration must be given to varying impacts across different states, territories, and tribal communities depending on current levels of access to treatment and social services.
- The budgetary constraints mean that while there is substantial funding, not all in need may receive aid, prioritizing those with the most acute needs or lacking existing resources.
- By broadening the program to include stimulant misuse, more individuals who previously did not qualify for support now have access to potential interventions.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Appalachia, Tennessee)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expansion to include stimulants is crucial for our community.
- Recovery support services will make all the difference for families like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Construction Worker (Rural Ohio)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, support for stimulant misuse feels inclusive.
- This could be my chance to get clean and be a father that my kids can rely on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Social worker (New York City, New York)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New funding methodology can ensure better resource allocation.
- I hope more people understand that recovery support can reduce relapse rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Physician specializing in addiction treatment (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- By including stimulant users, we're addressing an underserved group.
- I foresee positive long-term community health improvements given consistent funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Homeless (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's hope that funding will help us veterans.
- I need treatment to get back on my feet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Student (San Francisco, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs that target families and recovery support could prevent situations like my brother's.
- This grant could change everything for my community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Retired (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Too late for my daughter, but I pray it saves other families.
- Stimulant misuse has also been rising, and I'm glad it's being addressed too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Hotel manager (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs that support families are vital and often overlooked.
- I believe focusing on stimulants could prevent further crises in cities like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Emergency Room Nurse (Miami, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funding will ease ER loads and allow for specialized care.
- Critical to include stimulants as part of the problem-solving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Waitress (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Including recovery support in the grants is a game changer for people like me.
- Recovery is more than treatment—it's about ongoing support and community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 3: $1700000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1900000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 10: $2200000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $3500000000 (Low: $3200000000, High: $4000000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that funds are effectively targeted and utilized to maximize impact on the opioid and stimulant crisis.
- Monitoring and evaluating the use of funds for recovery support services to assess effectiveness.
- Partnerships with state, tribal, and territorial bodies will be crucial for effective implementation.