Spoiler alert: Many of them didn't. And when they did, well, they still really didn't:
Take Idaho, for instance. Jurisdictions there completed a standard form showing how much money they spent and how it fell under approved uses of the settlement. Sounds great. But in reality, it reads like this: In fiscal year 2023, the city of Chubbuck spent about $39,000 on Section G, Subsection 9. Public Health District No. 6 spent more than $26,000 on Section B, Subsection 2.Cracking that code requires a separate document. And even that provides only broad outlines.G-9 refers to “school-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse.” B-2 refers to “the full continuum of care of treatment and recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions,” referring to opioid use disorder and substance use disorder or mental health conditions.“What does that mean? How exactly are you doing that?” asked Corey Davis, a project director at the Network for Public Health Law, when he first saw the Idaho reports.Does a school-based program involve hiring mental health counselors or holding a one-time assembly? Does treatment and recovery services mean paying for someone’s rehab or building a new recovery house?Without details on the organizations receiving the money or descriptions of the projects they’re enacting, it’s impossible to know where the funds are going. It would be similar to saying 20% of your monthly salary goes to food. But does that mean grocery bills, eating out at restaurants, or hiring a cook?
Obviously, the companies pushing opioids are shitty and I don't mind seeing them with less money, but also the money they settled with and gave to the states is hardly doing any good in a lot of cases (and even when it is, it's hardly benefitting the families of the folks actually hurt by the opioids).