The Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission has undergone a lot of changes in the past year following concerns of potential fraud involving a Kent County nonprofit grant recipient.
That incident spurred an overhaul of the commission’s grant application and approval process, the system used to send settlement dollars won from lawsuits against opioid manufacturers to organizations that help abate the opioid crisis.
The commission also has a new Executive Director Brad Owens who is overseeing the distribution of close to $13 million in grant funding after a year-long freeze.
Owens hopes to have the funding out by September but says more work is needed to scale down this cycle’s large amount of requests.
“Some of these budgets were much bigger – the proposed budgets – were much bigger than what we had money for. So if somebody proposed to do services A, B and C for $1 million dollars, and they were only awarded $500,000, we kind of have to go back and determine which parts of that application we’re going to keep and which ones we’re going to put into the scope of work,” he said.
Owens also has some long-term goals to improve the commission’s impact, like collecting more data around how effective those funds actually are.
“I do believe there is a correlation between the opioid settlement dollars and a reduction in overdoses, but we need to be able to identify that correlation a little bit better.”
Overdose deaths in Delaware have declined in recent years, but non-fatal overdoses have remained steady.
Interview transcript:
PETROWICH: Can you introduce yourself a little bit – talk about your new role within the commission, how that position came to be, where your background was and how you became involved in the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission?=
OWENS: My name is Brad Owens. I'm the new director of the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission. It's a mouthful – trying to explain to my mom what my position is is hard. I was appointed by the [Department of Health and Social Services] secretary in May full time, but I started in March as the part-time interim director for the commission with the goal of launching round three of our grant making program.
I'm not new to the commission entirely. In fact, I started with the commission as a contractor, a part-time grant monitor, five to 10 hours a week in previous years. So I have some sort of background knowledge of the commission and understanding of its foundation and the legal history of everything.
In addition to serving as a contractor, I've spent the last 15 years of my life as a correctional healthcare provider, particularly in reentry services, substance abuse and mental health services. That's where my area of expertise is. I'm also a trained attorney. I don't currently practice law, but having gone through law school and specializing in nonprofit law and criminal justice, it gives me the background and experience to take on a role like this.
PETROWICH: Not only did you step into this new role, but the commission has undergone a lot of changes as well. It shifted from the Lieutenant Governor's Office, there were also a lot of recommendations by outside contractor Social Contract, to sort of bolster the grant cycle, how funds could be applied for, distributed – all of that. So there were obviously a lot of changes that happened, but can you give us a rundown of the major differences between what was going on then versus now and how you think that those [changes] will be more successful in helping to get funds out to the people that need them the most?
OWENS: Yeah, major changes – we sort of revamped our grant making program based on the recommendations provided by Social Contract and our governance committee. And when I took over this role, I essentially took that playbook that Social Contract created and launched a new program that included three different grant types, which is new.
We have micro grants, mini grants and general grants. Each has a different tier of funding, which is meant to diversify funding, enable grassroots organizations to apply who might not have the capacity to manage large sums of monies but want to provide a service, and with a little technical assistance from us, can do that. So that's where the micro grants and mini grants come in.
And then the general grants are intended to be for organizations that have a demonstrable history– can demonstrate that to us with annual reports and in other documents. So the structure of our grant making program has significantly changed this year.
PETROWICH: For this third phase, it looks like around $14 million dollars was approved in grant funding, going on to a lot of different organizations for a lot of different projects. Can you talk a little bit about the timeline for distributing those grants and how that process came to be and what you're looking forward to moving forward with the $14 million?
OWENS: We took very serious the review process for those grant applications. Another major change, as opposed to previous years, was having a robust application review team. So we had 10 people on the review team that reviewed every grant and grant application. Each grant application was reviewed multiple times, and it was really hard to come up with a list of grantees.
We had 122 applicants with 63 recommended grantees. Only 30 of them were general grants, meaning those larger grants. So, we approved approximately $13 million for the general grants, but there was over $47 million worth of asks, so it was a difficult job selecting those applicants and future grantees.
But what's next – my next priority is developing scopes of work and contracts for those 63 grantees between now and September. That's a collaborative process between us and the grantees where we revisit their application. We develop a scope of work together. Some of these budgets were much bigger than the proposed budget, budgets were much bigger than what we had money for. So if somebody proposed to do services A, B and C for a million dollars, and they were only awarded a half a million dollars, we kind of have to go back and determine which parts of that application we're going to keep and which ones we're going to put into the scope of work. So that's what we're doing now between now and September.
Ideally, monies are distributed in September. That's my personal goal. It's not prescribed to me by the commission or anything, it's just a goal I've set for myself.
PETROWICH: I think one of the hot topics around this commission and getting funding to the right places has been more for long-term care options, for people with addiction, more inpatient treatment, getting some treatment facilities up, which obviously are a lot more expensive and require a lot more intensive labor, but is that something that the commission is looking into? Are there any updates on projects related to that type of care?
OWENS: Yes, actually. As you might know, there's been a call to action, if you will, for the commission to fund, or at least consider funding, long-term care treatment options. And there may be a need for long-term care options here in Delaware, but we as the commission want to make informed decisions as to how we spend the money and what exactly Delaware needs.
Long-term care means lots of things. It doesn't just mean a long-term stint in an inpatient recovery treatment center, right? It also means a continuum of care for folks long-term beyond that inpatient treatment stay. So we want to ensure that individuals who are in recovery have long-term care options and can continue receiving services down that line that go beyond just inpatient treatment.
Inpatient treatment is certainly a need but also comes with other considerations, including expenses. And even if that is the best way to spend our money, we want to ensure that there's sustainability there and that there are other stakeholders at the table – Medicaid, for example, insurance providers, the state. We need to assess all of that.
So what we're doing, as the commission, is hiring a consultant, a subject matter expert to assess the need for long-term care options here in Delaware and to highlight or make recommendations for the role of the opioid commission.
PETROWICH: You also mentioned Medicaid there, and, as with it seems like every story these days, some component ties to the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that was just passed. There are some federal cuts that are coming down the pike. What have those discussions been like so far as, how this money gets doiled out? Does there need to be any extra considerations as far as thinking about these cuts to Medicaid that are coming in the out years?
OWENS: Yeah, I think it would be irresponsible for us not to consider those cuts and what kind of impact they're going to have on Delaware if the federal government is cutting funding, whether it be Medicaid or other funds for drug programming here in Delaware. And we need to ensure that one, we have enough funds with the opioid commission that can maybe fill gaps if there are gaps. So that's one.
And two, we did see an increased number of applicants who we haven't seen in previous years, and I think part of that is because they either have received cuts to their funding from the federal government or anticipate having cuts to their funding from the federal government. So we see a lot of new organizations applying for opioid dollars who normally wouldn't have applied for opioid settlement dollars, and a lot of the cited reasons are because of fear of funding cuts, or literal funding cuts that have already happened.
So that's definitely an issue we're paying attention to, and the advantage of the opioid commission, or one advantage at least of the commission being underneath [the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health], is that we have– DSAMH has a robust sort of network, knowledge base and resources. They have teams of people who are paying attention to federal funds and are able to– we're able to apply that knowledge to the opioid commission as well, and sort of work in tandem, DSAMH and opioid commission. So that’s a huge advantage, I think, post-change from the Lieutenant Governor's Office to DSAMH. The commission now has a more robust network and information system because of DSAMH.
So we're going to use all that as best as we can to be informed about what's coming and what our grantees need to fill the gaps in the needs of the people.
PETROWICH: I just want to get your final thoughts on the direction of the commission and these grants moving forward. It looks like opioid deaths are on the decline in Delaware, which is great, but the actual number of overdoses are still cause for concern within the state.
Those numbers are always fluctuating, but with that in mind, as well as the potential fraudulent use that spurred all these changes within the commission, to where we are now, how do you feel moving forward about getting these grants to the right people and helping to tackle this crisis as a whole within the First State?
