HB 1413
In CommitteeHouse
Opioid reversal purchasing
Prohibiting government purchases of opioid overdose reversal medications from certain entities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill prevents Washington state and local governments from buying opioid overdose reversal medications (like naloxone) from pharmaceutical companies that settled with states over claims they helped cause the opioid crisis. It allows exceptions only for companies already supplying these drugs under pre-2024 settlements and requires the Department of Health to publish a public list of banned suppliers.
- Bars state agencies, counties, cities, and towns from buying opioid overdose reversal medications (like naloxone) from companies that settled with any state over claims they caused or worsened the opioid epidemic.
- Allows companies that agreed to supply reversal medications *before* September 1, 2024 as part of a state settlement to keep doing so until their existing settlement obligations are fulfilled.
- Requires the Washington State Department of Health to publish and maintain a public list of companies banned from receiving state contracts for opioid reversal medications.
- Uses the same legal definition of 'opioid overdose reversal medication' as in RCW 69.41.095 (which includes drugs like naloxone and naltrexone used to reverse opioid overdoses).
Who is affected
- Public agencies in Washington — State, county, city, and town agencies that purchase opioid overdose reversal medications (like naloxone) for public health or emergency response use.
- Pharmaceutical companies involved in opioid-related settlements — Pharmaceutical companies that settled with states over claims related to their role in the opioid crisis and currently sell opioid reversal drugs.
- Pharmaceutical distributors without opioid-related settlements — Non-settled pharmaceutical distributors that may gain new opportunities to supply opioid reversal medications to public agencies.
- Residents at risk of or recovering from opioid overdose — People who rely on publicly funded naloxone or other opioid overdose reversal medications, as the bill may affect supply chain decisions and availability.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill aligns procurement with ethical principles by avoiding purchases from entities legally tied to the opioid crisis, reinforcing public trust in government health procurement and signaling that the state will not financially support companies that contributed to public harm.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings) & Sec. 2(1)The public banned list enhances transparency and accountability, allowing advocacy groups, journalists, and the public to monitor procurement decisions and hold agencies accountable—strengthening civic oversight of public health spending.
transparencyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)By reserving contracts for non-settled distributors, the bill may create new market opportunities for smaller, ethically positioned pharmaceutical distributors—potentially supporting local or regional businesses that did not participate in the opioid marketing practices.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Avoiding purchases from settled entities may reduce long-term legal or reputational liability exposure for the state—though this benefit is speculative and not quantified in the bill.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)Allowing continuation of pre-2024 supply agreements ensures continuity of care for communities already receiving naloxone through settled distributors, preventing abrupt supply disruptions during the transition.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Restricting procurement to non-settled distributors may reduce supply reliability and increase procurement delays, potentially limiting naloxone availability during emergencies or in rural jurisdictions with limited supplier options—especially during spikes in overdose events.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)The exception for pre-2024 settlements creates a two-tiered system where only companies that settled *before* September 1, 2024 retain access—potentially excluding newer but equally capable suppliers who settled more recently, reducing competition and innovation in the supply chain.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Mandating a public banned-list increases administrative burden on local governments (especially small cities and counties) to verify supplier status before each purchase, diverting staff time and resources from frontline response work.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)If non-settled distributors charge higher prices (due to lack of competition or lack of settlement-mandated discounts), public agencies may face increased procurement costs—costs likely passed to local budgets, potentially reducing funds for other overdose-response services like harm reduction or treatment.
FinancialPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact (summary)By excluding settled distributors—even those with proven, reliable supply chains—the bill may reduce access to naloxone in communities where those distributors are the primary or only supplier, disproportionately impacting rural or underserved areas.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Public agencies (e.g., county health departments, sheriff’s offices, fire districts) that rely on naloxone procurement may face added administrative steps and potential cost increases, but gain ethical clarity and reduced legal risk.
Settled distributors (e.g., major pharma companies that settled with WA or other states) lose new contract opportunities, but retain access if they had pre-2024 supply agreements—creating a two-tiered impact where larger firms with legacy contracts are less affected than newer or smaller settled players.
Non-settled distributors (e.g., regional or ethical suppliers) gain new procurement opportunities, but may lack the scale or existing relationships to meet demand quickly—potentially benefiting only those with capacity to ramp up.
Residents at risk of overdose—especially low-income, rural, or unhoused individuals—may face reduced access if non-settled suppliers charge more or lack distribution networks, undermining the bill’s ethical intent.