HB 2072
In CommitteeHouse
Opioid impact fee
Sustaining and expanding behavioral health services by levying an opioid impact fee on opioid manufacturers.
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 imposes a $0.01-per-MME fee on opioid manufacturers whose products exceed 100,000 MME dispensed in Washington per quarter, with fees deposited into a dedicated account to fund behavioral health services—especially for youth—and to repay state costs for upgrading the prescription monitoring program. It also strengthens data access rules for the prescription monitoring program while preserving confidentiality.
- Creates a new prescription opioid impact fee of $0.01 per morphine milligram equivalent (MME) for manufacturers whose products exceed 100,000 MME dispensed in a quarter in Washington.
- Establishes the prescription opioid impact account in the state treasury; all fees and recovered attorneys’ fees go into this account and may only be spent after appropriation.
- Requires fees to fund behavioral health outreach, treatment, and recovery services, with 50% specifically for services to children, youth, and young adults, and funds must also repay the state general fund for costs to modify the prescription monitoring program.
- Allows the Department of Health to collect quarterly data from the prescription monitoring program and issue statements to manufacturers, and to assess penalties of $100 per day or 10% of the fee due (whichever is greater) for late payments.
- Amends existing law to clarify and expand access to confidential prescription monitoring program data for specific purposes—including public health, treatment, licensing oversight, and law enforcement—while maintaining strict confidentiality protections.
Who is affected
- Opioid manufacturers — Opioid manufacturers that dispense more than 100,000 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescription opioids in Washington in a quarter must pay a fee of $0.01 per MME and may face penalties for late payment.
- State and local government agencies — State agencies—including the Department of Health, Department of Social and Health Services, Health Care Authority, Department of Labor and Industries, and Department of Corrections—gain access to prescription monitoring data for specific public health, treatment, and enforcement purposes.
- People with behavioral health challenges — Individuals with behavioral health challenges—including children, youth, and young adults—benefit from expanded access to outreach, treatment, and recovery services funded by the fee.
- Health care providers and facilities — Health care providers (e.g., doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners) and facilities may receive quality improvement feedback and data for care coordination, especially related to overdose events.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Dedicates 50% of fee revenue to behavioral health services for children, youth, and young adults—populations with high unmet need and limited access—potentially expanding early intervention, crisis response, and recovery support across underserved communities.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Funds repayment for PMP upgrades and supports law enforcement access to confidential data for specific investigations, strengthening coordination between public health and criminal justice responses to overdose and diversion—particularly in rural or under-resourced counties.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Mandates local health officers be notified of overdose events and allows emergency departments to access PMP data at registration, enabling rapid follow-up and care coordination—proven to reduce repeat overdoses and improve linkage to treatment.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 7(3)(m), (n)Expands authorized access to PMP data for prescribers, dispensers, and facilities for quality improvement and care coordination, supporting safer prescribing practices and reducing unintentional overdose risk—especially for patients on high-dose or long-term opioid therapy.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 7(3)(a), (k), (l)Creates a dedicated, ring-fenced revenue stream for behavioral health services, reducing reliance on general fund appropriations and providing more predictable, long-term funding—critical for sustaining community-based treatment and recovery programs.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
Imposes a per-MME fee on opioid manufacturers exceeding 100,000 MME dispensed per quarter, which may increase compliance and administrative costs for manufacturers—particularly mid-sized or legacy pharmaceutical firms—with limited ability to absorb or pass on costs without raising drug prices or reducing R&D investment.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)Allows up to 12% of funds for administrative costs, which—while capped—diverts resources from direct service delivery; given the complexity of fee assessment and enforcement, actual administrative burden may exceed expectations, especially in early implementation years.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Imposes steep penalties ($100/day or 10% of fee due, whichever is greater) for late payment, creating financial risk for manufacturers—especially smaller ones—without clear grace periods or hardship exceptions, potentially triggering litigation or reduced market participation.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)Expands data access to facilities and provider groups for quality improvement, but the requirement to submit prescriber lists and comply with data-use agreements adds administrative burden for small clinics and rural health networks with limited IT staff.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 7(3)(k), (l)Reimbursement to the state general fund for PMP modifications may reduce flexibility for local health jurisdictions that contributed indirectly to PMP operations but receive no direct share of the new fee revenue.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Opioid manufacturers (especially those with large market share or legacy products) face new compliance and fee obligations; while large firms may absorb costs via pricing, smaller or domestic manufacturers may reduce Washington operations or exit the market, limiting patient access to certain formulations.
Youth and young adults (ages 10–25) are prioritized for 50% of service funding, increasing access to culturally competent, trauma-informed care in schools and community settings—especially in rural or high-poverty areas where such services are currently scarce.
Local health officers gain new authority to receive overdose notifications and coordinate follow-up care, strengthening their role in overdose prevention—but may require additional staffing or interagency MOUs to implement effectively.
Health care providers (especially in primary care, pain management, and emergency medicine) gain access to PMP data for quality improvement and care coordination, but must comply with new data-use agreements and reporting requirements that may strain small practices.
State agencies (DOH, HCA, DSHS, L&I) gain expanded data access for public health and enforcement purposes, improving interagency coordination—but may require new IT infrastructure or interagency agreements to use data effectively and lawfully.