Penn State Network to Guide $1.7 Billion in Pennsylvania Opioid Settlement Spending

Pennsylvania will deploy more than $1.7 billion in opioid settlement funds over the next two decades across all 67 counties—but turning that historic windfall into measurable reductions in overdose deaths requires coordination, data analysis, and shared learning that most county governments simply aren't staffed to handle alone. A newly established Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network, funded by $750,000 from the fiscal year 2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act and led by Penn State University's Consortium on Substance Use and Addiction, aims to fill that gap by helping local decision-makers understand where their dollars can make the greatest impact.

The network's mandate reflects both the scale of Pennsylvania's opioid crisis and the complexity of addressing it through dozens of independently governed counties. In 2023, more than 83% of Pennsylvania's 4,719 overdose deaths involved opioids, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Settlement funds represent a once-in-generation opportunity to reverse those numbers, but only if counties can identify evidence-based interventions, avoid duplication, and learn from each other's successes and failures in real time.

"Penn State is grateful to Senator John Fetterman and Senator Dave McCormick for their support of this investment and their trust in Penn State's ability to assist communities across the commonwealth," said Andrew Read, senior vice president for research at Penn State. "The Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network will bring together stakeholders to ensure that the opioid settlement funding can be guided by data, evidence, and community expertise. As Pennsylvania's sole land-grant institution, we are uniquely qualified to meet this moment."

The Coordination Challenge

Pennsylvania's opioid settlement structure directs roughly 70% of the nearly $2 billion total to county governments, giving local leaders direct control over how funds are spent within their jurisdictions. That local control acknowledges the geographic diversity of Pennsylvania's opioid crisis—what works in Philadelphia's urban core may differ from what rural counties in the north central region need—but it also creates the risk of fragmentation. Counties with robust public health infrastructure and addiction expertise can move quickly; those without may struggle to evaluate competing proposals or distinguish between evidence-based interventions and well-intentioned programs with little track record.

The Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network will address this by convening stakeholders from across the state, including the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Association of Drug and Alcohol Administrators, and the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust. Counties will provide data on key indicators—overdose deaths, youth substance use rates, emergency department visits for opioid-related complications, and drug-related crime—which the network will analyze and translate into actionable guidance for local policymakers.

"The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania's partnership with Penn State demonstrates a shared commitment to abating the opioid crisis in counties across the commonwealth," said Michele Denk, executive director for the Pennsylvania Association of County Drug and Alcohol Administrators. "The expansion of the Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network will increase technical assistance opportunities available to counties as they determine the most effective ways to spend opioid settlement funds."

Data-Driven Decision Making

The network will rely on Penn State faculty expertise in health policy, criminal justice, and substance use research to produce publicly accessible reports interpreting county-level data and coordinating information across jurisdictions. Those reports will help counties see where they stand relative to state averages, identify gaps in treatment capacity or harm reduction services, and learn from neighboring counties that have successfully reduced overdose deaths or increased medication-assisted treatment enrollment.

Joel Segel, associate professor of health policy and administration and director of the Penn State Consortium on Substance Use and Addiction, emphasized the importance of translating academic research into practical tools for decision-makers. "Penn State is leveraging our well-established expertise and relationships collaborating with stakeholders throughout Pennsylvania to bring data, evidence, and analysis to decision-makers. Additionally, we are working with partners to gather stakeholders to identify opportunities for shared understanding and coordinated solutions."

The network's reach extends beyond Penn State's University Park campus. Experts from the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University will contribute specialized knowledge in urban public health and addiction medicine, while Glenn Sterner—formerly at Penn State Abington and now associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Kentucky—will strengthen the network's capacity to address the intersection of substance use and criminal justice. That multi-institutional collaboration ensures the network can provide nuanced guidance to counties facing vastly different challenges, from Philadelphia's concentrated urban poverty and fentanyl market to rural counties where geographic isolation limits treatment access.

"This important investment in Pennsylvania will ensure coordination and knowledge sharing to provide needed assistance as communities consider their priorities for utilizing opioid settlement funds across the commonwealth," Sterner said. "The data-informed decision making expands opportunities for applications and informed policy beyond Pennsylvania."

Training the Next Generation

Beyond immediate technical assistance to counties, the Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network will train graduate and undergraduate students to become future experts in substance use policy and evaluation. That investment in the next generation of public health professionals reflects Penn State's land-grant mission while ensuring the network's analytical capacity can scale as settlement funds continue flowing into counties over the next two decades.

Students working with the network will gain hands-on experience analyzing real-world data, evaluating intervention effectiveness, and communicating findings to policymakers under time pressure—skills that academic coursework alone rarely provides. By embedding students in the network's operations, Penn State creates a pipeline of professionals who understand both the research literature on addiction treatment and the practical constraints county governments face when implementing evidence-based programs.

The network will convene statewide and county leaders, faculty, staff, and students for in-person and virtual workshops designed to facilitate real-time sharing of strategies, innovations, and evidence-based practices. Those workshops will also offer technical assistance and training opportunities focused on the specific interventions counties are funding through opioid settlement dollars—whether that's expanding medication-assisted treatment in rural areas, establishing peer recovery programs, or implementing harm reduction services like syringe exchange and naloxone distribution.

The Stakes

Pennsylvania's $1.7 billion opioid settlement represents the culmination of years of litigation against pharmaceutical companies that aggressively marketed prescription opioids, downplayed addiction risks, and fueled an epidemic that has claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives over the past two decades. The settlements cannot undo that damage, but they provide resources to build the treatment infrastructure, harm reduction services, and prevention programs that might prevent future deaths.

The challenge is ensuring those resources translate into outcomes. Other states have struggled to deploy opioid settlement funds effectively—some have directed money to tangentially related programs that satisfy political constituencies but do little to reduce overdose deaths, while others have faced bureaucratic delays that leave funds sitting in accounts while people die waiting for treatment. Pennsylvania's decision to invest in coordinated technical assistance through the Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network suggests state leaders recognize the gap between receiving settlement money and spending it wisely.

The 83% of Pennsylvania's 2023 overdose deaths that involved opioids—nearly 3,900 people—represent individuals who might still be alive if they had accessed medication-assisted treatment, received naloxone in time, or never encountered the pill mills and overprescribing practices that fueled the first wave of the opioid epidemic. Whether Pennsylvania's settlement funds prevent future tragedies depends on whether counties can identify the people most at risk, deploy interventions proven to work, and sustain those programs long after settlement payments run dry.

The Pennsylvania Addiction Action Network won't eliminate Pennsylvania's opioid crisis on its own. No amount of coordination or data analysis can substitute for the difficult work of expanding treatment capacity, reducing stigma, addressing the underlying social determinants of health that make some communities more vulnerable to addiction, and reforming criminal justice policies that criminalize substance use rather than treating it as a public health issue. But by helping Pennsylvania's 67 counties make informed decisions about where their settlement dollars can do the most good, the network increases the odds that this once-in-generation investment will save lives rather than simply checking a box.

Senator Fetterman and Senator McCormick's support for the $750,000 federal appropriation reflects a pragmatic understanding that Pennsylvania's counties need more than money—they need expertise, coordination, and the ability to learn from each other. Whether that investment pays off will become clear over the next decade, measured in overdose death statistics, treatment enrollment numbers, and the less quantifiable but equally important reality of families that don't lose loved ones to a crisis that should never have reached this scale.