Safe Disposal of Opioids Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to expand safe disposal options for prescription opioids by funding a grant program through a new fee on opioid manufacturers, while protecting vulnerable patients from bearing the cost of this fee.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 to establish a grant program, administered by the Attorney General, for entities to create or maintain disposal sites for unwanted prescription medications. It funds this program through a new fee of 1 cent per 100 milligrams imposed on the sale of active opioids by manufacturers, producers, or importers. The bill also mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services establish a mechanism to ensure eligible patients (those with cancer-related pain or in hospice care) do not pay any amount attributable to this new fee.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that expanding safe disposal sites is crucial for combating the opioid crisis by preventing unused medications from falling into the wrong hands, reducing accidental poisonings, and curbing diversion. They would emphasize that the funding mechanism places the financial burden on opioid manufacturers, who profit from these drugs, rather than taxpayers, and that the discount mechanism protects vulnerable patients from increased costs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the fee on opioid manufacturers could ultimately be passed on to consumers, despite the discount mechanism, potentially increasing healthcare costs for some. They might also argue that the administrative burden of implementing the fee and discount system could be complex and costly, potentially outweighing the benefits of the grant program, or that the fee might disincentivize legitimate pain management.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(c)(1)
Establishment of Grants for Unwanted Prescription Medication Disposal Sites
This provision authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to various 'covered entities' to set up or maintain sites where people can safely dispose of unwanted prescription medications. It specifies that no more than 10% of the total grant funds for a fiscal year can go to state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies, or to manufacturers, distributors, or reverse distributors of prescription medications.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these grants are a direct and effective way to address the opioid crisis by providing accessible and secure methods for the public to dispose of unused prescription drugs, thereby preventing diversion and misuse. The limitation on law enforcement and industry recipients ensures a broader range of community-based entities can participate.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the goal is laudable, the administrative overhead of a grant program could be inefficient, and that existing disposal methods might be sufficient or could be expanded through less complex means. Some might also question the specific 10% limitation, suggesting it could restrict participation from entities with established infrastructure.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for widespread disposal options with concerns about administrative efficiency and the appropriate role of different types of entities in managing drug disposal.
Section 2(c)(2)
Patient Discounts for Opioid Fees
This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a system that ensures 'eligible patients' do not pay any amount attributable to the new opioid fee at the time of purchase. Eligible patients are defined as those prescribed active opioids for cancer pain/treatment, patients in hospice care, or their designated representatives in case of death or incapacity.
Section 2(c)(3)
Imposition of Fee on Opioid Sales
This provision imposes a new fee of 1 cent per 100 milligrams on the sale of 'active opioids' by manufacturers, producers, or importers. 'Active opioid' is defined as a controlled substance that is opium, an opiate, or a derivative, but specifically excludes drugs used exclusively for opioid addiction treatment (medically assisted treatment). If a product contains an active opioid and other ingredients, the fee only applies to the opioid portion.
Section 2(c)(4)
Funding Authorization for Disposal Site Grants
This provision authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2027 and subsequent fiscal years to carry out the grant program. The authorized amount cannot exceed the total aggregate amount of fees collected from the opioid sales fee.
Defines 'active opioid' for the purpose of the fee as a controlled substance that is opium, an opiate, or any derivative, but explicitly excludes prescribed drugs used exclusively for the treatment of opioid addiction as part of medically assisted treatment.
Section 2(c)(3)(B)(i)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms within the section where they are relevant. The exclusion is an important carve-out to prevent unintended consequences.
Case for: Supporters argue this exclusion is critical to avoid inadvertently taxing medications vital for combating opioid addiction itself, ensuring that the fee targets the source of potential misuse rather than hindering recovery efforts.
Case against: No strong case against the exclusion itself, but some might argue that the definition could be subject to interpretation or future challenges regarding what constitutes 'exclusively' for addiction treatment.
Estimated impact: Prevents increased costs for addiction treatment medications, potentially saving patients and healthcare systems millions annually.
Specifies that no more than 10 percent of the total grant awards for a fiscal year can go to State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies; or manufacturers, distributors, or reverse distributors of prescription medications.
Section 2(c)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is a specific programmatic detail that might be considered fine print but has significant implications for who primarily benefits from the grants. It likely reflects a policy choice about preferred grant recipients.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that the majority of grant funding goes to community-based organizations, pharmacies, and healthcare facilities that are often on the front lines of public health and have direct interaction with patients, rather than primarily to law enforcement or industry, which might have different priorities or existing resources.
Case against: Critics might argue that limiting the proportion of funds to law enforcement or industry could exclude entities that already have established infrastructure or expertise in drug handling and disposal, potentially hindering efficiency or reach in some areas.
Estimated impact: Directs a significant majority (at least 90%) of grant funding towards non-law enforcement/non-industry entities, shaping the landscape of disposal site operations.