Thanks to the exhaustive work of Press news editor Joan Eliyesil, we now know the reasons for Harvard’s disproportionately large opioid settlement.
As Eliyesil reports, Harvard’s $620,000 is 14 times as much as nearby Lancaster and 33 times as much as Shirley, both more populous and with higher numbers of opioid overdose emergencies and deaths than Harvard.
The disparity is entirely due to the formula the state used to distribute a share of its settlement to the 351 towns of the commonwealth. Towns that spent the most in categories thought to reflect the severity of opioid addiction within a community received larger allotments than those that didn’t. The formula also penalized towns that belong to regional school districts, and rewarded those like Harvard with districts of their own. The result is a pattern of inequity across the state, detailed in this week’s story.
As Eliyesil explains, there are two ways to remedy the inequitable distribution of settlement money: return Harvard’s portion to the state where it can be reallocated to regions with greater needs. Or, pool Harvard’s money with that of other towns in central and north-central Massachusetts, such as Leominster, Fitchburg, or Athol, where the opioid epidemic caused far greater harm than it has in Harvard.
We hope the Select Board heeds the call of the Board of Health for a committee to study how Harvard’s money can best be used to improve the lives not only of Harvard residents but those of cities and towns that really need the help. We think sharing our windfall with other towns in the region where the harm caused by opioids has been greatest would be a win for Harvard, sometimes perceived as an island of entitled indifference.
The tragedy of opioid addiction doesn’t begin or end at any town line. We all benefit from an equitable, effective prevention and treatment strategy. If the money is to be spent on anything, anywhere, that should be the goal.
