Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2023

Summary#

• This bill updates Alberta’s 2019 law that lets the provincial government (the Crown) sue companies to recover health care costs linked to the opioid crisis.

• It widens who can be sued, covers more parts of the opioid supply chain, and clarifies how courts estimate each company’s share of responsibility.

• Key changes:

  • Adds “consultants” (advisers to drug makers or wholesalers) as possible defendants.
  • Expands “manufacturer” to include those who make or promote opioid active ingredients (the chemical that makes a drug work), not just finished pills.
  • Broadens what counts as an “opioid product” to include certain drugs and their active ingredients.
  • Updates the method courts use to calculate market share for manufacturers and wholesalers to divide up damages.
  • Lets courts consider collaboration among manufacturers, wholesalers, or consultants when assigning blame.

What it means for you#

• Patients and families

  • No change to your prescriptions or direct access to care from this bill alone.
  • If lawsuits succeed, the province could recover money that may support health services, treatment, and prevention.

• Health providers

  • No new duties for prescribers or pharmacists.
  • Possible future funding for addiction care if the province wins settlements or judgments.

• Taxpayers

  • The bill aims to shift some health care costs of the opioid crisis from the public to companies linked to opioid products and ingredients.
  • Lawsuits can take time; any financial return would likely be in the future.

• Manufacturers, wholesalers, and consultants

  • More entities can be sued, including advisers who helped plan sales or marketing.
  • Liability can be based on market share estimates using Alberta health system data on products purchased or dispensed.
  • Collaboration with others can increase the share of responsibility assigned by the court.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Holds more of the supply chain accountable, including advisers who shaped sales and marketing strategies.
• Closes loopholes by covering active ingredients, not just finished opioid products.
• Uses clearer market share formulas so courts can fairly divide costs among companies.
• Could recover significant public health spending related to opioid addiction, overdose care, and treatment.
• May deter harmful promotion and business practices that fueled opioid misuse.

Opponents' View#

• Could sweep in legitimate consultants and chill lawful advice or education.
• Long, complex litigation may bring limited or delayed returns while adding legal costs.
• Market-share methods may over- or under-assign blame to specific firms.
• Expansion to active ingredients and consultants might create uncertainty and compliance costs for businesses.
• Lawsuits alone do not address the growing role of illicit, non-prescription opioids in today’s deaths.