On October 14, 2025, Governor Mike DeWine signed an executive order that did something no other state had done: it explicitly authorized drug-checking test strips for medetomidine, nitazene, xylazine, and benzodiazepines in addition to fentanyl, and directed state agencies to treat them as legitimate public health tools. In four analyte names, Ohio cleared the legal ambiguity that had slowed multi-analyte procurement in nearly every other state.
The order itself is publicly available through the Governor's office. What follows is what it means for the people who write RFPs.
Why naming mattered
Until the Ohio order, most state-level authorization of drug-checking strips operated by analogy. A statute or an Attorney General opinion would exempt "fentanyl test strips" from drug-paraphernalia prohibitions, and programs would interpret that authorization as extending to newer strips (xylazine, then medetomidine, then nitazene) on the theory that the policy logic was the same. Some legal counsels agreed. Some did not. The result was a patchwork where a county health department in one state was buying xylazine strips openly while a county in another state was still asking its own lawyers whether xylazine counted.
The Ohio order ended the analogical exercise in one jurisdiction. Medetomidine, nitazene, xylazine, and benzodiazepines were named. The ambiguity, at least in Ohio, was resolved.
Analogical authorization was slowing multi-analyte procurement by months in some jurisdictions. Ohio showed a path that takes hours, not months.
What the order actually does
Three things:
- It authorizes distribution of the named test strips through state-supported harm reduction channels, removing the paraphernalia question at the state level.
- It directs coordinating agencies (notably the Ohio Department of Health and OneOhio Recovery Foundation) to develop procurement and distribution infrastructure consistent with the authorization.
- It signals to county health departments, community-based organizations, and settlement-fund grantees that the state supports multi-analyte drug checking as a matter of public health policy.
The signal is not a trivial part. OneOhio's settlement allocation is approximately $2 billion over the life of the agreements. The executive order gives that money a clearer pathway into drug-checking line items. A state-level test-strip RFP is widely expected in mid-2026, after the order's implementation framework is built out.
The template, for other states
Several structural features of the Ohio order make it a template rather than a one-off:
It names the chemistry, not the brand. By listing analyte classes (medetomidine, nitazene, benzodiazepines) rather than product names, the authorization survives new product entrants and generic competition.
It uses executive rather than legislative action. The order does not modify statute, which means it can be issued by any governor whose attorney general finds statutory room. For states where the legislature is split or the calendar is unfavorable, this is the faster path.
It couples authorization with procurement direction. An authorization without a procurement instruction leaves programs wondering whether anyone actually intends to buy the strips. Ohio's order pointed to OneOhio and the Department of Health as implementing bodies, which is what allowed procurement conversations to start within days of the signing.
Where the template is now being studied
Procurement officers in several states have cited the Ohio order in early-stage conversations about similar authorizations. We observed this directly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. None of those states has yet issued a comparable order, but the language is under review. The Johns Hopkins Opioid Principles Dashboard and the Opioid Settlement Tracker are both useful public resources for tracking which states move next.
For suppliers, the Ohio order also clarifies something about portfolio breadth. A state that authorizes four adulterants in a single order is going to ask suppliers for four adulterants in a single bid. Split bids across multiple manufacturers remain possible, but the single-supplier path is now structurally easier in Ohio than it was a month ago. We expect other states to follow, and we expect the five-analyte portfolio to be the default ask by the end of 2026.
A brief note on scope
The order does not mandate purchasing. It does not set volumes or timelines. It does not prevent counties from making their own procurement choices. What it does is remove the legal objection, name the chemistry, and direct the infrastructure. Procurement officers in other states looking at their own executive pathway should read the Ohio text for that structure, not for the specific dollars. The dollars will come from settlement funds, SOR grants, and state appropriations on the timelines each state sets for itself.