Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Two states modified laws to remove or substantially reduce criminal penalties for any drug possession. The hypothesis was that removing criminal penalties for drug possession may reduce fatal drug overdoses due to reduced incarceration and increased calls for help at the scene of an overdose. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate whether decriminalization of drug possession in Oregon and Washington was associated with changes in either direction in fatal drug overdose rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study used a synthetic control method approach to examine whether there were changes in drug possession laws and fatal drug overdose rates in Oregon and Washington in the postpolicy period (February 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in Oregon and March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in Washington). A counterfactual comparison group (synthetic controls) was created for Oregon and Washington, using 48 states and the District of Columbia, that did not implement similar policies during the study period (January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022). For 2018-2021, final multiple cause-of-death data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) were used. For 2022, provisional NVSS data were used. Drug overdose deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision underlying cause-of-death codes X40-X44, X60-X64, X85, and Y10-Y14. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:In Oregon, Measure 110 went into effect on February 1, 2021. In Washington, the Washington Supreme Court decision in State v Blake occurred on February 25, 2021. MAIN OUTCOME/UNASSIGNED:Monthly fatal drug overdose rates. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Following the implementation of Measure 110, absolute monthly rate differences between Oregon and its synthetic control were not statistically significant (probability = 0.26). The average rate difference post Measure 110 was 0.268 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population. Following the implementation of the policy change in Washington, the absolute monthly rate differences between Washington and synthetic Washington were not statistically significant (probability = 0.06). The average rate difference post Blake was 0.112 fatal drug overdoses per 100 000 state population. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This study found no evidence of an association between legal changes that removed or substantially reduced criminal penalties for drug possession in Oregon and Washington and fatal drug overdose rates. Additional research could examine potential other outcomes as well as longer-term associations with fatal drug overdose overall and across racial and ethnic groups.

BACKGROUND:Despite evidence that the U.S. "War on Drugs" is associated with increases in drug-related harm and other negative outcomes, all U.S. states have long criminalized most drug possession. In early 2021, both Oregon and Washington became exceptions to this rule when they fully (Oregon) or partially (Washington) decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. METHODS:We obtained arrest data for 2019 to 2021 for intervention states (Oregon and Washington) and control states (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada). We calculated monthly rates for arrests overall and for violent crimes, drug possession, equipment possession, non-drug crimes, and a set of low-level crimes termed displaced arrests. Using an interrupted time series analysis, we examined changes in monthly arrest rates after the implementation of policy change in Oregon and Washington compared to control states. RESULTS:In Oregon, there were 3 fewer drug possession arrests per 100,000 in the month after the policy change; the rate decreased throughout the post-implementation period. In Washington, there were almost 5 fewer drug possession arrests per 100,000 in the month following policy change, and the rate remained stable thereafter. Both declines were significantly greater than in comparison states. There were also statistically significant reductions in arrests for possession of drug equipment in Washington and a significant increase in displaced arrests in Oregon. There were no significant changes in overall arrests, non-drug arrests or arrests for violent crime in either state, relative to controls. CONCLUSION:This analysis demonstrates that it is possible for state drug decriminalization policies to dramatically reduce arrests for drug possession without increasing arrests for violent crimes, potentially reducing harm to people who use drugs and their communities. Additional research is needed to determine whether these legal reforms were associated with changes in overdose rates and other drug-related harms.

BACKGROUND:In the United States, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder is only available at opioid treatment programs (OTPs). In addition to federal regulations, states can enact laws which shape access to OTPs. We aimed to define classes of states according to restrictiveness of state OTP laws and examine population characteristics associated with class membership. METHODS:A set of laws was extracted from a database of statutes and regulations governing OTPs in 49 states and the District of Columbia as of June 2021. Latent class analysis of laws was used to estimate the probability of class membership for each state. Class-weighted multinomial logistic regression analysis assessed state-level correlates of class membership and adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were generated. RESULTS:States (n = 50) were assigned to three classes; Class 1) High restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 13); Class 2) Medium restrictiveness on patient experience, high restrictiveness on access to service (n = 14); Class 3) Low restrictiveness on patient experience, low restrictiveness on access to service (n = 23). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness had higher rates of unemployment (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.24; 95%CI:1.06-1.45), and Black residents (Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04-1.15), and lower likelihood of Medicaid coverage of methadone (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:0.25; 95%CI:0.07-0.88). States with a higher probability of membership in Classes with higher restrictiveness also had higher rates of potential indicators for opioid use disorder treatment need, including rates of opioid dispensing (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.06; 95%CI:1.02-1.10, Class 2 vs Class 3, aRRR:1.07; 95%CI:1.03-1.11) and HIV diagnoses attributed to injection (Class 1 vs Class 3, aRRR:3.92; 95%CI:1.25-12.22). CONCLUSIONS:States with indicators of greater potential need for opioid use disorder treatment have the most restrictions, raising concerns about unmet treatment need.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdose deaths continue to rise, and considerable racial inequities have emerged. Overdose Good Samaritan laws (GSLs) are intended to encourage overdose witnesses to seek emergency assistance. However, evidence of their effectiveness is mixed, and little is known regarding racial disparities in their implementation. This study examined GSL impact by assessing racial differences in awareness of and trust in New York state's GSL. METHODS:Using a sequential mixed methods design, Black and white participants were recruited from an existing longitudinal cohort study of people who use illicit opioids in New York City to participate in a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Racially stratified survey responses were analyzed using chi-squared tests, Fisher exact tests, or t-tests. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS:Participants (n=128) were 56% male and predominantly aged 50 years or older. Most met criteria for severe opioid use disorder (81%). Fifty-seven percent reported that the New York GSL makes them more likely to call 911 even though 42% reported not trusting law enforcement to abide by the GSL; neither differed by race. Black people were less likely to have heard of the GSL (36.1% vs 60%) and were less likely to have accurate information regarding its protections (40.4% vs 49.6%). CONCLUSIONS:Though GSLs may reduce negative impacts of the criminalization of people who use drugs, their implementation may exacerbate existing racial disparities. Resources should be directed towards harm reduction strategies that do not rely on trust in law enforcement.

Access to new syringes can reduce the risk of HIV and hepatitis C transmission, skin and soft tissue infections, and infectious endocarditis for people who inject drugs (PWID). Syringe service programs (SSPs) and other harm reduction programs are a good source of syringes. However, they are sometimes not accessible due to limited hours, geographic barriers, and other factors. In this perspective, we argue that when PWID faces barriers to syringes physicians and other providers should prescribe, and pharmacists should dispense, syringes to decrease health risks associated with syringe re-use. This strategy is endorsed by professional organizations and is legally permissible in most states. Such prescribing has numerous benefits, including insurance coverage of the cost of syringes and the sense of legitimacy conveyed by a prescription. We discuss these benefits as well as the legality of prescribing and dispensing syringes and address practical considerations such as type of syringe, quantity, and relevant diagnostic codes, if required. In the face of an unprecedented overdose crisis with many associated health harms, we also make the case for advocacy to change state and federal laws to make access to prescribed syringes uniform, smooth, and universal as part of a suite of harm reduction efforts.

BACKGROUND:Naloxone distribution is central to ongoing efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis. Some critics contend that naloxone expansion may inadvertently promote high-risk substance use behaviors among adolescents, but this question has not been directly investigated. METHODS:We examined relationships between naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution with lifetime heroin and injection drug use (IDU), 2007-2019. Models generating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) included year and state fixed effects, controlled for demographics and sources of variation in opioid environments (e.g., fentanyl penetration), as well as additional policies expected to impact substance use (e.g., prescription drug monitoring). Exploratory and sensitivity analyses further examined naloxone law provisions (e.g., third-party prescribing) and applied e-value testing to assess vulnerability to unmeasured confounding. RESULTS:Adoption of any naloxone law was not associated with changes in adolescent lifetime heroin or IDU. For pharmacy dispensing, we observed a small decrease in heroin use (aOR: 0.95 [CI: 0.92, 0.99]) and a small increase in IDU (aOR: 1.07 [CI: 1.02, 1.11]). Exploratory analyses of law provisions suggested that third-party prescribing (aOR: 0.80, [CI: 0.66, 0.96]) and non-patient-specific dispensing models (aOR: 0.78, [CI: 0.61, 0.99]) were associated with decreased heroin use but not decreased IDU. Small e-values associated with the pharmacy dispensing and provision estimates indicate that unmeasured confounding may explain observed findings. CONCLUSION:Naloxone access laws and pharmacy naloxone distribution were more consistently associated with decreases rather than increases in lifetime heroin and IDU among adolescents. Our findings therefore do not support concerns that naloxone access promotes high-risk adolescent substance use behaviors. As of 2019, all US states have adopted legislation to improve naloxone access and facilitate use. However, further removal of adolescent naloxone access barriers is an important priority given that the opioid epidemic continues to affect people of all ages.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, federal law required in-person evaluation before buprenorphine initiation. Regulatory changes during the pandemic allow for buprenorphine initiation by audio-only or audiovisual telehealth. Little is known about treatment engagement after buprenorphine initiation conducted via audio-only telehealth. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study of 94 individuals who received initial treatment through an audio-only encounter between April 2020 and February 2021 was performed. Participant demographics, substance use history, withdrawal symptoms, 30-day treatment engagement, and adverse outcomes were determined by an electronic chart and REDcap database review. Subsequent buprenorphine prescriptions filled within 30 days of the initial encounter were tracked through the Rhode Island Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. RESULTS:Buprenorphine was prescribed for 94 individuals. Most (92 of 94 [97.9%]) filled their prescription within 30 days. Most had previously taken buprenorphine, including prescribed (42 of 92 [45.7%]) and nonprescribed (58 of 92 [63.0%]). Two thirds were in opioid withdrawal at the time of the call (61 of 92 [66.3%]) with a mean Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale of 26.8 (range, 4-57). Four individuals experienced precipitated withdrawal (4 of 94 [4.3%]), and 2 reported persistent withdrawal at their follow-up visit (2 of 94 [2.1%]). More than 70% filled a subsequent prescription for buprenorphine within 30 days of the end of their hotline prescription (65 of 92 [70.7%]), on average of 5.88 days (range, 0-28) after completion of their telehealth prescription. CONCLUSIONS:Expanding telehealth-delivered buprenorphine care has the potential to address treatment gaps and facilitate delivery of on-demand services during peak motivation. This evaluation of audio-only buprenorphine initiation found high rates of unobserved buprenorphine initiation and treatment continuation with low rates of complications.

The US overdose crisis continues to worsen and is disproportionately harming Black and Hispanic/Latino people. Although the "War on Drugs" continues to shape drug policy-at the disproportionate expense of Black and Hispanic/Latino people-states have taken some steps to reduce War on Drugs-related harms and adopt a public health-centered approach. However, the rhetoric regarding these changes has, in many cases, outstripped reality. Using overdose Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) as a case study, we argue that public health-oriented policy changes made in some states are undercut by the broader enduring environment of a structurally racist drug criminalization agenda that continues to permeate and constrict most attempts at change. Drawing from our collective experiences in public health research and practice, we describe 3 key barriers to GSL effectiveness: the narrow parameters within which they apply, the fact that they are subject to police discretion, and the passage of competing laws that further criminalize people who use illicit drugs. All reveal a persisting climate of drug criminalization that may reduce policy effectiveness and explain why current reforms may be destined for failure and further disadvantage Black and Hispanic/Latino people who use drugs. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(S1):S43-S48. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307037).

Overdose Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) aim to reduce mortality by providing limited legal protections when an overdose bystander summons help. Most research into the impact of these laws is dated or potentially confounded by co-enacted naloxone access laws. Lack of awareness and trust in GSL protections, as well as fear of police involvement and legal repercussions, remain key deterrents of help-seeking. These barriers may be unequally distributed by race due to racist policing and drug policies, potentially producing racial disparities in the effectiveness of GSLs for reducing overdose mortality. We used 2015-2019 vital statistics data to estimate the effect of recent GSLs on overdose mortality, overall (eight states) and by Black/white race (four states). Given GSLs' near ubiquity, few unexposed states were available for comparison. We therefore proposed an "inverted" synthetic control method (SCM) to compare overdose mortality in new-GSL states to states with GSLs throughout the analytic period. The estimated relationships between GSLs and overdose mortality, both overall and stratified by Black/white race, were consistent with chance. An absence of effect could result from insufficient protection provided by the laws, insufficient awareness of them, and/or reticence to summon help not addressable by legal protections. The inverted SCM may be useful for evaluating other widespread policies.