Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:North Carolina, like much of the U.S. South, is disproportionately affected by HIV and hepatitis. This persistently high disease burden may be driven in part by laws that criminalize the possession and distribution of syringes for illicit drug use. Legal change to decriminalize syringes may reduce infection rates in the state, but is unlikely absent support from law enforcement actors. METHODS:We analyzed the responses of 350 North Carolina law enforcement officers to a confidential, anonymous survey. The survey instrument collected data regarding self-reported needle-stick injury (NSI), blood borne disease risk perception and attitudes toward syringe decriminalization. RESULTS:82% of respondents reported that contracting HIV was a "big concern" for them. 3.8% of respondents reported ever receiving a job-related NSI, a rate of 36 NSI per 10,000 officer-years. Majorities of respondents reported positive views regarding syringe decriminalization, with approximately 63% agreeing that it would be "good for the community" and 60% agreeing that it would be "good for law enforcement." Black and female officers were significantly less likely to agree that on-the-job NSI was a "big concern" and significantly more likely to agree that it would be good for law enforcement. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that many North Carolina LEOs understand the public health benefits of syringe access programs and may be inclined to support syringe decriminalization legislation. Further research is indicated to determine the causes of observed differences in perceptions of bloodborne disease risk and attitudes toward syringe decriminalization by race and sex.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Fatal opioid overdose in the United States is at epidemic levels. Naloxone, an effective opioid antidote, is commonly administered by advanced emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in the prehospital setting. While states are rapidly moving to increase access to naloxone for community bystanders, the EMS system remains the primary source for out-of-hospital naloxone access. Many communities have limited advanced EMS response capability and therefore may not have prehospital access to the medication indicated for opioid overdose reversal. The goal of this research was to determine the authority of different levels of EMS personnel to administer naloxone for the reversal of opioid overdose in the United States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. METHODS:The authors systematically reviewed the scope of practice of EMS personnel regarding administration of naloxone for the reversal of opioid overdose. All relevant laws, regulations, and policies from the 50 U. S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico in effect in November 2013 were identified, reviewed, and coded to determine the authority of EMS personnel at four levels (in increasing order of training: emergency medical responders [EMRs], emergency medical technicians [EMTs], intermediate/advanced EMTs, and paramedics) to administer naloxone. Where available, protocols governing route and dose of administration were also identified and analyzed. RESULTS:All 53 jurisdictions license or certify EMS personnel at the paramedic level, and all permit paramedics to administer naloxone. Of the 48 jurisdictions with intermediate-level EMS personnel, all but one authorized those personnel to administer naloxone as of November 2013. Twelve jurisdictions explicitly permitted EMTs and two permitted EMRs to administer naloxone. At least five jurisdictions modified law or policy to expand EMT access to naloxone in 2013. There is wide variation between states regarding EMS naloxone dosing protocol and route of administration. CONCLUSIONS:Naloxone administration is standard for paramedic and intermediate-level EMS personnel, but most states do not allow basic life support (BLS) personnel to administer this medication. Standards consistent with available medical evidence for naloxone administration, dosing, and route of administration should be implemented at each EMS level of certification.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to collect and characterize all laws governing the operation of prescription monitoring programs (PMPs), state-level databases that collect patient-specific prescription information, which have been suggested as a tool for reducing prescription drug overdose fatalities. METHODS:We utilized a structured legal research protocol to systematically identify, review, and code all PMP statutes and regulations effective from 1998 through 2011. These laws were then abstracted along eleven domains, including reporting provisions, data sharing, and data access. RESULTS:PMP characteristics vary greatly among states and across time. We observed an increase in the types and frequency of data required to be reported, the types of individuals permitted to access PMP data, and the percentage of PMPs authorized to proactively identify outlier prescribers and patients. As of 2011, 10 states required PMPs to report suspicious activity to law enforcement, while only 3 required reporting to the patient's physician. None required linkage to drug treatment or required all prescribers to review PMP data before prescribing. Few explicitly address data retention. CONCLUSIONS:State PMP laws are heterogeneous and evolving. Future studies of PMP effectiveness should take these variations into account.

Naloxone is a medication that reverses respiratory depression from opioid overdose if given in time. Paramedics routinely administer naloxone to opioid overdose victims in the prehospital setting, and many states are moving to increase access to the medication. Several jurisdictions have expanded naloxone administration authority to nonparamedic first responders, and others are considering that step. We report here on policy change in Massachusetts, where several communities have equipped emergency medical technicians, law enforcement officers, and firefighters with naloxone.

Opioid overdose is the leading cause of accidental injury death in the United States, taking the lives of over 16,000 Americans every year. Many of those deaths are preventable through the timely provision of naloxone, a drug that reliably and effectively reverses opioid overdose. However, that drug is often not available where and when it is needed, due in large part to laws that pre-date the overdose epidemic. Preliminary evidence suggests that amending those laws to encourage the prescription and use of naloxone will reduce opioid overdose deaths, and a number of states have done so in the past several years. Since legal amendments designed to facilitate naloxone access have no documented negative effects, can be implemented at little or no cost, and have the potential to save both lives and resources, states that have not passed them may benefit from doing so.

Since its inception in September 2010, the Network for Public Health Law has responded to hundreds of public health legal technical assistance claims from around the country. Based on a review of these data, a series of major trends in public health practice and the law are analyzed, including issues concerning: the Affordable Care Act, tobacco control, emergency legal preparedness, health information privacy, food policy, vaccination, drug overdose prevention, sports injury law, public health accreditation, and maternal breastfeeding. These and other emerging themes in public health law demonstrate the essential role of law and practice in advancing the public's health.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Improving access to sterile injection equipment is a key component in community-based infectious disease prevention. Implementation of syringe access programs has sometimes been complicated by community opposition and police interference. CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS:In 2006, the Delaware legislature authorized a pilot syringe exchange program (SEP). A program designed to prevent, monitor, and respond to possible policing and community barriers before they had a chance to effect program implementation and operation. A program designed to prevent, monitor, and respond to these barriers was planned and implemented by a multidisciplinary team of legal practitioners and public health professionals. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:We report on an integrated intervention to address structural barriers to syringe exchange program utilization. This intervention employs community, police and client education combined with systematic surveillance of and rapid response to police interference to preempt the kinds of structural barriers to implementation observed elsewhere. The intervention addresses community concerns and stresses the benefits of syringe exchange programs to officer occupational safety. CONCLUSIONS:A cohesive effort combining collaboration with and educational outreach to police and community members based on the needs and concerns of these groups as well as SEP clients and potential clients helped establish a supportive street environment for the SEP. Police-driven structural barriers to implementation of public health programs targeting populations engaged in drug use and other illicit behavior can be addressed by up-stream planning, prevention, monitoring and intervention strategies. More research is needed to inform the tailoring of interventions to address police-driven barriers to HIV prevention services, especially among marginalized populations.

Assessing social risks has proven difficult for IRBs. We undertook a novel effort to empirically investigate social risks before an HIV prevention trial among drug users in Thailand and China. The assessment investigated whether law, policies and enforcement strategies would place research subjects at significantly elevated risk of arrest, incarceration, physical harm, breach of confidentiality, or loss of access to health care relative to drug users not participating in the research. The study validated the investigator's concern that drug users were subject to serious social risks in the site localities, but also suggested that participation in research posed little or no marginal increase in risk and might even have a protective effect. Our experience shows that it is feasible to inform IRB deliberations with actual data on social risks, but also raises the question of whether and when such research is an appropriate use of scare research resources.