Faculty Bibliography

Violations of the positivity assumption (also called the common support condition) challenge health policy research and can result in significant bias, large variance, and invalid inference. We define positivity in the single- and multiple-timepoint (i.e., longitudinal) health policy evaluation setting, and discuss real-world threats to positivity. We show empirical evidence of the practical positivity violations that can result when attempting to estimate the effects of health policies (in this case, Naloxone Access Laws). In such scenarios, an alternative is to estimate the effect of a shift in law enactment (e.g., the effect if enactment had been delayed by some number of years). Such an effect corresponds to what is called a modified treatment policy, and dramatically weakens the required positivity assumption, thereby offering a means to estimate policy effects even in scenarios with serious positivity problems. We apply the approach to define and estimate the longitudinal effects of Naloxone Access Laws on opioid overdose rates.

BACKGROUND:States have enacted multiple types of laws, with a variety of constituent provisions, in response to the opioid epidemic, often simultaneously. This temporal proximity and variation in state-to-state operationalization has resulted in significant challenges for empirical research on their effects. Thus, expert consensus can be helpful to classify laws and their provisions by their degree of helpfulness and impact. METHODS:We conducted a four-stage modified policy Delphi process to identify the top 10 most helpful and 5 most harmful provisions from eight opioid-related laws. This iterative consultation with six types of opioid experts included a preliminary focus group (n=12), two consecutive surveys (n=56 and n=40, respectively), and a final focus group feedback session (n=5). RESULTS:On a scale of very harmful (0) to very helpful (4), overdose Good Samaritan laws received the highest average helpfulness rating (3.62, 95% CI: 3.48-3.75), followed by naloxone access laws (3.37, 95% CI: 3.22-3.51), and pain management clinic laws (3.08, 95% CI: 2.89-3.26). Drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws were rated the most harmful (0.88, 95% CI: 0.66-1.11). Impact ratings aligned similarly, although Medicaid laws received the second highest overall impact rating (3.71, 95% CI: 3.45, 3.97). The two most helpful provisions were naloxone standing orders (3.94, 95% CI: 3.86-4.02) and Medicaid coverage of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (3.89, 95% CI: 3.82). Mandatory minimum DIH laws were the most harmful provision (0.73, 95% CI 0.53-0.93); followed by requiring prior authorization for Medicaid coverage of MOUD (1.00 95% CI: 0.72-1.27). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, experts rated laws and provisions that facilitated harm reduction efforts and access to MOUD as most helpful. Laws and provisions rated as most harmful criminalized substance use and placed restrictions on access to MOUD. These ratings provide a foundation for evaluating the overall overdose policy environment for each state.

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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine if state laws that forbid substance use disorder treatment providers from refusing services based on pregnancy are associated with improved ability to secure an initial appointment for opioid use disorder treatment with methadone and buprenorphine. METHODS:Ten states in which a "secret shopper" study was conducted were stratified based on whether they have a law that forbids substance use disorder treatment providers from refusing to treat individuals because of pregnancy. We tested for differences in percent of pregnant versus nonpregnant callers offered an initial appointment for medication for opioid use disorder treatment between states with a law and those without. We also tested for differences in acceptance based on caller insurance type. RESULTS:Four states with 1461 callers had relevant laws; 6 states with 2495 callers did not. None of the laws apply to all providers. In both groups of states, nonpregnant callers were significantly more likely to obtain a buprenorphine appointment (75.1% vs 60.1% in states with a law, P < 0.01; 73.1% vs 62.3% in states without, P < 0.01). No significant differences were found in methadone appointment access either between pregnant and nonpregnant callers or between pregnant callers in states with a law compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS:Laws that forbid providers from refusing to treat potential patients because they are pregnant were not associated with success in obtaining an initial appointment for medication for opioid use disorder treatment. States should consider expanding those laws to apply to all treatment providers and ensure that currently covered providers are in compliance.

Since early 2020 COVID-19 has swept across the United States, exposing shortcomings in the current healthcare delivery system. Although some interim efforts have been made to mitigate the spread of infection and maintain access to treatment for opioid use disorder, more permanent changes are needed to combat the ongoing opioid crisis. In this commentary, we describe the regulatory barriers to methadone maintenance treatment that disproportionately impact communities of color. We then discuss strategies supporting more equitable access to this proven treatment for opioid use disorder.