Faculty Bibliography

Since 1999, annual opioid-related overdose (ORO) mortality has increased more than six-fold. In response to this crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services outlined a 5-point strategy to reduce ORO mortality which included the widespread distribution of naloxone, an opioid antagonist that can rapidly reverse an opioid overdose. Increased distribution has been facilitated by the implementation of naloxone access laws in each US state aimed at increasing community access to naloxone. While these laws differ from state-to-state, most contain mechanisms to enable pharmacists to dispense naloxone without a patient-specific prescription. These laws have enhanced community naloxone distribution, both from pharmacies and overdose education and naloxone distribution programs, and produced positive effects on ORO mortality. However, a growing body of evidence has revealed that significant barriers to naloxone access from pharmacies remain, and annual ORO deaths have continued to climb. Given these concerns, there has been a push among some clinicians and policymakers for the US Food and Drug Administration to re-classify naloxone as an over-the-counter (OTC) medication as a means to further increase its accessibility. If an OTC transition occurs, educational outreach and funding for clinical innovations will continue to be crucial given the important role of health professionals in recommending naloxone to people at risk for experiencing or witnessing an ORO. Recognizing the severity of the ORO public health crisis, we believe transitioning formulations of naloxone approved for layperson use to OTC status would result in a net benefit through increased access. However, such a change should be combined with measures to ensure affordability.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Opioid overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. In an attempt to reduce potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing, many US states have adopted legal restrictions on the ability of medical professionals to prescribe or dispense opioids for pain. This review describes the major elements of relevant US state laws and the ways in which they have changed over time. METHODS:Systematic legal review in which two trained legal researchers collected and reviewed all US state laws that limit the amount or duration of opioids that medical professionals may prescribe or dispense for pain. These laws were then coded on a set of pre-selected measures, including when the law was enacted, dosage and duration limits imposed, circumstances in which the restrictions do not apply and whether additional requirements or restrictions apply to prescriptions issued to minors. RESULTS:The number of US states with opioid limitation laws increased from 10 in 2016 to 39 by the end of 2019. The provisions of these laws vary between states and have shifted within states over time. At the end of 2019 the modal duration limit was 7 days, with a range of 3 to 31. Fourteen states imposed limits on the dosage of opioids that can be prescribed, ranging from 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to a 120 MME daily maximum. In 16 states, different limits apply to prescriptions issued to minors. CONCLUSIONS:The number of US states with opioid limitation laws nearly quadrupled between 2016 and 2019, with a great amount of heterogeneity between state restrictions and changes over time.

BACKGROUND:As of July 2018, 45 United States (US) states and the District of Columbia have enacted an overdose Good Samaritan law (GSL). These laws, which provide limited criminal immunity to individuals who request assistance during an overdose, may be of importance in the current wave of the overdose epidemic, which is driven primarily by illicit opioids including heroin and fentanyl. There are substantial differences in the structures of states' GSL laws which may impact their effectiveness. This study compared GSLs which have legal provisions protecting from arrest and laws which have more limited protections. METHODS:Using national county-level overdose mortality data from 3109 US counties, we examined the association of enactment of GSLs with protection from arrest and GSLs with more limited protections with subsequent overdose mortality between 2013 and 2018. Since GSLs are often enacted in conjunction with Naloxone Access Laws (NAL), we examined the effect of GSLs separately and in conjunction with NAL. We conducted these analyses using hierarchical Bayesian spatiotemporal Poisson models. RESULTS:GSLs with protections against arrest enactment in conjunction with a NAL were associated with 7% lower rates of all overdose deaths (rate ratio (RR): 0.93% Credible Interval (CI): 0.89-0.97), 10% lower rates in opioid overdose deaths (RR: 0.90; CI: 0.85-0.95) and 11% lower rates of heroin/synthetic overdose mortality (RR: 0.89; CI: 0.82-0.96) two years after enactment, compared to rates in states without these laws. Significant reductions in overdose mortality were not seen for GSLs with protections for charge or prosecution. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:GSLs with more expansive legal protections combined with a NAL, were associated with lower rates of overdose deaths, although these risk reductions take time to manifest. Policy makers should consider enacting and implementing more expansive GSLs with arrest protections to increase the likelihood people will contact emergency services in the event of an overdose.

Importance:Medications for opioid use disorder, including buprenorphine hydrochloride and methadone hydrochloride, are highly effective at improving outcomes for individuals with the disorder. For pregnant women, use of these medications also improves pregnancy outcomes, including the risk of preterm birth. Despite the known benefits of medications for opioid use disorder, many pregnant and nonpregnant women with the disorder are not receiving them. Objective:To determine whether pregnancy and insurance status are associated with a woman's ability to obtain an appointment with an opioid use disorder treatment clinician. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study with random assignment of clinicians and simulated-patient callers (performed in "secret shopper" format), outpatient clinics that provide buprenorphine and methadone were randomly selected from publicly available treatment lists in 10 US states (selected for variability in opioid-related outcomes and policies) from March 7 to September 5, 2019. Pregnant vs nonpregnant woman and private vs public insurance assigned randomly to callers to create unique patient profiles. Simulated patients called the clinics posing as pregnant or nonpregnant women to obtain an initial appointment with a clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures:Appointment scheduling, wait time, and out-of-pocket costs. Results:A total of 10 871 unique patient profiles were assigned to 6324 clinicians. Among all women, 2312 of 3420 (67.6%) received an appointment with a clinician who prescribed buprenorphine, with lower rates among pregnant vs nonpregnant callers (1055 of 1718 [61.4%] vs 1257 of 1702 [73.9%]; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87). For clinicians who prescribed methadone, there was no difference in appointment access for pregnant vs nonpregnant callers (240 of 271 [88.6%] vs 237 of 265 [89.4%]; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05). Insurance was frequently not accepted, with 894 of 3420 buprenorphine-waivered prescribers (26.1%) and 174 of 536 opioid treatment programs (32.5%) granting appointments only when patients agreed to pay cash. Median wait times did not differ between pregnant and nonpregnant callers among buprenorphine prescribers (3 days [interquartile range, 1-7 days] vs 3 days [interquartile range, 1-7 days]; P = .43) but did differ among methadone prescribers (1 day [interquartile range, 1-4 days] vs 2 days [interquartile range, 1-6 days]; P = .049). For patients agreeing to pay cash, the median out-of-pocket costs for initial appointments were $250 (interquartile range, $155-$300) at buprenorphine prescribers and $34 (interquartile range, $15-$120) at methadone prescribers. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cross-sectional study with random assignment of clinicians and simulated-patient callers, many women, especially pregnant women, faced barriers to accessing treatment. Given the high out-of-pocket costs and lack of acceptance of insurance among many clinicians, access to affordable opioid use disorder treatment is a significant concern.