Faculty Bibliography

The United States remains in the grip of an unprecedented epidemic of drug-related harm. Infections of HIV, hepatitis C, and endocarditis related to lack of access to new syringes and subsequent syringe sharing among people who inject drugs have increased alongside a surge in opioid overdose deaths.Overwhelming evidence shows that using a new syringe with every injection prevents injection-related blood-borne disease transmission. Additionally, there is promising research suggesting that the distribution of fentanyl test strips to people who inject drugs changes individuals' injection decisions, which enables safer drug use and reduces the risk of fatal overdose. However, laws prohibiting the possession of syringes and fentanyl test strips persist in nearly every state.The full and immediate repeal of state paraphernalia laws is both warranted and needed to reduce opioid overdose death and related harms. Such repeal would improve the health of people who inject drugs and those with whom they interact, reducing the spread of blood-borne disease and fatal overdose associated with infiltration of illicitly manufactured fentanyl into the illicit drug supply. It would also free up scarce public resources that could be redirected toward evidence-based approaches to reducing drug-related harm.

The United States continues to face a public health crisis of opioid-related harm, the effects of which could be dramatically reduced through increased access to opioid agonist therapy with the medications methadone and buprenorphine. Despite overwhelming evidence of their efficacy, unduly restrictive federal, state, and local regulation significantly impedes access to these life-saving medications. We outline immediate, concrete steps that federal, state, and local governments can take to change law from barrier to facilitator of evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. These include removing onerous restrictions on the prescription and dispensing of buprenorphine and methadone for opioid agonist therapy, requiring insurance coverage of these medications, and mandating that they be provided in correctional settings and promoted by drug courts. Finally, we argue that jurisdictions should proactively offer opioid agonist therapy to individuals at high risk of overdose, remove barriers to establishing methadone treatment facilities, and address underlying social determinants and barriers to treatment. These changes have the ability to save thousands of lives annually.

BACKGROUND:Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), by reducing access to prescribed opioids (POs), may contribute to a policy environment in which some people with opioid dependence are at increased risk for transitioning from POs to heroin/other illegal opioids. This study examines how PDMP adoption and changes in the characteristics of PDMPs over time contribute to changes in fatal heroin poisoning in counties within states from 2002 to 2016. METHODS:Latent transition analysis to classify PDMPs into latent classes (Cooperative, Proactive, and Weak) for each state and year, across three intervals (1999-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016). We examined the association between probability of PDMP latent class membership and the rate of county-level heroin poisoning death. RESULTS:After adjustment for potential county-level confounders and co-occurring policy changes, adoption of a PDMP was significantly associated with increased heroin poisoning rates (22% increase by third year post-adoption). Findings varied by PDMP type. From 2010-2016, states with Cooperative PDMPs (those more likely to share data with other states, to require more frequent reporting, and include more drug schedules) had 19% higher heroin poisoning rates than states with Weak PDMPs (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.14, 1.25). States with Proactive PDMPs (those more likely to report outlying prescribing and dispensing and provide broader access to law enforcement) had 6% lower heroin poisoning rates than states with No/Weak PDMPs (ARR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.90, 0.98). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a consistent, positive association between state PDMP adoption and heroin poisoning mortality. However, this varies by PDMP type, with Proactive PDMPs associated with a small reduction in heroin poisoning deaths. This raises questions about the potential for PDMPs to support efforts to decrease heroin overdose risk, particularly by using proactive alerts to identify patients in need of treatment for opioid use disorder. Future research on mechanisms explaining the reduction in heroin poisonings after enactment of Proactive PDMPs is merited.

States have implemented a variety of legal and policy approaches to address the overdose epidemic. Some approaches, like increasing access to naloxone and connecting overdose survivors with evidence-based treatment, have a strong public health foundation and a compelling evidence base. Others, like increasing reliance on punitive criminal justice approaches, have neither. This article examines law and policy changes that are likely to be effective in reducing overdose-related harm as well as those that are likely to increase it.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), defined as state-level databases used in the USA that collect prescribing information when controlled substances are dispensed, have varied substantially between states and over time. Little is known about the combinations of PDMP features that, collectively, may produce the greatest impact on prescribing and overdose. We aimed to (1) identify the types of PDMP models that have developed from 1999 to 2016, (2) estimate whether states have transitioned across PDMP models over time, and (3) examine whether states have adopted different types of PDMP models in response to the burden of opioid overdose. METHODS:A latent transition analysis of PDMP models based on an adaptation of nine PDMP characteristics classified by prescription opioid policy experts as potentially important determinants of prescribing practices and prescription opioid overdose events. RESULTS:We divided the time period into three intervals (1999-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016), and found three distinct PDMP classes in each interval. The classes in the first and second interval can be characterized as "No/Weak", "Proactive", and "Reactive" types of PDMPs, and in the third interval as "Weak", "Cooperative", and "Proactive". The meaning of these classes changed over time: until 2009, states in the "No/Weak" class had no active PDMP, whereas states in the "Proactive" class were more likely to proactively provide unsolicited information to PDMP users, provide open access to law enforcement, and require more frequent data reporting than states in the "Reactive" class. In 2010-2016, the "Weak" class resembled the "Reactive" class in previous intervals. States in the "Cooperative" class in 2010-2016 were less likely than states in the "Proactive" class proactively to provide unsolicited reports, or to provide open access to law enforcement; however, they were more likely than those in the "Proactive" class to share PDMP data with other states, and to report more federal drug schedules. CONCLUSIONS:Since 1999, US states have tended to transition to more robust classes of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). Opioid overdose deaths in prior years predicted the state's PDMP class but did not predict transitions between PDMP classes over time.

BACKGROUND:Opioid overdose is a continuing public health crisis. In response to an increasing recognition of the negative outcomes sometimes associated with the use of opioid analgesics, states have taken a number of steps attempting to reduce inappropriate prescribing of these medications. These include the imposition of strict legal limitations on the amount or duration that opioid analgesics may be prescribed or dispensed to patients with acute pain. METHODS:We conducted a systematic, multi-source legal review of state laws that impose mandatory limits on the ability of medical professionals to prescribe or dispense opioids for the treatment of acute pain. We also systematically searched for and examined publicly available documents on state legislative and regulatory bodies' websites. All relevant laws were downloaded and systematically coded. RESULTS:By the end of 2017, twenty-six states had passed laws that impose mandatory limits on the prescribing or dispensing of opioids for acute pain. The oldest of these laws became effective as early as 1989, but most are much newer: approximately 65% (17/26) were passed in 2017. There is wide variation in the characteristics of these laws. CONCLUSION:Just over half of all states have enacted laws that restrict the prescribing or dispensing of opioids for acute pain. To date, there is no data on whether and to what extent these laws mediate opioid-related morbidity and mortality, as well as whether they are associated with negative unintended outcomes. Research into these questions is urgently needed.