Faculty Bibliography

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.

Pain management clinic (PMC) laws were enacted by 12 states to promote appropriate opioid prescribing, but their impact is inadequately understood. We analyzed county-level opioid overdose deaths (National Vital Statistics System) and patients filling long-duration (≥30 day) or high-dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) opioid prescriptions (IQVIA, Inc) in the United States from 2010-2018. We fit Besag-York-Mollié spatiotemporal models to estimate annual relative rates (RR) of overdose and prevalence ratios (PR) of high-risk prescribing associated with any PMC law and three provisions: payment restrictions, site inspections, and criminal penalties. Laws with criminal penalties were significantly associated with reduced PRs of long-duration and high-dose opioid prescriptions (adjusted PR: 0.82, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.92-0.83, and 0.73, and 0.73, 0.74 respectively), and reduced RRs of total and natural/semi-synthetic opioid overdoses (adjusted RR: 0.86, 95% CrI: 0.80, 0.92; and 0.84, and 0.77, 0.92, respectively). Conversely, PMC laws were associated with increased relative rates of synthetic opioid and heroin overdose deaths, especially criminal penalties (adjusted RR: 1.83, 95% CrI: 1.59, 2.11; and 2.59, and 2.22, 3.02, respectively). Findings suggest laws with criminal penalties were associated with intended reductions in high-risk opioid prescribing and some opioid overdoses, but raise concerns regarding unintended consequences on heroin/synthetic overdoses.

BACKGROUND:Hundreds of laws aimed at reducing inappropriate prescription opioid dispensing have been implemented in the United States, yet heterogeneity in provisions and their simultaneous implementation have complicated evaluation of impacts. We apply a hypothesis-generating, multi-stage, machine learning approach to identify salient law provisions and combinations associated with dispensing rates to test in future research. METHODS:Using 162 prescription opioid law provisions capturing prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) access, reporting and administration features, pain management clinic provisions, and prescription opioid limits, we used regularization approaches and random forest models to identify laws most predictive of county-level and high-dose dispensing. We stratified analyses by overdose epidemic phases-the prescription opioid phase (2006-2009), heroin phase (2010-2012), and fentanyl phase (2013-2016)-to further explore pattern shifts over time. RESULTS:PDMP patient data access provisions most consistently predicted high dispensing and high-dose dispensing counties. Pain management clinic-related provisions did not generally predict dispensing measures in the prescription opioid phase but became more discriminant of high dispensing and high-dose dispensing counties over time, especially in the fentanyl period. Predictive performance across models was poor, suggesting prescription opioid laws alone do not strongly predict dispensing. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic analysis of 162 law provisions identified patient data access and several pain management clinic provisions as predictive of county prescription opioid dispensing patterns. Future research employing other types of study designs is needed to test these provisions' causal relationships with inappropriate dispensing, and to examine potential interactions between PDMP access and pain management clinic provisions.

Treatment with buprenorphine significantly reduces both all-cause and overdose mortality among individuals with opioid use disorder. Offering buprenorphine treatment to individuals who experience a nonfatal opioid overdose represents an opportunity to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. Although some emergency departments (EDs) initiate buprenorphine treatment, many individuals who experience an overdose either refuse transport to the ED or are transported to an ED that does not offer buprenorphine. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals can help address this treatment gap. In this Concepts article, we describe the federal legal landscape that governs the ability of EMS professionals to administer buprenorphine treatment, and discuss state and local regulatory considerations relevant to this promising and emerging practice.

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.