Search

BackgroundAs 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsGSLs 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.ConclusionGSLs 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.

BackgroundPrescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) that collect and distribute information on dispensed controlled substances have been adopted by nearly all US states. We know little about program characteristics that modify PDMP impact on prescription opioid (PO) overdose deaths.MethodsWe measured associations between adoption of any PDMP and changes in fatal PO overdoses in 2002-2016 across 3109 counties in 49 states and D.C. We then measured changes related to the adoption of "proactive PDMPs," which report outlying prescribing/dispensing patterns and provide broader access to PDMP data by law enforcement. Comparisons were made within 3 time intervals that broadly represent the evolution of PDMPs (2002-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2016). We modeled overdoses using Bayesian space-time models.ResultsAdoption of electronic PDMP access was associated with 9% lower rates of fatal PO overdoses after three years (rate ratio [RR] = 0.91, 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.88-0.93) with well-supported effects for methadone (RR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.82-0.90) and other synthetic opioids (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77-0.86). Compared with states with no/weak PDMPs, proactive PDMPs were associated with fewer deaths attributed to natural/semi-synthetic opioids (2002-2004: RR = 0.72 [0.66-0.78]; 2005-2009: RR = 0.93 [0.90-0.97]; 2010-2016: 0.89 [0.86-0.92]) and methadone (2002-2004: RR = 0.77 [0.69-0.85]; 2010-2016: RR = 0.90 [0.86-0.94]). Unintended effects were observed for synthetic opioids other than methadone (2005-2009: RR = 1.29 [1.21-1.38]; 2010-2016: RR = 1.22 [1.16-1.29]).ConclusionsState adoption of PDMPs was associated with fewer PO deaths overall while proactive PDMPs alone were associated with fewer deaths related to natural/semisynthetic opioids and methadone, the specific targets of these programs. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B619.

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: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.