Chandler McClellan1, Barrot H Lambdin2, Mir M Ali3, Ryan Mutter3, Corey S Davis4, Eliza Wheeler5, Michael Pemberton6, Alex H Kral6. 1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD, United States. Electronic address: chandler.mcclellan@samhsa.hhs.gov. 2. RTI International, San Francisco, CA, United States; University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 3. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD, United States. 4. Network for Public Health Law, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, United States. 5. Drug Overdose Prevention and Education (DOPE) Project, Harm Reduction Coalition, Oakland, CA, United States. 6. RTI International, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the 1990's, governmental and non-governmental organizations have adopted several measures to increase access to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone. These include the implementation of laws that increase layperson naloxone access and overdose-specific Good Samaritan laws that protect those reporting overdoses from criminal sanction. The association of these legal changes with overdose mortality and non-medical opioid use is unknown. We assess the relationship of (1) naloxone access laws and (2) overdose Good Samaritan laws with opioid-overdose mortality and non-medical opioid use in the United States. METHODS: We used 2000-2014 National Vital Statistics System data, 2002-2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, and primary datasets of the location and timing of naloxone access laws and overdose Good Samaritan laws. RESULTS: By 2014, 30 states had a naloxone access and/or Good Samaritan law. States with naloxone access laws or Good Samaritan laws had a 14% (p = 0.033) and 15% (p = 0.050) lower incidence of opioid-overdose mortality, respectively. Both law types exhibit differential association with opioid-overdose mortality by race and age. No significant relationships were observed between any of the examined laws and non-medical opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Laws designed to increase layperson engagement in opioid-overdose reversal were associated with reduced opioid-overdose mortality. We found no evidence that these measures were associated with increased non-medical opioid use. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
INTRODUCTION: Since the 1990's, governmental and non-governmental organizations have adopted several measures to increase access to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone. These include the implementation of laws that increase layperson naloxone access and overdose-specific Good Samaritan laws that protect those reporting overdoses from criminal sanction. The association of these legal changes with overdosemortality and non-medical opioid use is unknown. We assess the relationship of (1) naloxone access laws and (2) overdose Good Samaritan laws with opioid-overdosemortality and non-medical opioid use in the United States. METHODS: We used 2000-2014 National Vital Statistics System data, 2002-2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health data, and primary datasets of the location and timing of naloxone access laws and overdose Good Samaritan laws. RESULTS: By 2014, 30 states had a naloxone access and/or Good Samaritan law. States with naloxone access laws or Good Samaritan laws had a 14% (p = 0.033) and 15% (p = 0.050) lower incidence of opioid-overdosemortality, respectively. Both law types exhibit differential association with opioid-overdosemortality by race and age. No significant relationships were observed between any of the examined laws and non-medical opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Laws designed to increase layperson engagement in opioid-overdose reversal were associated with reduced opioid-overdosemortality. We found no evidence that these measures were associated with increased non-medical opioid use. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Good Samaritan Laws; Mortality; Naloxone; Opioids
Authors: Mandy L Renfro; Leticia R Moczygemba; Jennifer Baumgartner; Glen Baumgart; Lucas G Hill Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Minji Sohn; Jeffery C Talbert; Chris Delcher; Emily R Hankosky; Michelle R Lofwall; Patricia R Freeman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Magdalena Cerdá; William R Ponicki; Nathan Smith; Ariadne Rivera-Aguirre; Corey S Davis; Brandon D L Marshall; David S Fink; Stephen G Henry; Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia; Garen J Wintemute; Andrew Gaidus; Paul J Gruenewald; Silvia S Martins Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.822