Costs of opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution in New York City.

Background: Naloxone is an opioid antagonist medication that can be administered by lay people or medical professionals to reverse opioid overdoses and reduce overdose mortality. Cost was identified as a potential barrier to providing expanded overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) in New York City (NYC) in 2017. We estimated the cost of delivering OEND for different types of opioid overdose prevention programs (OOPPs) in NYC. Methods: We interviewed naloxone coordinators at 11 syringe service programs (SSPs) and 10 purposively sampled non-SSPs in NYC from December 2017 to September 2019. The samples included diverse non-SSP program types, program sizes, and OEND funding sources. We calculated one-time start up costs and ongoing operating costs using micro-costing methods to estimate the cost of personnel time and materials for OEND activities from the program perspective, but excluding naloxone kit costs. Results: Implementing an OEND program required a one-time median startup cost of $874 for SSPs and $2,548 for other programs excluding overhead, with 80% of those costs attributed to time and travel for training staff. SSPs spent a median of $90 per staff member trained and non-SSPs spent $150 per staff member. The median monthly cost of OEND program activities excluding overhead was $1,579 for SSPs and $2,529 for non-SSPs. The costs for non-SSPs varied by size, with larger, multi-site programs having higher median costs compared to single-site programs. The estimated median cost per kit dispensed excluding and including overhead was $19 versus $25 per kit for SSPs, and $36 versus $43 per kit for non-SSPs, respectively. Conclusions: OEND operating costs vary by program type and number of sites. Funders should consider that providing free naloxone to OEND programs does not cover full operating costs. Further exploration of cost-effectiveness and program efficiency should be considered across different types of OEND settings.

Estimated impact of supervised injection facilities on overdose fatalities and healthcare costs in New York City.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the United States has resulted in over 42,000 U.S. opioid overdose fatalities in 2016 alone. In New York City (NYC) opioid overdoses have reached a record high, increasing from 13.6 overdose deaths/100,000 to 19.9/100,000 from 2015 to 2016. Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide a hygienic, safe environment in which pre-obtained drugs can be consumed under clinical supervision to quickly reverse opioid overdoses. While SIFs have been implemented worldwide, none have been implemented to date in the United States. This study estimates the potential impact on opioid overdose fatalities and healthcare system costs of implementing SIFs in NYC. METHODS: A deterministic model was used to project the number of fatal opioid overdoses avoided by implementing SIFs in NYC. Model inputs were from 2015 to 2016 NYC provisional overdose data (N = 1852) and the literature. Healthcare utilization and costs were estimated for fatal overdoses that would have been avoided from implementing one or more SIFs. RESULTS: One optimally placed SIF is estimated to prevent 19-37 opioid overdose fatalities annually, representing a 6-12% decrease in opioid overdose mortality for that neighborhood; four optimally placed SIFs are estimated to prevent 68-131 opioid overdose fatalities. Opioid overdoses cost the NYC healthcare system an estimated $41 million per year for emergency medical services, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Implementing one SIF is estimated to save $0.8-$1.6 million, and four SIFs saves $2.9-$5.7 million in annual healthcare costs from opioid overdoses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing SIFs in NYC would save lives and healthcare system costs, although their overall impact may be limited depending on the geographic characteristic of the local opioid epidemic. In cities with geographically dispersed opioid epidemics such as NYC, multiple SIFs will be required to have a sizeable impact on the total number of opioid overdose fatalities occurring each year.

The Rikers Island Hot Spotters: Exploring the Needs of the Most Frequently Incarcerated.

A cohort of frequently incarcerated individuals in the New York City jail system was identified through "hot spotting" analysis. This group demonstrated higher levels of substance use, mental illness, and homelessness than the general jail population, and was typically incarcerated on minor criminal charges. To understand this population better, in-depth interviews (n = 20) were conducted at three Rikers Island correctional facilities with people who had entered the jail system at least 18 times in a six-year period. Findings showed that life circumstances, chronic homelessness, mental illness, and substance use resulted in repeated institutionalization across multiple settings. Participants described an "institutional circuit" that promoted a state of permanent instability characterized by rotating involvement with custodial institutions. Exiting the institutional circuit requires the ability to navigate complex bureaucratic systems; however, without structural reorganization in social service delivery and an emphasis on permanent housing, participants in this group are unlikely to break the cycle.

The syringe gap: an assessment of sterile syringe need and acquisition among syringe exchange program participants in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Programmatic data from New York City syringe exchange programs suggest that many clients visit the programs infrequently and take few syringes per transaction, while separate survey data from individuals using these programs indicate that frequent injecting - at least daily - is common. Together, these data suggest a possible "syringe gap" between the number of injections performed by users and the number of syringes they are receiving from programs for those injections. METHODS: We surveyed a convenience sample of 478 injecting drug users in New York City at syringe exchange programs to determine whether program syringe coverage was adequate to support safer injecting practices in this group. RESULTS: Respondents reported injecting a median of 60 times per month, visiting the syringe exchange program a median of 4 times per month, and obtaining a median of 10 syringes per transaction; more than one in four reported reusing syringes. Fifty-four percent of participants reported receiving fewer syringes than their number of injections per month. Receiving an inadequate number of syringes was more frequently reported by younger and homeless injectors, and by those who reported public injecting in the past month. CONCLUSION: To improve syringe coverage and reduce syringe sharing, programs should target younger and homeless drug users, adopt non-restrictive syringe uptake policies, and establish better relationships with law enforcement and homeless services. The potential for safe injecting facilities should be explored, to address the prevalence of public injecting and resolve the 'syringe gap' for injecting drug users.