ROMPER: The RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings.

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a "Policy Profile" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Relationships of State Alcohol Policy Environments with Homicides and Suicides.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol use is involved in a large proportion of homicides and suicides each year in the United States, but there is limited evidence on how policies targeting alcohol influence violence in the U.S. CONTEXT: Extant studies generally focus on individual policies in isolation of each other. This study examines of the effects of changes in states' alcohol policy restrictions on overall homicide and suicide rates and firearm-related homicide and suicide rates using a holistic measure of states' alcohol policy environments. METHODS: Using a composite measure of state-level alcohol policies (Alcohol Policy Scale) and data from the National Vital Statistics System from 2002 to 2018, this study applied a Bayesian time series model to estimate the effects of alcohol policy changes on overall and firearm-involved homicide and suicide rates. The analysis was performed in 2023 and 2024. RESULTS: A one standard deviation change in the Alcohol Policy Scale was associated with a 6 percent decline in homicide rates both overall (IRR=0.94; 95-percent credibility interval = [0.89, 1.00]) and for firearm homicides specifically (IRR=0.94, 95-percent CI=[0.88, 1.01]). There was no clear association of alcohol policy with suicides. The model predicts that a nationwide increase in alcohol restrictions equivalent to a shift from the 25th to 75th percentile of the scale's distribution would result in almost 1200 fewer homicides annually. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol policies are associated with reductions in homicides. More restrictive alcohol policy environments may offer an opportunity to reduce homicides.

Geographic and Demographic Differences in the Proportion of Individuals Living in Households With a Firearm, 1990-2018.

Importance: Measures of the proportion of individuals living in households with a firearm (HFR), over time, across states, and by demographic groups are needed to evaluate disparities in firearm violence and the effects of firearm policies. Objective: To estimate HFR across states, years, and demographic groups in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, substate HFR totals from 1990 to 2018 were estimated using bayesian multilevel regression with poststratification to analyze survey data on HFR from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the General Social Survey. HFR was estimated for 16 substate demographic groups defined by gender, race, marital status, and urbanicity in each state and year. Exposures: Survey responses indicating household firearm ownership were analyzed and compared with a common proxy for firearm ownership, the fraction of suicides completed with a firearm (FSS). Main Outcome and Measure: HFR, FSS, and their correlations and differences. Results: Among US adults in 2018, HFR was significantly higher among married, nonurban, non-Hispanic White and American Indian male individuals (65.0%; 95% credible interval [CI], 61.5%-68.7%) compared with their unmarried, urban, female counterparts from other racial and ethnic groups (7.3%; 95% CIs, 6.0%-9.2%). Marginal HFR rates for larger demographic groups also revealed important differences, with racial minority groups and urban dwellers having less than half the HFR of either White and American Indian (39.5%; 95% CI, 37.4%-42.9% vs 17.2%; 95% CI, 15.5%-19.9%) or nonurban populations (46.0%; 95% CI, 43.8%-49.5% vs 23.1%; 95% CI, 21.3%-26.2%). Population growth among groups less likely to own firearms, rather than changes in ownership within demographic groups, explains 30% of the 7 percentage point decline in HFR nationally from 1990 to 2018. Comparing HFR estimates with FSS revealed the expected high overall correlation across states (r = 0.84), but scaled FSS differed from HFR by as many as 20 percentage points for some states and demographic groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of HFR providing detailed, publicly available HFR estimates highlights key disparities among individuals in households with firearms across states and demographic groups; it also identifies potential biases in the use of FSS as a proxy for firearm ownership rates. These findings are essential for researchers, policymakers, and public health experts looking to address geographic and demographic disparities in firearm violence.

Expert Views on State Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis of an Online Modified Delphi Process.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of state policies to improve engagement and retention in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi process using the online ExpertLens platform. Participants included 66 experts on OUD treatment policies. Experts commented on 14 hypothetical state policies targeting treatment engagement and quality of care. Using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework, we conducted reflexive thematic analysis to develop patterns of meaning from the dataset. RESULTS: Only policies for providing continued access to evidence-based treatment for highly at-risk populations, settings, and periods were seen as effective in meaningfully reducing population-level opioid-related overdose mortality. Experts commented that, although the general public increasingly supports policies expanding medications for OUD and evidence-based care, ongoing stigma about OUD encourages public acceptance of punitive and paternalistic policies. Experts viewed all policies as at least moderately feasible given the current infrastructure and resources, with affordability reliant on long-term cost savings from reduced opioid-related harms. Equitability depended on whether experts perceived a policy as inherently equitable in its design as well as concerns about the potential for inequitable implementation due to structural oppression and interpersonal biases in criminal-legal, healthcare, and other systems. CONCLUSIONS: Experts believe that supportive (rather than punitive) policies improve engagement and retention in OUD treatment. States could prioritize implementing supportive policies that are patient-centered and take a harm-reduction approach to enhance medications for OUD access and utilization. States could consider deimplementing punitive policies that are coercive, take an abstinence-only approach, and use punitive and restrictive measures.

Relationships Between Alcohol and Cannabis Policies in U.S. States, 1999-2019.

OBJECTIVE: A crucial question regarding the public health impacts of cannabis legalization is its impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. However, little is known about whether these changing cannabis policies are occurring in liberal or in restrictive alcohol policy environments, either of which likely affect public health outcomes. We constructed comprehensive state-level alcohol and cannabis policy indices and explored relationships between them. METHOD: We assessed relationships between the Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) and the Cannabis Policy Scale (CPS) from 1999 to 2019. The APS and CPS were based on 29 and 17 state-level policies, respectively, and each policy was weighted for its relative efficacy and degree of state-year implementation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2019, average state APS scores increased modestly (became more restrictive) by 4.11 points (2019 M = 43.23, range: 24.44-66.31) and average CPS scores decreased (became less restrictive) by 15.33 points (2019 M = 76.40, range: 29.40-95.74) on a 100-point scale. In 2019, average APS scores were similar among states that prohibited (criminalized) possession of cannabis (42.00), decriminalized possession (41.33), legalized medical cannabis (44.36), and legalized recreational cannabis (43.32). Across states, there was no correlation between the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol and cannabis policies (r = .03, p = .37) in unadjusted models, although there was some variation by time, geographic region, and political party, with a weak negative correlation in state fixed-effects models. CONCLUSIONS: Although cannabis policies liberalized rapidly from 1999 to 2019, alcohol policies stayed relatively stable and did not differ by degree of cannabis policy liberalization. In general, there were weak associations between cannabis and alcohol policies among states; however, there was some temporal, regional, and political variation.

Racial and ethnic differences in the effects of state firearm laws: a systematic review subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence about how state-level firearm regulations affect overall rates of injury and death, little is known about whether potential harms or benefits of firearm laws are evenly distributed across demographic subgroups. In this systematic review, we synthesized available evidence on the extent to which firearm policies produce differential effects by race and ethnicity on injury, recreational or defensive gun use, and gun ownership or purchasing behaviors. MAIN BODY: We searched 13 databases for English-language studies published between 1995 and February 28, 2023 that estimated a relationship between firearm policy in the USA and one of eight outcomes, included a comparison group, evaluated time series data, and provided estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. We used pre-specified criteria to evaluate the quality of inference and causal effect identification. By policy and outcome, we compared policy effects across studies and across racial/ethnic groups using two different ways to express effect sizes: incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and rate differences. Of 182 studies that used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate firearm policy effects, only 15 estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. These 15 eligible studies provided 57 separate policy effect comparisons across race/ethnicity, 51 of which evaluated interpersonal violence. In IRR terms, there was little consistent evidence that policies produced significantly different effects for different racial/ethnic groups. However, because of different baseline homicide rates, similar relative effects for some policies (e.g., universal background checks) translated into significantly greater absolute differences in homicide rates among Black compared to white victims. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not support strong conclusions about whether state firearm policies differentially benefit or harm particular racial/ethnic groups. This largely reflects limited attention to these questions in the literature and challenges with detecting such effects given existing data availability and statistical power. Findings also emphasize the need for additional rigorous research that adopts a more explicit focus on testing for racial differences in firearm policy effects and that assesses the quality of race/ethnicity information in firearm injury and crime datasets.

Effects of restricting alcohol sales on fatal violence: Evidence from Sunday sales bans.

INTRODUCTION: Homicides and suicides are the second- and third-leading causes of death among young people (aged 10-24) in the US. While a substantial share of these deaths involve alcohol, evidence is needed on whether specific alcohol policies, such as day-based sales restrictions, help prevent these deaths. METHODS: We constructed total and firearm-related homicide and suicide counts by state, year, and day-of-week from the Multiple Cause of Death Micro-data 1990-2019. Repeals of Sunday bans were taken from the Alcohol Policy Information System. Two-way fixed effects Poisson models with standard errors clustered at state-level and population offset control for state, year and day-of-the-week fixed effects and state time-varying covariates. RESULTS: Repealing Sunday bans is associated with an increase in homicides (IRR=1.125; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.02-1.24) and firearm homicides (IRR=1.17; 95% CI:1.03-1.33). Analyses by day-of-the-week show significant associations with homicides not only on Sundays, but also other days, consistent with delays in death. There was no significant relationship for suicides. CONCLUSION: Restricting alcohol availability may prove a useful policy tool to reduce homicides, given that day-based restrictions are associated with changes in deaths rather than only shifting across days-of-the-week.

Comparison of Suicide Rates Among US Veteran and Nonveteran Populations.

This quality improvement study uses data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to compare the relative risk of suicide among US veteran and nonveteran populations.

Methodological considerations for estimating policy effects in the context of co-occurring policies.

Understanding how best to estimate state-level policy effects is important, and several unanswered questions remain, particularly about the ability of statistical models to disentangle the effects of concurrently enacted policies. In practice, many policy evaluation studies do not attempt to control for effects of co-occurring policies, and this issue has not received extensive attention in the methodological literature to date. In this study, we utilized Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of co-occurring policies on the performance of commonly-used statistical models in state policy evaluations. Simulation conditions varied effect sizes of the co-occurring policies and length of time between policy enactment dates, among other factors. Outcome data (annual state-specific opioid mortality rate per 100,000) were obtained from 1999 to 2016 National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Multiple Cause of Death mortality files, thus yielding longitudinal annual state-level data over 18 years from 50 states. When co-occurring policies are ignored (i.e., omitted from the analytic model), our results demonstrated that high relative bias (> 82%) arises, particularly when policies are enacted in rapid succession. Moreover, as expected, controlling for all co-occurring policies will effectively mitigate the threat of confounding bias; however, effect estimates may be relatively imprecise (i.e., larger variance) when policies are enacted in near succession. Our findings highlight several key methodological issues regarding co-occurring policies in the context of opioid-policy research yet also generalize more broadly to evaluation of other state-level policies, such as policies related to firearms or COVID-19, showcasing the need to think critically about co-occurring policies that are likely to influence the outcome when specifying analytic models.

Study design to evaluate a web-intervention to prevent alcohol and cannabis-impaired driving and use among adolescents in driver education.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and cannabis are the most commonly used substances among adolescents in the U.S. The consequences related to using both substances together are significantly higher relative to use of either substance alone. Teens' propensity to engage in risky driving behaviors (e.g., speeding, rapid lane changes, and texting) and their relative inexperience with the timing and duration of cannabis' effects puts them at heightened risk for experiencing harms related to driving under the influence. Use of alcohol and cannabis peak at age 16, the legal age teens may apply for a provisional driver's license in some states. Targeting novice teen drivers prior to licensure is thus an ideal time for prevention efforts focused on reducing alcohol and/or cannabis initiation, use, and impaired driving. METHODS: The current study proposes to evaluate the efficacy of webCHAT among 15.5 to 17-year-old adolescents (n = 150) recruited at driver education programs. WebCHAT is a single session online intervention that aims to prevent alcohol and cannabis use and risky driving behaviors. We will recruit adolescents enrolled in driver education programs, and stratify based on whether they used cannabis and/or alcohol in the past 3 months (60% screening negative and 40% screening positive). All participants will receive usual driver education and half will also receive webCHAT. We will test whether webCHAT in addition to usual driver education reduces alcohol and/or cannabis initiation or use and reduces risky driving attitudes and behaviors (intent to drive after drinking/using, riding as a passenger with someone who drank/used) compared to teens in usual driver education over a 6-month period. We will also explore whether variables such as beliefs and perceived norms serve as explanatory mechanisms for our outcomes. DISCUSSION: The study has the potential to promote public welfare by decreasing adolescent initiation and use of cannabis and alcohol and reducing risky driving behaviors that can have substantial monetary, personal, and social costs. The study recruits adolescents who are at risk for substance use as well as those who are not and it is delivered remotely during a teachable moment when adolescents receive driver education. Trial registration This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on July 13, 2021 (NCT04959461). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04959461.

Association of polysubstance use disorder with treatment quality among Medicaid beneficiaries with opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid crisis is transitioning to a polydrug crisis, and individuals with co-occurring substance use disorder (SUDs) often have unique clinical characteristics and contextual barriers that influence treatment needs, engagement in treatment, complexity of treatment planning, and treatment retention. METHODS: Using Medicaid data for 2017-2018 from four states participating in a distributed research network, this retrospective cohort study documents the prevalence of specific types of co-occurring SUD among Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnosis, and assesses the extent to which different SUD presentations are associated with differential patterns of MOUD and psychosocial treatments. RESULTS: We find that more than half of enrollees with OUD had a co-occurring SUD, and the most prevalent co-occurring SUD was for "other psychoactive substances", indicated among about one-quarter of enrollees with OUD in each state. We also find some substantial gaps in MOUD treatment receipt and engagement for individuals with OUD and a co-occurring SUD, a group representing more than half of individuals with OUD. In most states, enrollees with OUD and alcohol, cannabis, or amphetamine use disorder are significantly less likely to receive MOUD compared to enrollees with OUD only. In contrast, enrollees with OUD and other psychoactive SUD were significantly more likely to receive MOUD treatment. Conditional on MOUD receipt, enrollees with co-occurring SUDs had 10 % to 50 % lower odds of having a 180-day period of continuous MOUD treatment, an important predictor of better patient outcomes. Associations with concurrent receipt of MOUD and behavioral counseling were mixed across states and varied depending on co-occurring SUD type. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ongoing progress toward increasing access to and quality of evidence-based treatment for OUD requires further efforts to ensure that individuals with co-occurring SUDs are engaged and retained in effective treatment. As the opioid crisis evolves, continued changes in drug use patterns and populations experiencing harms may necessitate new policy approaches that more fully address the complex needs of a growing population of individuals with OUD and other types of SUD.

The kids aren't alright: The effects of medical marijuana market size on adolescents.

We exploit shocks to US federal enforcement policy to assess how legal medical marijuana market size affects youth marijuana use and consequences for youth traffic-related fatalities. Using hand-collected data on state medical marijuana patient rates to develop a novel measure of market size, we find that legal market growth increases youth marijuana use. Likely mechanisms are lower prices and easier access. Youth die more frequently from alcohol-involved car accidents, suggesting complementarities for youths. The consequences of marijuana legalization for youth are not immediate, but depend on how supply-side regulations affect production and prices.

Economic Evaluation Design within the HEAL Prevention Cooperative.

The rapid rise in opioid misuse, disorder, and opioid-involved deaths among older adolescents and young adults is an urgent public health problem. Prevention is a vital part of the nation's response to the opioid crisis, yet preventive interventions for those at risk for opioid misuse and opioid use disorder are scarce. In 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Preventing Opioid Use Disorder in Older Adolescents and Young Adults cooperative as part of its broader Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative ( https://heal.nih.gov/ ). The HEAL Prevention Cooperative (HPC) includes ten research projects funded with the goal of developing effective prevention interventions across various settings (e.g., community, health care, juvenile justice, school) for older adolescent and young adults at risk for opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD). An important component of the HPC is the inclusion of an economic evaluation by nine of these research projects that will provide information on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of these interventions. The HPC economic evaluation is integrated into each research project's overall design with start-up costs and ongoing delivery costs collected prospectively using an activity-based costing approach. The primary objectives of the economic evaluation are to estimate the intervention implementation costs to providers, estimate the cost-effectiveness of each intervention for reducing opioid misuse initiation and escalation among youth, and use simulation modeling to estimate the budget impact of broader implementation of the interventions within the various settings over multiple years. The HPC offers an extraordinary opportunity to generate economic evidence for substance use prevention programming, providing policy makers and providers with critical information on the investments needed to start-up prevention interventions, as well as the cost-effectiveness of these interventions relative to alternatives. These data will help demonstrate the valuable role that prevention can play in combating the opioid crisis.

Systematic Identification and Categorization of Opioid Prescribing and Dispensing Policies in 16 States and Washington, DC.

OBJECTIVES: State policies can impact opioid prescribing or dispensing. Some state opioid policies have been widely examined in empirical studies, including prescription drug monitoring programs and pain clinic licensure requirements. Other relevant policies might exist that have received limited attention. Our objective was to identify and categorize a wide range of state policies that could affect opioid prescribing/dispensing. METHODS: We used stratified random sampling to select 16 states and Washington, DC, for our sample. We collected state regulations and statutes effective during 2020 from each jurisdiction, using search terms related to opioids, pain management, and prescribing/dispensing. We then conducted qualitative template analysis of the data to identify and categorize policy categories. RESULTS: We identified three dimensions of opioid prescribing/dispensing laws: the prescribing/dispensing rule, its applicability, and its disciplinary consequences. Policy categories of prescribing/dispensing rules included clinic licensure, staff credentials, evaluating the appropriateness of opioids, limiting the initiation of opioids, preventing the diversion or misuse of opioids, and enhancing patient safety. Policy categories related to applicability of the law included the pain type, substance type, practitioner, setting, payer, and prescribing situation. The disciplinary consequences dimension included specific consequences and inspection processes. DISCUSSION: Policy categories within each dimension of opioid prescribing/dispensing laws could become a foundation for creating variables to support empirical analyses of policy effects, improving operationalization of policies in empirical studies, and helping to disentangle the effects of multiple state laws enacted at similar times to address the opioid crisis. Several of the policy categories we identified have been underexplored in previous empirical studies.

The Cannabis Policy Scale: A New Research and Surveillance Tool for U.S. States.

OBJECTIVE: Rapid shifts toward cannabis liberalization in the United States have created immense policy variability that is challenging to measure. We developed composite measures to characterize the restrictiveness of U.S. state cannabis policy environments. METHOD: Nine panelists, consisting of four research team members and five expert policy consultants, nominated distinct cannabis policies pertaining to cannabis prohibition, medicalization, and legalization for recreational use. For each of the 17 nominated policies, panelists developed implementation ratings and rated each policy's relative efficacy for reducing excessive cannabis use by adults, youth use, and impaired driving. Cannabis Policy Scale scores were then calculated for each state-year for all 50 states from 1999 to 2019 by weighting policies by their efficacy and implementation ratings, and then summing over policies. RESULTS: Median Cannabis Policy Scale scores remained stable until 2008, when they started declining (representing policy liberalization), with steeper declines after 2012. In 2019, state Cannabis Policy Scale scores targeting excessive use among the general population ranged from 29.6 to 66.7 for recreational cannabis legalization states, and from 72.4 to 93.4 for medical cannabis legalization states. Cannabis Policy Scale scores using youth-specific and driving-specific efficacy ratings showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: The Cannabis Policy Scale reflects trends toward liberalization of cannabis policy in many U.S. states. Even within crude policy phenotypes (e.g., medical cannabis programs), Cannabis Policy Scale scores varied considerably between states and over time. The Cannabis Policy Scale is a new measure that can add nuance to cannabis policy research and help assess cannabis policy-outcome relationships.

Inpatient Hospitalizations for Firearm Injury: Estimating State-Level Rates from 2000 to 2016.

One particular challenge for gun policy researchers is the lack of a single resource that provides reliable estimates of state-level firearm injuries over time. The data that do exist are sparse across state-years and cost-prohies affect deaths and injuries in the same manner. As part of the Gun Policy in America initiative, RAND researchers developed a publicly available longitudinal database of state-level estimates of inpatient hospitalizations that occur as a result of firearm injury. This article describes the methods that the researchers used to construct the estimates and provides technical documentation and other information that will facilitate use of the database.

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes. Objective: To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies. Evidence Review: This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Findings: Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Better data, less gun violence.

For 25 years, the US government funded little research on firearm violence prevention. Although some dedicated researchers made important discoveries over this period, the scale of the research effort was not commensurate with the problem. Recently, however, there has been an unprecedented surge in research funding: the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, a private philanthropy, has awarded more than $21 million since 2018; the federal government has committed $25 million per year since 2019; and some states and other philanthropies have recently invested in such research programs.

A New Era for Firearm Violence Prevention Research.

This Viewpoint discusses the expansion of firearm injury research that involves diverse disciplinary perspectives that could potentially lead to lifesaving policy innovation.

Legal review of state emergency medical services policies and protocols for naloxone administration.

BACKGROUND: Given the continued rise in opioid-related overdoses, many states have expanded access to the opioid antagonist naloxone. We sought to provide comprehensive data on one such strategy: the authority of providers at different emergency medical services (EMS) licensure levels to administer naloxone. METHODS: We conducted a systematic legal review of state laws and protocols governing the authority of different EMS licensure levels to administer naloxone. We used Westlaw, state government websites and scope of practice protocols. We coded relevant policies regarding which, if any, administration routes and dosages of naloxone are permitted for each licensure level: emergency medical responder (EMR), emergency medical technician (EMT), advanced emergency medical technician (AEMT), and paramedic. RESULTS: As of July 2020, all states with relevant laws or protocols authorize paramedics, AEMTs, and EMTs to administer naloxone. Thirty-nine states with an EMR licensure level and statewide protocol authorize naloxone administration by EMRs, up from only two in 2013. Permissible routes of administration have increased across all EMS provider levels, providing advanced life support providers (i.e., paramedics and AEMTs) with expanded discretion; however, authorization for intravenous and intramuscular administration remains relatively uncommon for basic life support (BLS) providers. When specified, maximum doses authorized ranged widely, from 2.0 to 12.0 milligrams. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone administration authority is now widely granted to EMS providers. Most states allow all licensed EMS provider levels to administer naloxone, a substantial increase for EMRs and EMTs since 2013. Paramedics and AEMTs have the greatest authority to select the dosage and route of administration.