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.

Perceptions of buprenorphine barriers and efficacy among nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs), including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, decrease mortality and morbidity for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone have the strongest evidence base among MOUDs. Unlike methadone, buprenorphine may be prescribed in office-based settings in the U.S., including by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) who have a federal waiver and adhere to federal patient limits. Buprenorphine is underutilized nationally, particularly in rural areas, and NPs/PAs could help address this gap. Therefore, we sought to identify perceptions of buprenorphine efficacy and perceptions of prescribing barriers among NPs/PAs. We also sought to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy and perceived prescribing barriers between waivered and non-waivered NPs/PAs, as well as to compare perceived buprenorphine efficacy to perceived naltrexone and methadone efficacy. METHODS: We disseminated an online survey to a random national sample of NPs/PAs. We used Mann-Whitney U tests to compare between waivered and non-waivered respondents. We used non-parametric Friedman tests and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare perceptions of medication types. RESULTS: 240 respondents participated (6.5% response rate). Most respondents agreed buprenorphine is efficacious and believed counseling and peer support should complement buprenorphine. Buprenorphine was generally perceived as more efficacious than both naltrexone and methadone. Perceived buprenorphine efficacy and prescribing barriers differed by waiver status. Non-waivered practitioners were more likely than waivered practitioners to have concerns about buprenorphine affecting patient mix. Among waivered NPs/PAs, key buprenorphine prescribing barriers were insurance prior authorization and detoxification access. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that different policies should target perceived barriers affecting waivered versus non-waivered NPs/PAs. Concerns about patient mix suggest stigmatization of patients with OUD. NP/PA education is needed about comparative medication efficaciousness, particularly regarding methadone. Even though many buprenorphine treatment patients benefits from counseling and/or peer support groups, NPs/PAs should be informed that such psychosocial treatment methods are not necessary for all buprenorphine patients.

U.S. Trends in Registration for Medical Cannabis and Reasons for Use From 2016 to 2020 : An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis policy liberalization has increased cannabis availability for medical or recreational purposes. Up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care. OBJECTIVE: To describe recent trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States. DESIGN: Ecological study with repeated measures. SETTING: State registry data via state reports and data requests on medical cannabis licensure from 2016 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Medical cannabis patients (persons with medical cannabis licenses) in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Total patient volume, patients per 10 000 of total population, and patient-reported qualifying conditions (that is, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure)-including whether these symptoms align with current therapeutic evidence of cannabis-cannabinoid efficacy. RESULTS: In 2020, 26 states and Washington, DC reported patient numbers, and 19 states reported patient-reported qualifying conditions. Total enrolled patients increased approximately 4.5-fold from 678 408 in 2016 to 2 974 433 in 2020. Patients per 10 000 total population generally increased from 2016 to 2020, most dramatically in Oklahoma (927.1 patients per 10 000 population). However, enrollment increased in states without recreational legalization (that is, medical-only states), whereas enrollment decreased in 5 of 7 with recreational legalization (that is, recreational states). In 2020, 68.2% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value versus 84.6% in 2016. Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2020 (60.6%), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (10.6%). LIMITATION: Missing state data; lack of rationale for discontinuing medical cannabis licensure. CONCLUSION: Enrollment in medical cannabis programs approximately increased 4.5-fold from 2016 to 2020, although enrollment decreased in recreational states. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis increased from 15.4% (2016) to 31.8% (2020). Thoughtful regulatory and clinical strategies are needed to effectively manage this rapidly changing landscape. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Did prescribing laws disproportionately affect opioid dispensing to Black patients?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether pain management clinic laws and prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) prescriber check mandates, two state opioid policies with relatively rapid adoption across states, reduced opioid dispensing more or less in Black versus White patients. DATA SOURCES: Pharmacy claims data, US sample of commercially insured adults, 2007-2018. STUDY DESIGN: Stratifying by race, we used generalized estimating equations with an event-study specification to estimate time-varying effects of each policy on opioid dispensing, comparing to the four pre-policy quarters and states without the policy. Outcomes included high-dosage opioids, overlapping opioid prescriptions, concurrent opioid/benzodiazepines, opioids from >3 prescribers, opioids from >3 pharmacies. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified all prescription opioid dispensing to Black and White adults aged 18-64 without a palliative care or cancer diagnosis code. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Exactly 7,096,592 White and 1,167,310 Black individuals met inclusion criteria. Pain management clinic laws were associated with reductions in two outcomes; their association with high-dosage receipt was larger among White patients. In contrast, reductions due to PDMP mandates appeared limited to, or larger in, Black patients compared with White patients in four of five outcomes. For example, PDMP mandates reduced high-dosage receipt in Black patients by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI: 0.36-1.08 ppt.) over 4 years: an 8.4% decrease from baseline; there was no apparent effect in White patients. Similarly, while there was limited evidence that mandates reduced overlapping opioid receipt in White patients, they appeared to reduce overlapping opioid receipt in Black patients by 1.3 ppt. (95% CI: -1.66--1.01 ppt.) across post-policy years-a 14.4% decrease from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: PDMP prescriber check mandates but not pain management clinic laws appeared to reduce opioid dispensing more in Black patients than White patients. Future research should discern the mechanisms underlying these disparities and their consequences for pain management.

Has Declining Opioid Dispensing to Cancer Patients Been Tailored to Risk of Opioid Harms?

CONTEXT: Opioid prescribing to cancer patients is declining, but it is unknown whether reductions have been tailored to those at highest risk of opioid-related harms. OBJECTIVES: Examine whether declines in opioid dispensing to patients receiving active cancer treatment are sharper in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) or mental health diagnoses. METHODS: We used 2008-2018 national, commercial healthcare claims data to examine adjusted and unadjusted trends in opioid dispensing (receipt of ≥1 fill; average daily dosage; receipt of high-dose opioids; receipt of concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines) to patients ages ≥18 receiving treatment for one of four cancer types (breast; colorectal; head and neck; sarcoma; N = 324,789 patients). To compare declines across subgroups with varying risk of opioid-related harms, we stratified by SUD and mental health diagnosis. To address potential confounding, we estimated subgroup-specific trends using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Across groups, rate of ≥1 opioid fill per quarter fell 32.5% (95% CI: 31.8%-33.2%) from 2008 to 2018; daily dose among those receiving opioids fell 37.6% (95% CI: 36.7%-38.6%). In most cases, these declines were not sharper in subgroups at greater risk of opioid-related harms. For example, patients with opioid use disorder experienced the smallest declines in dispensing frequency, and there was no evidence that declines were sharper in patients with mental health diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Sharp declines in opioid prescribing during the drug overdose crisis have affected a wide range of patients undergoing cancer treatment and may not have been sufficiently tailored to patient characteristics. Research on implications for opioid-related harms and pain management is needed.

CDC Guideline For Opioid Prescribing Associated With Reduced Dispensing To Certain Patients With Chronic Pain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain aimed to reduce unsafe opioid prescribing. It is unknown whether the guideline influenced prescribing in the target population: patients with chronic, noncancer pain, who may be at particular risk for opioid-related harms. To study this question, we used 2014-18 data from a commercial claims database to examine associations between the release of the guideline and opioid dispensing in a national cohort of more than 450,000 patients with four common chronic pain diagnoses. We also examined whether any reductions associated with the guideline were larger for diagnoses for which there existed stronger expert consensus against opioid prescribing. Overall, the guideline was associated with substantial reductions in dispensing opioids, including a reduction in patients' rate of receiving at least one opioid prescription by approximately 20 percentage points by December 2018 compared with the counterfactual, no-guideline scenario. However, the reductions in dispensing did not vary by the strength of expert consensus against opioid prescribing. These findings suggest that although voluntary guidelines can drive changes in prescribing, questions remain about how clinicians are tailoring opioid reductions to best benefit patients.

Common themes in early state policy responses to substance use disorder treatment during COVID-19.

Background: Limited research has examined how states have changed policies for treatment of substance use disorder (SUD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Objectives: We aimed to identify themes in state policy responses to the pandemic in the context of SUD treatment. Identifying themes in policy responses provides a framework for subsequent evaluations of the relationship between state policies and health service utilization.Methods: Between May and June 2020, we searched all Single State Agencies for Substance Abuse Services (SSA) websites for statements of SUD treatment policy responses to the pandemic. We conducted Iterative Categorization of policies for outpatient programs, opioid treatment programs, and other treatment settings to identify themes in policy responses.Results: We collected 220 documents from SSA websites from 45 states and Washington D.C. Eight specific themes emerged from our content analysis: delivery of pharmacological and non-pharmacological services, obtaining informed consent and documentation for remote services, conducting health assessments, facility operating procedures and staffing requirements, and permissible telehealth technology and billing protocols. Policy changes often mirrored federal guidance, for instance, by expanding methadone take-home options for opioid treatment programs. The extent and nature of policy changes varied across jurisdictions, including telehealth technology requirements and staffing flexibility.Conclusion: States have made significant policy changes to SUD treatment policies during COVID-19, particularly regarding telehealth and facilitation of remote care. Understanding these changes could help policymakers prioritize guidance during the pandemic and for future health crises. Impacts of policies on disparate treatment populations, including those with limited technological access, should be considered.

Trends in Suicidality 1 Year Before and After Birth Among Commercially Insured Childbearing Individuals in the United States, 2006-2017.

Importance: Suicide deaths are a leading cause of maternal mortality in the US, yet the prevalence and trends in suicidality (suicidal ideation and/or intentional self-harm) among childbearing individuals remain poorly described. Objective: To characterize trends in suicidality among childbearing individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study analyzed data from a medical claims database for a large commercially insured population in the US from January 2006 to December 2017. There were 2714 diagnoses of suicidality 1 year before or after 698 239 deliveries among 595 237 individuals aged 15 to 44 years who were continuously enrolled in a single commercial health insurance plan. Data were analyzed from October 2019 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was diagnosis of suicidality in childbearing individuals 1 year before or after birth based on the identification of relevant International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits. Results: Of 595 237 included childbearing individuals, the mean (SD) age at delivery was 31.9 (6.4) years. A total of 40 568 individuals (6.8%) were Asian, 52 613 (8.6%) were Black, 73 172 (12.1%) were Hispanic, 369 501 (63.1%) were White, and 59 383 (9.5%) had unknown or missing race/ethnicity data. A total of 2683 individuals were diagnosed with suicidality 1 year before or after giving birth for a total of 2714 diagnoses. The prevalence of suicidal ideation increased from 0.1% per 100 individuals in 2006 to 0.5% per 100 individuals in 2017 (difference, 0.4%; SE, 0.03; P < .001). Intentional self-harm prevalence increased from 0.1% per 100 individuals in 2006 to 0.2% per 100 individuals in 2017 (difference, 0.1%; SE, 0.02; P < .001). Suicidality prevalence increased from 0.2% per 100 individuals in 2006 to 0.6% per 100 individuals in 2017 (difference, 0.4%; SE, 0.04; P < .001). Diagnoses of suicidality with comorbid depression or anxiety increased from 1.2% per 100 individuals in 2006 to 2.6% per 100 individuals in 2017 (difference, 1.4%; SE, 0.2; P < .001). Diagnoses of suicidality with comorbid bipolar or psychotic disorders increased from 6.9% per 100 individuals in 2006 to 16.9% per 100 individuals in 2017 (difference, 10.1%; SE, 0.2; P < .001). Non-Hispanic Black individuals, individuals with lower income, and younger individuals experienced larger increases in suicidality over the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US childbearing individuals, the prevalence of suicidal ideation and intentional self-harm occurring in the year preceding or following birth increased substantially over a 12-year period. Policy makers, health plans, and clinicians should ensure access to universal suicidality screening and appropriate treatment for pregnant and postpartum individuals and seek health system and policy avenues to mitigate this growing public health crisis, particularly for high-risk groups.

The Complex Cancer Care Coverage Environment - What is the Role of Legislation? A Case Study from Massachusetts.

Over the past decades, anti-cancer treatments have evolved rapidly from cytotoxic chemotherapies to targeted therapies including oral targeted medications and injectable immuno-oncology and cell therapies. New anti-cancer medications come to markets at increasingly high prices, and health insurance coverage is crucial for patient access to these therapies. State laws are intended to facilitate insurance coverage of anti-cancer therapies.Using Massachusetts as a case study, we identified five current cancer coverage state laws and interviewed experts on their perceptions of the relevance of the laws and how well they meet the current needs of cancer care given rapid changes in therapies. Interviewees emphasized that cancer therapies, as compared to many other therapeutic areas, are unique because insurance legislation targets their coverage. They identified the oral chemotherapy parity law as contributing to increasing treatment costs in commercial insurance. For commercial insurers, coverage mandates combined with the realities of new cancer medications - including high prices and often limited evidence of efficacy at approval - compound a difficult situation. Respondents recommended policy approaches to address this challenging coverage environment, including the implementation of closed formularies, the use of cost-effectiveness studies to guide coverage decisions, and the application of value-based pricing concepts. Given the evolution of cancer therapeutics, it may be time to evaluate the benefits and challenges of cancer coverage mandates.

A mixed-method comparison of physician-reported beliefs about and barriers to treatment with medications for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that medications for treating opioid use disorder (MOUD) -namely buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone-are effective at treating opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing associated harms. However, MOUDs are heavily underutilized, largely due to the under-supply of providers trained and willing to prescribe the medications. METHODS: To understand comparative beliefs about MOUD and barriers to MOUD, we conducted a mixed-methods study that involved focus group interviews and an online survey disseminated to a random group of licensed U.S. physicians, which oversampled physicians with a preexisting waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Focus group results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. RESULTS: Study findings suggest that physicians have higher perceptions of efficacy for methadone and buprenorphine than for extended-release naltrexone, including for patients with co-occurring mental health disorders. Insurance obstacles, such as prior authorization requirements, were the most commonly cited barrier to prescribing buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. Regulatory barriers, such as the training required to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, were not considered significant barriers by many physicians to prescribing buprenorphine and naltrexone in office-based settings. Nor did physicians perceive diversion to be a prominent barrier to prescribing buprenorphine. In focus groups, physicians identified financial, logistical, and workforce barriers-such as a lack of addiction treatment specialists-as additional barriers to prescribing medications to treat OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Additional education is needed for physicians regarding the comparative efficacy of different OUD medications. Governmental policies should mandate full insurance coverage of and prohibit prior authorization requirements for OUD medications.

Prevalence and Predictors of Driving after Prescription Opioid Use in an Adult ED Sample.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription opioid use and driving is a public health concern given the risks associated with drugged driving, but the issue remains under-studied. We examined the prevalence and correlates of driving after taking prescription opioids (DAPO) among adults seeking emergency department (ED) treatment. METHODS: Participants (aged 25-60) seeking ED care at a Level I trauma center completed a computerized survey. Validated instruments measured prescription opioid use, driving behaviors, and risky driving. Patients who reported past three-month prescription opioid use and drove at least twice weekly were administered an extended study survey measuring DAPO, depression, pain, and substance use. RESULTS: Among participants completing the screening survey (n = 756; mean age = 42.8 [standard deviation {SD} =10.4]), 37.8% reported past three-month prescription opioid use (30.8% of whom used daily), and 14.7% reported past three-month DAPO. Of screened participants, 22.5% (n = 170) were eligible for the extended study survey. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated that participants reporting DAPO were more likely to use opioids daily (51.1% vs 15.9%) and had higher rates of opioid misuse (mean Current Opioid Misuse Measure score 3.4 [SD = 3.8] vs 1.1 [SD = 2.1]) chronic pain (80.7% vs 42.7%), and driving after marijuana or alcohol use (mean intoxicated driving score 2.1 [SD = 1.3] vs 0.3 [SD = 0.8]) compared to patients not reporting DAPO (all p<0.001). Adjusting for age, gender, employment, and insurance in a logistic regression model, participants reporting DAPO were more likely to report a chronic pain diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-9.17), daily opioid use (OR = 3.81, 95% CI, 1.64-8.85), and higher levels of intoxicated driving (OR = 1.62, 95% CI, 1.07-2.45). Alcohol and marijuana use, depression, and opioid misuse were not associated with DAPO in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Nearly one in six adult patients seeking ED care reported DAPO. The ED may be an important site for interventions addressing opioid-related drugged driving.

The Public Health Value of Opioid Litigation.

Opioid litigation continues a growing public health litigation trend in which governments seek to hold companies responsible for population harms related to their products. The litigation can serve to address gaps in regulatory and legislative policymaking and in market self-regulation pervasive in the prescription opioid domain. Moreover, prior opioid settlements have satisfied civil tort litigation objectives of obtaining compensation for injured parties, deterring harmful behavior, and holding certain opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies accountable for their actions. In this way, opioid litigation represents progress over prior public health litigation campaigns involving tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos, which had more limited tort litigation effects. Although opioid litigation is not a comprehensive solution to the opioid crisis, it can complement other strategies and infuse much needed money, behavior changes, and public accountability for prescription opioid and related harms.

Opioid prescribing history prior to heroin overdose among commercially insured adults.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, heroin-related overdoses have risen sharply, coinciding with policies to restrict access to prescription opioids. It is unknown if patients tapered or discontinued off prescription opioids transitioned to riskier heroin use. This study examined opioid prescribing, including long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and discontinuation, prior to heroin overdose. METHODS: We used retrospective longitudinal data from a national claims database to identify adults with an emergency or inpatient claim for heroin overdose between January 2010 and June 2017. Receipt of opioid prescription, LTOT episodes, and discontinuation of LTOT were measured for the period of one year prior to heroin overdose. RESULTS: We identified 3183 individuals (53.2% age 18-25; 70.0% male) with a heroin overdose (incidence rate 4.20 per 100k person years). Nearly half (42.3%) received an opioid prescription in the prior 12 months, and 10.9% had an active opioid prescription in the week prior to overdose. LTOT at any time in the 12 months prior to overdose was uncommon (12.8%) among those with heroin overdoses, especially among individuals 18-25 years old (3.5%, P < 0.001). LTOT discontinuation prior to overdose was also relatively uncommon, experienced by 6.7% of individuals aged 46 and over and 2.5% of individuals aged 18-25 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to heroin overdose, prescription opioid use was common, but LTOT discontinuation was uncommon and observed primarily in older individuals with the lowest heroin overdose rates. Further study is needed to determine if these prescribing patterns are associated with increased heroin overdose.

Association of Medicare Part D Benzodiazepine Coverage Expansion With Changes in Fall-Related Injuries and Overdoses Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Benzodiazepines, which are associated with safety-related harms for older adults, were not covered when the US Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit began. Coverage was extended to benzodiazepines in 2013. Objective: To examine whether the expansion of benzodiazepine coverage among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries was associated with increases in fall-related injuries or overdoses among older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This ecological study used interrupted time-series with comparison-series analyses of MA claims data from 4 635 312 age-eligible MA beneficiaries and 940 629 commercially insured individuals (comparison group) stratified by age (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years) to separately compare trends in fall-related injury and overdose before (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015) coverage expansion for benzodiazepines. Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019. Exposures: Expansion of benzodiazepine coverage in Medicare Part D in 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly rate of fall-related injury and overdose. Results: In 2012 (the year before the policy change), women constituted 57.5% of the MA group and 47.4% of the comparison group. A total of 25.8% of individuals in the MA group were aged 65 to 69 years, and 29.3% were 80 years or older (mean [SD], 75.1 [6.4] years); 56.7% of individuals in the comparison group were aged 65 to 69 years, and 15.1% were 80 years or older (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [6.5] years). In the MA group, 4 635 312 individuals contributed 156 754 749 person-months from 2010 through 2015; in the comparison group, 940 629 individuals contributed 25 104 534 person-months. After coverage of benzodiazepines began, the rate (ie, slope) of fall-related injury among MA beneficiaries increased from before to after coverage among all age groups. Compared with the comparison group, the increase in rate was statistically significant for those 80 years or older (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.12 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.17] vs -0.01 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.10]; P = .04 for interaction). The overdose trend changed from decreasing to increasing among MA beneficiaries after coverage for all age groups, with a statistically significant increase compared with the comparison group among those aged 65 to 69 years (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.23 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.30] vs 0.02 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.11]; P < .001 for interaction) and among those 80 years or older (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.07 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.14] vs -0.20 [95% CI, -0.35 to -0.05]; P = .002 for interaction). Results among MA beneficiaries were consistent when stratified by sex and when limited to those prescribed opioids. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's expansion of benzodiazepine coverage may have been associated with increases in the rates of overdose among adults ages 65 to 69 years and in the rates of overdose and fall-related injury among those 80 years or older.

Legal requirements and recommendations to prescribe naloxone.

BACKGROUND: The continued toll of opioid-related overdoses has motivated efforts to expand availability of naloxone to persons at high risk of overdose, with 2016 federal guidance encouraging clinicians to co-prescribe naloxone to patients with increased overdose risk. Some states have pursued analogous or stricter legal requirements that could more heavily influence prescriber behavior. METHODS: We conducted a systematic legal review of state laws that mandate or recommend that healthcare providers prescribe naloxone to patients with indicators for opioid overdose risk. We coded relevant statutes and regulations for: applicable populations, patient criteria, educational requirements, and exemptions. RESULTS: As of September 2019, 17 states had enacted naloxone co-prescribing laws, the earliest of which was implemented by Louisiana in January 2016. If patient overdose risk criteria are met, over half of these states mandate that providers prescribe naloxone (7 states, 41.1 %) or offer a naloxone prescription (2 states, 11.8 %); the remainder encourage prescribers to consider prescribing naloxone (8 states). Most states (58.8 %) define patient overdose risk based on opioid dosages prescribed, although the threshold varies substantially; other common overdose risk criteria include concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions and patient history of substance use disorder or mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: A growing minority of states has adopted a naloxone prescribing law, although these policies remain less prevalent than other naloxone access laws. By targeting higher-risk patients during clinical encounters, naloxone prescribing requirements could increase naloxone prescribed, destigmatize naloxone use, and reduce overdose harms. Further investigation into policy effectiveness, unintended consequences, and appropriate parameters is warranted.