Racial/ethnic disparities in opioid overdose prevention: comparison of the naloxone care cascade in White, Latinx, and Black people who use opioids in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose mortality is rising precipitously among Black people who use drugs. In NYC, the overdose mortality rate is now highest in Black (38.2 per 100,000) followed by the Latinx (33.6 per 100,000) and white (32.7 per 100,000) residents. Improved understanding of access to harm reduction including naloxone across racial/ethnic groups is warranted. METHODS: Using data from an ongoing study of people who use illicit opioids in NYC (N = 575), we quantified racial/ethnic differences in the naloxone care cascade. RESULTS: We observed gaps across the cascade overall in the cohort, including in naloxone training (66%), current possession (53%) daily access during using and non-using days (21%), 100% access during opioid use (20%), and complete protection (having naloxone and someone who could administer it present during 100% of opioid use events; 12%). Naloxone coverage was greater in white (training: 79%, possession: 62%, daily access: 33%, access during use: 27%, and complete protection: 13%, respectively) and Latinx (training: 67%, possession: 54%, daily access: 22%, access during use: 24%, and complete protection: 16%, respectively) versus Black (training: 59%, possession: 48%, daily access:13%, access during use: 12%, and complete protection: 8%, respectively) participants. Black participants, versus white participants, had disproportionately low odds of naloxone training (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.72). Among participants aged 51 years or older, Black race (versus white, the referent) was strongly associated with lower levels of being trained in naloxone use (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.63) and having 100% naloxone access during use (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.91). Compared to white women, Black women had 0.27 times the odds of being trained in naloxone use (95% CI 0.10-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient protection by naloxone during opioid use, with disproportionately low access among Black people who use drugs, and a heightened disparity among older Black people and Black women.

Persistent Criminalization and Structural Racism in US Drug Policy: The Case of Overdose Good Samaritan Laws.

The US overdose crisis continues to worsen and is disproportionately harming Black and Hispanic/Latino people. Although the "War on Drugs" continues to shape drug policy-at the disproportionate expense of Black and Hispanic/Latino people-states have taken some steps to reduce War on Drugs-related harms and adopt a public health-centered approach. However, the rhetoric regarding these changes has, in many cases, outstripped reality. Using overdose Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) as a case study, we argue that public health-oriented policy changes made in some states are undercut by the broader enduring environment of a structurally racist drug criminalization agenda that continues to permeate and constrict most attempts at change. Drawing from our collective experiences in public health research and practice, we describe 3 key barriers to GSL effectiveness: the narrow parameters within which they apply, the fact that they are subject to police discretion, and the passage of competing laws that further criminalize people who use illicit drugs. All reveal a persisting climate of drug criminalization that may reduce policy effectiveness and explain why current reforms may be destined for failure and further disadvantage Black and Hispanic/Latino people who use drugs. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(S1):S43-S48. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307037).

Use of an Inverted Synthetic Control Method to Estimate Effects of Recent Drug Overdose Good Samaritan Laws, Overall and by Black/White Race/Ethnicity.

Overdose Good Samaritan laws (GSLs) aim to reduce mortality by providing limited legal protections when a bystander to a possible drug overdose summons help. Most research into the impact of these laws is dated or potentially confounded by coenacted naloxone access laws. Lack of awareness and trust in GSL protections, as well as fear of police involvement and legal repercussions, remain key deterrents to help-seeking. These barriers may be unequally distributed by race/ethnicity due to racist policing and drug policies, potentially producing racial/ethnic disparities in the effectiveness of GSLs for reducing overdose mortality. We used 2015-2019 vital statistics data to estimate the effect of recent GSLs on overdose mortality, overall (8 states) and by Black/White race/ethnicity (4 states). Given GSLs' near ubiquity, few unexposed states were available for comparison. Therefore, we generated an "inverted" synthetic control method (SCM) to compare overdose mortality in new-GSL states with that in states that had GSLs throughout the analytical period. The estimated relationships between GSLs and overdose mortality, both overall and stratified by Black/White race/ethnicity, were consistent with chance. An absence of effect could result from insufficient protection provided by the laws, insufficient awareness of them, and/or reticence to summon help not addressable by legal protections. The inverted SCM may be useful for evaluating other widespread policies.

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.

Contributions of obesity and cigarette smoking to incident disability: A longitudinal analysis.

Downward trends in U.S. disability levels are stagnating. Assessing the key contributors to U.S. disability incidence is critical to improving the functional status of the U.S. population. Using longitudinal, nationally representative data from waves 2003-2015 of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we estimated age-specific U.S. disability incidence and quantified the individual and joint contributions of obesity (contemporaneous and earlier-life; BMI ≥ 30) and cigarette smoking to disability incidence. Participants were adults ages 33-96 who participated in PSID in 1986 and at least two consecutive waves 2003-2015 (N = 3247). We conducted age-stratified logistic regressions to predict incident disability at middle and older ages (33-69 years, 70-96 years). Next, counterfactual scenarios were used to estimate the contributions of each risk factor to incident disability. Disability incidence was greater in women than men (5.8 and 4.5 cases per 100 person-years, respectively) and increased with age. Obesity and cigarette smoking jointly explained 17-38% of disability incidence; each factor contributed roughly equal amounts in all groups but older men, for whom smoking history appeared more important. Obesity and smoking appeared to explain more of disability at younger ages (women: 33.1%, 95% CI: 25.1 to 41.0%; men: 37.6%, 95% CI: 28.8 to 46.5%) than at older ages (women: 16.5%, 95% CI: 8.2 to 24.9%; men: 24.5.%, 95% CI: 12.7 to 36.3%). This study provides a benchmark for monitoring trends in U.S. disability incidence. Obesity and smoking are key contributors to disability, accounting for 17-38% of incident disability in U.S. adults.

The Association of State Opioid Misuse Prevention Policies With Patient- and Provider-Related Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

Policy Points This scoping review reveals a growing literature on the effects of certain state opioid misuse prevention policies, but persistent gaps in evidence on other prevalent state policies remain. Policymakers interested in reducing the volume and dosage of opioids prescribed and dispensed can consider adopting robust prescription drug monitoring programs with mandatory access provisions and drug supply management policies, such as prior authorization policies for high-risk prescription opioids. Further research should concentrate on potential unintended consequences of opioid misuse prevention policies, differential policy effects across populations, interventions that have not received sufficient evaluation (eg, Good Samaritan laws, naloxone access laws), and patient-related outcomes. CONTEXT: In the midst of an opioid crisis in the United States, an influx of state opioid misuse prevention policies has provided new opportunities to generate evidence of policy effectiveness that can inform policy decisions. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of US state interventions to improve patient and provider outcomes related to opioid misuse and addiction. METHODS: We searched six online databases to identify evaluations of state opioid policies. Eligible studies examined legislative and administrative policy interventions that evaluated (a) prescribing and dispensing, (b) patient behavior, or (c) patient health. FINDINGS: Seventy-one articles met our inclusion criteria, including 41 studies published between 2016 and 2018. These articles evaluated nine types of state policies targeting opioid misuse. While prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have received considerable attention in the literature, far fewer studies addressed other types of state policy. Overall, evidence quality is very low for the majority of policies due to a small number of evaluations. Of interventions that have been the subject of considerable research, promising means of reducing the volume and dosages of opioids prescribed and dispensed include drug supply management policies and robust PDMPs. Due to low study number and quality, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding interventions targeting patient behavior and health outcomes, including naloxone access laws and Good Samaritan laws. CONCLUSIONS: Recent research has improved the evidence base on several state interventions targeting opioid misuse. Specifically, moderate evidence suggests that drug supply management policies and robust PDMPs reduce opioid prescribing. Despite the increase in rigorous evaluations, evidence remains limited for the majority of policies, particularly those targeting patient health-related outcomes.