Dataset Information

The impact of the opioid crisis on U.S. state prison systems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prior studies have documented limited use of medications to treat opioid use disorders (OUD) for people incarcerated within state prisons in the United States. Using the framework of the criminal justice OUD service cascade, this study interviewed representatives of prison systems in states most heavily impacted by opioid overdose regarding the provision of medications for OUD (MOUD).

Methods

A stratified sampling strategy included states with high indicators of opioid-overdose deaths. Two sampling strata targeted states with: 1) OUD overdose rates significantly higher than the per capita national average; or 2) high absolute number of OUD overdose fatalities. Interviews were completed with representatives from 21 of the 23 (91%) targeted states in 2019, representing 583 prisons across these states. Interviews assessed service provision across the criminal justice OUD service cascade, including OUD screening, withdrawal management, MOUD availability and provision, overdose prevention, re-entry services, barriers, and needs for training and technical assistance.

Results

MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone) was available in at least one prison in approximately 90% of the state prison systems and all three medications were available in at least one prison in 62% of systems. However, MOUD provision was limited to subsets of prisons within these systems: 15% provided buprenorphine, 9% provided methadone, 36% provided naltrexone, and only 7% provided all three. Buprenorphine and methadone were most frequently provided to pregnant women or individuals already receiving these at admission, whereas naltrexone was primarily used at release. Funding was the most frequently cited barrier for all medications.

Conclusion

Study findings yield a complex picture of how, when, and to whom MOUD is provided across prisons within prison systems in states most heavily impacted by opioid overdose in the United States and have implications for expanding availability.

SUBMITTER: Scott CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310396 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn response to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, many states implemented policies to guide opioid prescribing, but their impact on overdose mortality (prescription and non-prescription) remains poorly understood. We examined the impact of U.S. state opioid-prescribing policies on opioid overdose mortality following implementation.MethodsWe calculated opioid overdose mortality rates from 1999-2016 by U.S. state using the CDC WONDER database, overall and separately for overdose deaths from prescription and non-prescription opioids. For each state, policies active on 1/1/2014 were reviewed for the presence and strength of six provisions recommending judicious opioid prescribing practices; "strong" provisions used the words "should," "shall," or "must". Interrupted time series (ITS) tested the association of each strong provision with overdose mortality, overall and separately for prescription and non-prescription opioids, in the two years following implementation. Sensitivity analyses compared between states, used time-lagged analyses, and excluded synthetic opioids from non-prescription opioid deaths.ResultsAll six provisions had consistent direction of effect in ITS and sensitivity analyses. Strong provisions for prescriber training and limits on opioid dose reduced the slope of overall and prescription opioid overdose mortality in both ITS and sensitivity analyses. Reduced non-prescription opioid overdose mortality was only associated with strong provision for prescriber training. Some provisions had a negative impact. In ITS, strong provision for prescriber response to misuse increased the slope of non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. Strong provision for mandatory prescription drug monitoring program use had no relationship with overdose mortality in ITS and was associated with increased overall, prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality in between-state sensitivity analysis.ConclusionOpioid prescribing policies in U.S. states at the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic had modest mortality benefit, and did not reduce non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. A strong provision for prescriber training was the only provision associated with reduced prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. These findings can inform future efforts addressing prescription drug epidemics.

Project description:Overdoses of prescription or illicit opioids claimed the lives of 116 Americans each day in 2016, and the crisis continues to escalate. As healthcare systems evolve to address the crisis, the potential of pharmacists to make a positive difference is significant. In addition to utilizing available prescription drug monitoring programs to help prevent diversion of opioids, practicing pharmacists can be alert for signs of opioid misuse by patients (e.g., multiple prescriptions from different physicians) as well as inappropriate prescribing or hazardous drug combinations that physicians may not be aware of (e.g., opioid analgesics combined with benzodiazepines). They can also supply patients with information on risks of opioids, proper storage and disposal of medications, and the harms (and illegality) of sharing medications with other people. Increasingly, pharmacies are sites of distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone, which has been shown to save lives when made available to opioid users and their families or other potential bystanders to an overdose; and pharmacists can provide guidance about its use and even legal protections for bystanders to an overdose that customers may not be aware of. Pharmacists can also recommend addiction treatment to patients and be a resource for information on addiction treatment options in the community. As addiction treatment becomes more integrated with general healthcare, pharmacies are also increasingly dispensing medications like buprenorphine and, in the future, possibly methadone. Pharmacists in private research labs and at universities are helping to develop the next generation of addiction treatments and safer, non-addictive pain medications; they can also play a role in implementation research to enhance the delivery of addiction interventions and medications in pharmacy settings. Meanwhile, pharmacists in educational settings can promote improved education about the neurobiology and management of pain and its links to opioid misuse and addiction.

Project description:In 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the White House declared a public health emergency to address the opioid crisis (Hargan, 2017). On average, 192 Americans died from drug overdoses each day in 2017; 130 (67%) of those died specifically because of opioids (Scholl et al., 2019). Since 2013, there have been significant increases in overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids - particularly those involving illicitly-manufactured fentanyl. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) estimates that 75% of all opioid identifications are illicit fentanyls (DEA, 2018b). Laboratories are routinely asked to confirm which fentanyl or other opioids are involved in an overdose or encountered by first responders. It is critical to identify and classify the types of drugs involved in an overdose, how often they are involved, and how that involvement may change over time. Health care providers, public health professionals, and law enforcement officers need to know which opioids are in use to treat, monitor, and investigate fatal and non-fatal overdoses. By knowing which drugs are present, appropriate prevention and response activities can be implemented. Laboratory testing is available for clinically used and widely recognized opioids. However, there has been a rapid expansion in new illicit opioids, particularly fentanyl analogs that may not be addressed by current laboratory capabilities. In order to test for these new opioids, laboratories require reference standards for the large number of possible fentanyls. To address this need, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed the Traceable Opioid Material§ Kits product line, which provides over 150 opioid reference standards, including over 100 fentanyl analogs. These kits were designed to dramatically increase laboratory capability to confirm which opioids are on the streets and causing deaths. The kits are free to U.S based laboratories in the public, private, clinical, law enforcement, research, and public health domains.

Project description:BackgroundThere is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time.ObjectiveTo study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions.DesignThirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes.SettingUnited States, 2008 to 2019.Patients7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain.MeasurementsProportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month.ResultsLaws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids.LimitationsResults may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments.ConclusionThis study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws.Primary funding sourceNational Institute on Drug Abuse.

Project description:ImportanceAgonist medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), buprenorphine and methadone, in carceral settings might reduce the risk of postrelease opioid overdose but are uncommonly offered. In April 2019, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MADOC), the state prison system, provided buprenorphine for incarcerated individuals in addition to previously offered injectable naltrexone.ObjectiveTo evaluate postrelease outcomes after buprenorphine implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study with interrupted time-series analysis used linked data across multiple statewide data sets in the Massachusetts Public Health Data Warehouse stratified by sex due to differences in carceral systems. Eligible participants were individuals sentenced and released from a MADOC facility to the community. The study period for the male sample was January 2014 to November 2020; for the female sample, January 2015 to October 2019. Data were analyzed between February 2022 and January 2024.ExposureApril 2019 implementation of buprenorphine during incarceration.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of MOUD within 4 weeks after release, opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality within 8 weeks after release, each measured as a percentage of monthly releases who experienced the outcome. Segmented linear regression analyzed changes in outcome rates after implementation.ResultsA total of 15 225 individuals were included. In the male sample there were 14 582 releases among 12 688 individuals (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [10.8] years; 133 Asian and Pacific Islander [0.9%], 4079 Black [28.0%], 4208 Hispanic [28.9%], 6117 White [41.9%]), a rate of 175.7 releases per month; the female sample included 3269 releases among 2537 individuals (mean [SD] age, 34.9 [9.8] years; 328 Black [10.0%], 225 Hispanic [6.9%], 2545 White [77.9%]), a rate of 56.4 releases per month. Among male participants at 20 months postimplementation, the monthly rate of postrelease buprenorphine receipt was higher than would have been expected under baseline trends (21.2% vs 10.6% of monthly releases; 18.6 additional releases per month). Naltrexone receipt was lower than expected (1.0% vs 6.0%; 8.8 fewer releases per month). Monthly rates of methadone receipt (1.4%) and opioid overdose (1.8%) were not significantly different than expected. All-cause mortality was lower than expected (1.9% vs 2.8%; 1.5 fewer deaths per month). Among female participants at 7 months postimplementation, buprenorphine receipt was higher than expected (31.6% vs 9.5%; 12.4 additional releases per month). Naltrexone receipt was lower than expected (3.4% vs 7.2%) but not statistically significantly different. Monthly rates of methadone receipt (1.1%), opioid overdose (4.8%), and all-cause mortality (1.6%) were not significantly different than expected.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of state prison releases, postrelease buprenorphine receipt increased and naltrexone receipt decreased after buprenorphine became available during incarceration.