Expanding harm reduction interventions and engaging individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in care are priorities in the national strategy to address the opioid crisis. Similarly, many states have proposed or implemented policies to facilitate naloxone distribution and to improve the quality of OUD treatment. But it is not clear which policy components can best achieve these goals and reduce opioid-related harms. Nor is it clear which policies are feasible to implement or whether they can reduce disparities in patient and population-level outcomes. We conducted a series of consensus panels to understand how individuals with a range of relevant expertise, including advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, thought specific types of policies would affect naloxone access and engagement in OUD treatment—and their subsequent impacts on opioid overdose mortality. The panels of experts also rated the policies on four criteria: acceptability to the public, feasibility of implementation, affordability from a societal perspective, and equitability in health effects. To make what we learned from the panels more readily accessible to a broader audience of decisionmakers and practitioners, we have synthesized panel outcomes in a series of Policy Profiles. For those interested, the more complete description of the research methods and results have been fully documented in the scientific literature (Smart, 2022; Grant 2023; Smart 2021; Grant 2022). The Profiles are a valuable addition to OPTIC’s growing library of public goods including policy datasets, simulation tools, and specialized products. As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions at OPTIC@rand.org. |
