Cargando…
A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts
BACKGROUND: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8969254/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35357599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6 |
_version_ | 1784679208145911808 |
---|---|
author | Andraka-Christou, Barbara Randall-Kosich, Olivia Golan, Matthew Totaram, Rachel Saloner, Brendan Gordon, Adam J. Stein, Bradley D. |
author_facet | Andraka-Christou, Barbara Randall-Kosich, Olivia Golan, Matthew Totaram, Rachel Saloner, Brendan Gordon, Adam J. Stein, Bradley D. |
author_sort | Andraka-Christou, Barbara |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as “state laws”) in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts. RESULTS: Since 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants. DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8969254 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89692542022-04-01 A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts Andraka-Christou, Barbara Randall-Kosich, Olivia Golan, Matthew Totaram, Rachel Saloner, Brendan Gordon, Adam J. Stein, Bradley D. Health Justice Research Article BACKGROUND: Problem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019. METHODS: We searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as “state laws”) in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts. RESULTS: Since 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants. DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8969254/ /pubmed/35357599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Andraka-Christou, Barbara Randall-Kosich, Olivia Golan, Matthew Totaram, Rachel Saloner, Brendan Gordon, Adam J. Stein, Bradley D. A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title | A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title_full | A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title_fullStr | A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title_full_unstemmed | A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title_short | A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
title_sort | national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8969254/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35357599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT andrakachristoubarbara anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT randallkosicholivia anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT golanmatthew anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT totaramrachel anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT salonerbrendan anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT gordonadamj anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT steinbradleyd anationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT andrakachristoubarbara nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT randallkosicholivia nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT golanmatthew nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT totaramrachel nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT salonerbrendan nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT gordonadamj nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts AT steinbradleyd nationalsurveyofstatelawsregardingmedicationsforopioidusedisorderinproblemsolvingcourts |