National Systematic Legal Review of State Policies on Emergency Medical Services Licensure Levels' Authority to Administer Opioid Antagonists

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.

Rural Emergency Medical Service Providers Perceptions on the Causes of and Solutions to the Opioid Crisis: A Qualitative Assessment

Introduction:

The continuing opioid crisis poses unique challenges to remote and often under-resourced rural communities. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers serve a critical role in responding to opioid overdose for individuals living in rural or remote areas who experience opioid overdoses. They are often first at the scene of an overdose and are sometimes the only health care provider in contact with an overdose patient who either did not survive or refused additional care. As such, EMS providers have valuable perspectives to share on the causes and consequences of the opioid crisis in rural communities.

Methods:

EMS providers attending a statewide EMS conference serving those from greater Minnesota and surrounding states were invited to take a 2-question survey asking them to reflect upon what they believed to be the causes of the opioid crisis and what they saw as the solutions to the opioid crisis. Results were coded and categorized using a Consensual Qualitative Research approach.

Results:

EMS providers’ perceptions on causes of the opioid crisis were categorized into 5 main domains: overprescribing, ease of access, socioeconomic vulnerability, mental health concerns, and lack of resources and education. Responses focused on solutions to address the opioid crisis were categorized into 5 main domains: need for increased education, enhanced opioid oversight, increased access to treatment programs, alternative therapies for pain management, and addressing socioeconomic vulnerabilities.

Conclusion:

Along with the recognition that the opioid crisis was at least partially caused by overprescribing, rural EMS providers who participated in this study recognized the critical role of social determinants of health in perpetuating opioid-related harm. Participants in this study reported that education and increased access to treatment facilities and appropriate pain management, along with recognition of the role of social determinants of health in opioid dependency, were necessary steps to address the opioid crisis.

Systematic review of the emerging literature on the effectiveness of naloxone access laws in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Naloxone access laws (NALs) have been suggested to be an important strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. We describe the evolution of NALs across states and over time and review existing evidence of their overall association with naloxone distribution and opioid overdose as well as the potential effects of specific NAL components.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of temporal variation in US regional adoption of NAL components, accompanied by a systematic search of 13 databases for studies (published between 2005 and 20 December 2019) assessing the effects of NALs on naloxone distribution or opioid-related health outcomes. Eleven studies, all published since 2018, met inclusion criteria. Study time-frames spanned 1999-2017. Opioid-related overdose mortality, emergency department episodes and naloxone distribution were correlated with the presence of a NAL and, where data were available, NAL components.

RESULTS

Existing evidence suggests mixed, but generally beneficial, effects for NALs. Nearly all studies show that NALs, particularly those that permit naloxone distribution without patient-specific prescriptions, are associated with increased naloxone access [incidence rate ratios (IRR) range from 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.66 to 7.75, 95% CI = 1.22-49.35] and increased opioid-related emergency department visits (IRR range from 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20 to 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.29). Most studies show NALs are associated with reduced overdose mortality, although findings vary depending on the specific NAL components and time-period analyzed (IRR range from 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-0.90 to 1.27, 95% CI = 1.27-1.27). Few studies account for the variation in opioid environments (i.e. illicit versus prescription) or other policy dimensions that may be correlated with outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing literature on naloxone access laws in the United States supports beneficial effects for increased naloxone distribution, but provides inconclusive evidence for reduced fatal opioid overdose. Mixed findings may reflect variation in the laws' design and implementation, confounding effects of concurrent policy adoption, or differential effectiveness in light of changing opioid environments.

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.

Who receives naloxone from emergency medical services? Characteristics of calls and recent trends

Background: With the rapid rise in opioid overdose-related deaths, state policy makers have expanded policies to increase the use of naloxone by emergency medical services (EMS). However, little is known about changes in EMS naloxone administration in the context of continued worsening of the opioid crisis and efforts to increase use of naloxone. This study examines trends in patient demographics and EMS response characteristics over time and by county urbanicity. Methods: We used data from the 2013-2016 National EMS Information System to examine trends in patient demographics and EMS response characteristics for 911-initiated incidents that resulted in EMS naloxone administration. We also assessed temporal, regional, and urban-rural variation in per capita rates of EMS naloxone administrations compared with per capita rates of opioid-related overdose deaths. Results: From 2013 to 2016, naloxone administrations increasingly involved young adults and occurred in public settings. Particularly in urban counties, there were modest but significant increases in the percentage of individuals who refused subsequent treatment, were treated and released, and received multiple administrations of naloxone before and after arrival of EMS personnel. Over the 4-year period, EMS naloxone administrations per capita increased at a faster rate than opioid-related overdose deaths across urban, suburban, and rural counties. Although national rates of naloxone administration were consistently higher in suburban counties, these trends varied across U.S. Census Regions, with the highest rates of suburban administration occurring in the South. Conclusions: Naloxone administration rates increased more quickly than opioid deaths across all levels of county urbanicity, but increases in the percentage of individuals requiring multiple doses and refusing subsequent care require further attention.