Supervised consumption site enables cost savings by avoiding emergency services: a cost analysis study

Virtual/Mobile Overdose Response in Canada: A Social Return on Investment Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The overdose epidemic continues to be one of the leading causes of death in North America and continues to contribute to high healthcare costs. Although harm reduction initiatives have significantly reduced the aforementioned costs, there is a dearth of evidence regarding overdose response hotlines and applications. We aim to evaluate the social return on investment from a payer perspective of one such overdose response hotline, Canada's National Overdose Response Service, and its implications for service users, service operators, the Canadian healthcare system, and program funders.

METHODS

Outcome variables determined from theory of change models were developed in consultation with the aforementioned vested interest groups. Proxy values were attributed to each variable identified through values present within existing literature and databases. These values were then compared with operational costs accounting for deadweight, attribution, and displacement to determine a final social return on investment ratio. A discount rate was then applied based on the influence of risk on the outcome achieved.

RESULTS

The ratio illustrating the value created for all stakeholders, resulting from the $1 592 000 investment made over 2 years, is $15.84 per single dollar invested. The value generated stems primarily from overdose prevention, mental health support, staff employment, reductions in emergency service utilization, service referrals, and volunteer well-being, which outweigh costs including operational funding, work-related stressors, compassion fatigue, and false calls.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study demonstrate that the National Overdose Response Service provides a social value that far outweighs the costs attributed to the program's operation.

Overdose prevention centres as spaces of safety, trust and inclusion: A causal pathway based on a realist review

ISSUES

Overdose prevention centres (OPC) are non-residential spaces where people can use illicit drugs (that they have obtained elsewhere) in the presence of staff who can intervene to prevent and manage any overdoses that occur. Many reviews of OPCs exist but they do not explain how OPCs work.

APPROACH

We carried out a realist review, using the RAMESES reporting standards. We systematically searched for and then thematically analysed 391 documents that provide information on the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of OPCs.

KEY FINDINGS

Our retroductive analysis identified a causal pathway that highlights the feeling of safety - and the immediate outcome of not dying - as conditions of possibility for the people who use OPCs to build trust and experience social inclusion. The combination of safety, trust and social inclusion that is triggered by OPCs can - depending on the contexts in which they operate - generate other positive outcomes, which may include less risky drug use practices, reductions in blood borne viruses and injection-related infections and wounds, and access to housing. These outcomes are contingent on relevant contexts, including political and legal environments, which differ for women and people from racialised minorities.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCs can enable people who live with structural violence and vulnerability to develop feelings of safety and trust that help them stay alive and to build longer term trajectories of social inclusion, with potential to improve other aspects of their health and living conditions.

In Support of Overdose Prevention Centers: Position Statement of AMERSA, Inc (Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction)

Given increasing rates of fatal overdoses in the United States and the rapidly changing drug supply, overdose prevention centers (OPCs; also known as safe consumption sites) have been identified as a vital, evidence-based strategy that provide people who use drugs (PWUD) the opportunity to use drugs safely and receive immediate, life-saving overdose support from trained personnel. In addition to providing a safe, supervised space to use drugs, OPCs can house further essential harm reduction drop-in services such as sterile supplies, social services, and medical care. There are established national and international data demonstrating the lifesaving services provided by OPCs, inspiring a groundswell of advocacy efforts to expand these programs in the United States. Thus, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) endorses OPCs, in addition to other harm reduction strategies that protect PWUD. Ultimately, it is imperative to increase access to OPCs across the United States and support key policy changes at the local, state, and federal levels that would facilitate urgent expansion.

Introducing the Harm Reduction Collaboration Framework for Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change

A revised way of thinking is essential for promoting harm reduction strategies and reducing the negative implications of injection drug use (IDU). Despite the growth of harm reduction approaches in the United States, there is limited guidance for designing and implementing multi-sector efforts that address the external determinants that promote and facilitate IDU. Current frameworks fail to acknowledge the individual's role and influence in multi-sector change. To address the multifaceted nature of IDU, we must address the complex relationship between people who inject drugs (PWID) and their external environment. As part of a community-academic partnership, a framework was developed to address the gaps in current theoretical models and community practice. Our Harm Reduction Collaboration Framework (HRCF) accepts PWID as key stakeholders and presents a practical framework in which PWID and community organizations partner in decision making to influence policy, systems, and environmental change. We provide examples of two organizations that have made substantive changes in implementing harm reduction strategies in their communities by utilizing the HRCF.

Navigating the nexus between British Columbia's public consumption and decriminalization policies of illegal drugs

In January 2023, the province of British Columbia (BC) decriminalized the possession of certain illegal drugs for personal use. The province's primary intent was to reduce the stigma associated with drug use, as well as barriers for people who use drugs (PWUD) to access treatment and supports. However, less than ten months into the decriminalization policy, due to growing concerns about public safety voiced by municipal governments and communities, the provincial government made amendments to the policy to ban the public consumption of illicit drugs in additional locations, and subsequently introduced additional legislation, Bill 34, aimed at regulating public consumption of drugs in public spaces. Some communities have also implemented local bylaws similarly regulating public drug use. Bill 34 and local bylaws may serve as tools to promote community health and safety and minimize direct and indirect harms associated with public drug use. However, such legislation may re-criminalize PWUD and reinforce negative perceptions surrounding drug use, especially if these policies are not paired with strategies to expand the availability and accessibility of critical harm reduction and housing services. Without ample access to these services, limitations on public drug use can potentially displace individuals to areas where they are more likely to use alone, further exposing them to substance use-related harms, and undermining the goals of decriminalization. The potential effects of these restrictions may also disproportionately impact marginalized populations. As of April 2024, Bill 34 remains on hold. Moving forward, it will be important to monitor this bill, as well as other public consumption bylaws and legislation, and their impact on BC's overall decriminalization initiative. Decision-makers are urged to increase engagement with PWUD and relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of policies pertaining to public consumption to ensure that they effectively address the evolving needs and realities of PWUD, and align with decriminalization goals.

Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be provided quickly in the event of an overdose. OPCs are programs that are established in Canada and have recently become legally sanctioned in only a few United States jurisdictions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review that summarizes and identifies gaps of economic evidence on establishing OPCs in North America to guide future expansion of OPCs.

RESULTS

We included 16 final studies that were evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists. Eight studies reported cost-effectiveness results (eg, cost per overdose avoided or cost per quality-adjusted life-year), with 6 also including cost-benefit; 5 reported only cost-benefit results, and 3 cost offsets. Health outcomes primarily included overdose mortality outcomes or HIV/hepatitis C virus infections averted. Most studies used mathematical modeling and projected OPC outcomes using the experience of a single facility in Vancouver, BC.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCs were found to be cost-saving or to have favorable cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios across all studies. Future studies should incorporate the experience of OPCs established in various settings and use a greater diversity of modeling designs.

Preference for hotline versus mobile application/countdown-based mobile overdose response services: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In response to the exacerbated rates of morbidity and mortality associated with the overlapping overdose and COVID-19 epidemics, novel strategies have been developed, implemented, operationalized and scaled to reduce the harms resulting from this crisis. Since the emergence of mobile overdose response services (MORS), two strategies have aimed to help reduce the mortality associated with acute overdose including staffed hotline-based services and unstaffed timer-based services. In this article, we aim to gather the perspectives of various key interest groups on these technologies to determine which might best support service users.

METHODS

Forty-seven participants from various interested groups including people who use substances who have and have not used MORS, healthcare workers, family members, harm reduction employees and MORS operators participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged regarding participant perspectives on the differences between services, namely differences in connection, perceived safety, privacy and accessibility, alongside features that are recommended for MORS in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants noted that individuals who use substances vary in their desire for connection during a substance use session offered by hotline and timer-based service modalities. Participants perceived hotline-based approaches to be more reliable and thus potentially safer than their timer-based counterparts but noted that access to technology is a limitation of both approaches.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Mobile Overdose Response Services from the perspective of Canadian key interest groups: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Unregulated supply of fentanyl and adulterants continues to drive the overdose crisis. Mobile Overdose Response Services (MORS) are novel technologies that offer virtual supervised consumption to minimize the risk of fatal overdose for those who are unable to access other forms of harm reduction. However, as newly implemented services, they are also faced with numerous limitations. The aim of this study was to examine the facilitators and barriers to the adoption of MORS in Canada.

METHODS

A total of 64 semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and April 2022. Participants consisted of people who use substances (PWUS), family members of PWUS, health care professionals, harm reduction workers, MORS operators, and members of the general public. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the major themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Respondents revealed that MORS facilitated a safe, anonymous, and nonjudgmental environment for PWUS to seek harm reduction and other necessary support. It also created a new sense of purpose for operators to positively contribute to the community. Further advertising and promotional efforts were deemed important to increase its awareness. However, barriers to MORS implementation included concerns regarding privacy/confidentiality, uncertainty of funding, and compassion fatigue among the operators.

CONCLUSION

Although MORS were generally viewed as a useful addition to the currently existing harm reduction services, it's important to monitor and tackle these barriers by engaging the perspectives of key interest groups.

Flawed reports can harm: the case of supervised consumption services in Alberta

Supervised consumption services have been scaled up within Canada and internationally as an ethical imperative in the context of a public health emergency. A large body of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that these services prevent poisoning deaths, reduce infectious disease transmission risk behaviour, and facilitate clients' connections to other health and social services. In 2019, the Alberta government commissioned a review of the socioeconomic impacts of seven supervised consumption services in the province. The report is formatted to appear as an objective, scientifically credible evaluation of these services; however, it is fundamentally methodologically flawed, with a high risk of biases that critically undermine its authors' assessment of the scientific evidence. The report's findings have been used to justify decisions that jeopardize the health and well-being of people who use drugs both in Canada and internationally. Governments must ensure that future assessments of supervised consumption services and other public health measures to address drug poisoning deaths are scientifically sound and methodologically rigorous. Health policy must be based on the best available evidence, protect the right of structurally vulnerable populations to access healthcare, and not be contingent on favourable public opinion or prevailing political ideology.

A cost benefit analysis of a virtual overdose monitoring service/mobile overdose response service: the national overdose response service

BACKGROUND

The overdose crisis continues across Canada which calls for novel harm reduction strategies. Previous research indicates that a majority of eHealth solutions are cost-effective however current literature on the cost-benefit of eHealth for harm reduction is sparse. The National Overdose Response Service (NORS) is a Canada-wide telephone-based harm reduction service. Service users can call the phone number and connect to a peer who can virtually monitor the substance use session and dispatch appropriate interventions in the case of overdose.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH/PROJECT

We aim to assess the cost-benefit of NORS by comparing the estimated cost-savings from prevented overdose mortality to the operating costs of the program, alongside healthcare costs associated with its operation.

METHODS

Data around systems costs and operational costs were gathered for our calculations. Our primary outcome was cost-benefit ratios, derived from estimates and models of mortality rates in current literature and value of life lost. We presented our main results across a range of values for costs and the probability of death following an unwitnessed overdose. These values were utilized to calculate cost-benefit ratios and value per dollar spent on service provision by NORS over the length of the program's operation (December 2020-2022).

RESULTS

Over the total funded lifespan of the program, and using a Monte Carlo estimate, the benefit-to-cost ratio of the NORS program was 8.59 (1.53-15.28) per dollar spent, depending on estimated mortality rates following unwitnessed overdose and program operation costs. Further, we conservatively estimate that early community-based naloxone intervention results in healthcare system savings of $4470.82 per overdose response.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the NORS program to have a positive benefit-to-cost ratio when the probability of death following an unwitnessed overdose was greater than 5%. NORS and potentially other virtual overdose monitoring services have the potential to be cost-effective solutions for managing the drug poisoning crisis.

Virtual overdose monitoring services and overdose prevention technologies: Opportunities, limitations, and future directions

Overdose mortality has continued to rise in North America and across the globe in people who use drugs. Current harm reduction strategies such as supervised consumption sites and naloxone kit distribution have been important public health strategies implemented to decrease the harms associated with illicit drug use however have key limitations which prevent their scalability. This is represented in statistics which indicate that the vast majority of overdose mortality occur in individuals who use drugs by themselves. To address this, virtual overdose monitoring services and overdose detection technologies have emerged as an adjunct solution that may help improve access to harm reduction services for those that cannot or choose not to access current in-person services. This article outlines the current limitations of harm reduction services, the opportunities, challenges, and controversies of these technologies and services, and suggests avenues for additional research and policy development.

"Another tool in the toolkit"-Perceptions, suggestions, and concerns of emergency service providers about the implementation of a supervised consumption site

BACKGROUND

As Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) are implemented in the United States, it is important to consider the needs and perceptions of impacted stakeholders. Emergency service providers (ESP) have a central role in responding to the overdose epidemic. This study intended to assess the how ESP perceive the potential implementation of an SCS in their community, as well as solicit program design and implementation-related concerns and suggestions.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted by videoconference with 22 ESP, including firefighters, paramedics, police, and social workers in King County, Washington, USA. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants expressed the importance of feeling safe while responding to calls where drug use is involved and highlighted how this perception would be linked to ESP response times to calls from an SCS. Suggestions for improving the perceived safety of an SCS included training program staff in de-escalation as well as planning the layout of the SCS to accommodate ESP. The inadequacy of the emergency department as a point of care for PWUD was also identified as a theme, and some participants expressed enthusiasm regarding the prospect of the SCS as an alternative destination for transport. Finally, support for the SCS model was conditional on the appropriate utilization of emergency services and a reduction in call volume. Participants listed clarifying roles and pursuing opportunities for collaboration as ways to ensure appropriate utilization and maintain positive working relationships.

CONCLUSION

This study builds on literature regarding stakeholder perceptions of SCS by focusing on the perceptions of a critically important stakeholder group. Results enhance understanding of what motivates ESP to support SCS implementation in their community. Other novel insights pertain to ESP thoughts about alternative care delivery models and strategies for emergency department visit diversion.

"It's just not the same": Exploring PWUD' perceptions of and experiences with drug policy and SCS services change in a Canadian City

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Shifting political contexts can significantly alter drug policy approaches and available supports for People Who Use Drugs (PWUD). The purpose of this study was to explore how shifts in provincial drug policy approaches, specifically the replacement of a Safe Consumption Site (SCS) with a smaller mobile Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) in Lethbridge, Alberta Canada, impacted PWUD' access to and experiences with harm reduction services.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 PWUD in the City of Lethbridge, Canada. Through traditional fieldwork, we recruited participants within, and just outside of, downtown Lethbridge. Using a standardized general prompt guide to begin interviews, participants were asked a variety of questions about their experiences with and perceptions of SCS access and changes to SCS provisions. Interviews were audio recorded, then transcribed, coded, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants reported regular and frequent access and overall positive experiences with the SCS, despite also noting certain operational barriers (e.g., long wait times). By contrast, participants reported more limited use of the new OPS compared to the SCS because of three main reasons: (1) concerns about location; (2) smoking room elimination; and (3) lack of social space and activities. Overall, changes to SCS provision produced a range of negative consequences for PWUD in Lethbridge. These relate to perceived increases in drug-related harms (e.g., increased overdoses) as well as negative social impacts (e.g., lack of place to meet other people).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study provide preliminary indications of the importance of understanding how contextual and locally-specific elements (location, limits on permitted route administration, and social aspects) can work together to facilitate SCS uptake and even overcome traditional SCS barriers. Conversely, the absence of such elements can hinder SCS uptake. Results show that the value of SCS might differ across locations, pointing to the need for further locally-grounded examinations of harm reduction service uptake and experience.