Abstract

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.

Details

Title
A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts
Author
Andraka-Christou Barbara 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Randall-Kosich Olivia 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Golan, Matthew 3 ; Totaram Rachel 4 ; Saloner Brendan 5   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Gordon, Adam J 6   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Stein, Bradley D 7   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

1  University of Central Florida, School of Global Health Management & Informatics, Orlando, USA (GRID:grid.170430.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2159 2859); University of Central Florida, Department of Internal Medicine (Secondary Joint Appointment), Orlando, USA (GRID:grid.170430.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2159 2859) 
2  Georgia State University, School of Public Health, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.256304.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7400) 
3  School of Law, Emory University, Atlanta, USA (GRID:grid.189967.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0941 6502) 
4  University of Central Florida, School of Global Health Management & Informatics, Orlando, USA (GRID:grid.170430.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2159 2859) 
5  Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA (GRID:grid.21107.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 2171 9311) 
6  VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center, Salt Lake City, USA (GRID:grid.280807.5) (ISNI:0000 0000 9555 3716); University of Utah School of Medicine, Program for Addiction Research, Clinical Care, Knowledge and Advocacy (PARCKA), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, USA (GRID:grid.223827.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2193 0096) 
7  RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, USA (GRID:grid.34474.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 0370 7685) 
Publication year
2022
Publication date
Dec 2022
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
e-ISSN
21947899
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6
ProQuest document ID
2645694903
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.