Injecting substance use in prisons in the United States: a case for needle exchange programs.

Despite efforts to prevent illicit substance use in prisons, inmates in many countries still have access to them, along with associated paraphernalia. In the United States, a large proportion of people in prison are there due to drug-related charges. The secretive nature of illicit substance use in prison and the opposition to implementing harm reduction interventions such as needle exchange programs have put prisoners who engage in such practices at high risk for infectious bloodborne diseases. While states have their reasons for opposing the implementation of needle exchange programs in prisons, evidence shows that keeping illicit substances out of prisons is difficult. Programs allowing needle exchange programs are currently illegal in the United States. The authors propose that states reconsider their stance on needle exchange programs as the implementation of such programs in several penal institutions worldwide have proven to be successful in reducing bloodborne diseases and promoting and preserving the health of prisoners. By prohibiting needle exchange programs in prison states are not only denying prisoners' access to health care but are also violating prisoner's right to health as recommended by international instruments on prisoner rights. This article advocates for the implementation of needle exchange programs in the United States prison system with a focus on states. It does this by drawing attention to the effectiveness of such programs around the world and to the fact that incarceration does not necessarily reduce illicit substance use.

State Laws Governing Syringe Services Programs and Participant Syringe Possession, 2014-2019.

OBJECTIVE: Law is an important factor in the diffusion of syringe services programs (SSPs). This study measures the current status of, and 5-year change in, state laws governing SSP operations and possession of syringes by participants. METHODS: Legal researchers developed a cross-sectional data set measuring key features of state laws and regulations governing the possession and distribution of syringes across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia in effect on August 1, 2019. We compared these data with previously collected data on laws as of August 1, 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-nine states (including the District of Columbia) had laws in effect on August 1, 2019, that removed legal impediments to, explicitly authorized, and/or regulated SSPs. Thirty-three states had 1 or more laws consistent with legal possession of syringes by SSP participants under at least some circumstances. Changes from 2014 to 2019 included an increase of 14 states explicitly authorizing SSPs by law and an increase of 12 states with at least 1 provision reducing legal barriers to SSPs. Since 2014, the number of states explicitly authorizing SSPs nearly doubled, and the new states included many rural, southern, or midwestern states that had been identified as having poor access to SSPs, as well as states at high risk for HIV and hepatitis C virus outbreaks. Substantial legal barriers to SSP operation and participant syringe possession remained in >20% of US states. CONCLUSION: Legal barriers to effective operation of SSPs have declined but continue to hinder the prevention and reduction of drug-related harm.

United States vs Safehouse: The implications of the Philadelphia supervised consumption facility ruling for law and social stigma.

In October 2019, a federal judge ruled that a Philadelphia nonprofit (Safehouse) group's plan to open the first site in the U.S. where people can use illegal opioids under medical supervision does not violate federal Controlled Substances Act, delivering a major setback to Justice Department lawyers who launched a legal challenge to block the facility. The Judge wrote that "the ultimate goal of Safehouse's proposed operation is to reduce drug use, not facilitate it," which represents the first legal decision about whether supervised injection sites can be legally permissible under U.S. law. Although supervised consumption facilities ("SCFs") remain controversial, they already exist in many countries in Europe as well as Canada, Australia, and Mexico, and evaluations of their public health impact have demonstrated the value of this practice. The decision is hailed as a public health victory and could shape the legal debate in other U.S. cities. Challenges remain as stigmatizing attitudes regarding substance use are widely accepted, culturally endorsed, and enshrined in policy. The Safehouse case shows that SCFs might be able to survive under current federal drug laws, but public understanding and support of these facilities will also be crucial for cities and states to open them.

Needling Policy Makers and Sharpening the Debate: Do Syringe Exchange Programs Improve Health at the Population Level?

CONTEXT: In the midst of the current opioid epidemic, states have selected differing legislative routes implementing pathways to ensure access to clean needles and syringes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether states that implemented laws supporting syringe exchange programs (SEPs) had reductions in transmission rates of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV infection compared with states without such laws. DESIGN AND SETTING: Utilizing a longitudinal panel design, we determined the legal status of SEPs in each state for years 1983-2016. Disease transmission rates for this period were estimated via a simple Poisson regression, with transmitted cases as the dependent variable, law categories as the predictor variables, and the log of state population as the exposure. The mean number of incident cases per state-year was also calculated. PARTICIPANTS: US states were utilized as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: Hepatitis B and hepatitis C mean transmission rate per 100 000 population declined in states with local ordinances/decriminalized statutes and legalized SEPs (hepatitis B: 71% and 81%, respectively, differences P < .001; hepatitis C: 8% and 38%, respectively, differences P < .001). Reductions in mean incident cases per state-year mirrored these findings. HIV infection among injection drug users yielded inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitis B and hepatitis C transmission were reduced at the population level in states with SEP laws in a pattern reflecting the degree of legal intervention. HIV infection, based upon a smaller data set, showed a mixed impact. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The results show promise that SEPs have population-level effects on disease transmission. States lacking SEPs should reconsider current policies.

Using Interrupted Time Series Analysis to Measure the Impact of Legalized Syringe Exchange on HIV Diagnoses in Baltimore and Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: Syringe exchange programs (SEP) reduce HIV incidence associated with injection drug use (IDU), but legislation often prohibits implementation. We examined the policy change impact allowing for SEP implementation on HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs in 2 US cities. SETTING: Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore, MD. METHODS: Using surveillance data from Philadelphia (1984-2015) and Baltimore (1985-2013) for IDU-associated HIV diagnoses, we used autoregressive integrated moving averages modeling to conduct 2 tests to measure policy change impact. We forecast the number of expected HIV diagnoses per city had policy not changed in the 10 years after implementation and compared it with the number of observed diagnoses postpolicy change, obtaining an estimate for averted HIV diagnoses. We then used interrupted time series analysis to assess the immediate step and trajectory impact of policy change implementation on IDU-attributable HIV diagnoses. RESULTS: The Philadelphia (1993-2002) model predicted 15,248 new IDU-associated HIV diagnoses versus 4656 observed diagnoses, yielding 10,592 averted HIV diagnoses over 10 years. The Baltimore model (1995-2004) predicted 7263 IDU-associated HIV diagnoses versus 5372 observed diagnoses, yielding 1891 averted HIV diagnoses over 10 years. Considering program expenses and conservative estimates of public sector savings, the 1-year return on investment in SEPs remains high: $243.4 M (Philadelphia) and $62.4 M (Baltimore). CONCLUSIONS: Policy change is an effective structural intervention with substantial public health and societal benefits, including reduced HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs and significant cost savings to publicly funded HIV care.

The ever-changing narrative: Supervised injection site policy making in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: We analyze the ongoing debate surrounding supervised injection sites in Ontario, Canada and changing policies that impact host communities. Despite a plethora of evidence proving the effectiveness of supervised injection sites on harm reduction strategy, the topic remains highly controversial with constantly changing rhetoric in the Ontario drug policy landscape. METHODS: We reviewed government reports, policies, and media sources spanning from prior to the establishment of the first Canadian supervised injection site in 2000 to early 2019, adopting an advocacy coalition framework approach to this policy analysis. Various advocacy coalitions emerge from this analysis, including all three levels of government, law enforcement, health practitioners, and community groups. We describe the narratives constructed by these coalitions, analyzing the supervised injection site model as a harm reduction strategy within a continually shifting socio-political landscape. RESULTS: Emerging from the analysis are competing narratives put forward by various stakeholders within the policy subsystem. We find policy-makers tend to leverage scientific uncertainty as a tool to defend the interests of the most powerful actor in the subsystem. Despite an increase in the number of deaths due to the opioid crisis and evidence highlighting the efficacy of supervised injection sites as a harm reduction tool, various stakeholders are locked in a battle of claims and counter-claims about the appropriate policy response to opioids. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have broad implications for drug policy in other contexts. Our case study demonstrates the strength of stopgap measures, like supervised injection, to reduce harm from controlled substances.

Care, agency and criminality: Making sense of authorised extended distribution in the accounts of key stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: One of the current harm reduction debates in Australia concerns the legalisation of the extended distribution of sterile needles and syringes, a practice that is currently unlawful in most Australian settings. METHODS: We used data from a unique pilot program of authorised extended distribution to document the opinions held by 22 key stakeholders -service staff, drug users and police - about the risks and benefits of authorisation, and to analyse the ways in which drug users were understood within these. RESULTS: Opinions were strongly in favour of authorising extended distribution, based on the belief that this would reduce the transmission of hepatitis C. However, stakeholders also identified that distributors risked attention from police and some noted that the consequences of this would be borne by distributors themselves and not the services that support them. These opinions rested on specific assumptions about people who inject, some of which reflect negative constructions of drug users as a source of danger to the public or as helpless 'addicts' with little control over their risk reduction. But there were other representations that positioned drug users more positively as responsible agents with a strong duty of care to themselves and others whose choices are often limited by inadequate service structures. Staff participants drew on these understandings in careful and strategic ways, arguing for the rationality and expertise of drug users, while also problematizing the individualised approach that any form of authorised extended distribution might take. CONCLUSION: We argue that localised and incremental changes such as those that took place to support this pilot project, and the extensive support for extended distribution among stakeholders in this study including police, creates meaningful opportunities to think about extended distribution differently, which can in turn support conditions for future discussions about legislative change.

Syringe services programs: An examination of legal, policy, and funding barriers in the midst of the evolving opioid crisis in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) have been proposed as a key intervention to address increasing rates of opioid injection, overdose, and infectious disease transmission in the U.S. In recent years, multiple states and jurisdictions have enacted laws and policies to enable implementation of SSPs. These statutory and regulatory changes have resulted in the expansion of SSPs in a short period of time under a patchwork of different regulations and policies. Understanding how SSPs are responding to this evolving policy environment in the midst of a worsening opioid crisis can inform the development of strategies to maximize the role SSPs play in the response to the opioid crisis. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured and audio-recorded interviews were conducted with 25 individuals running 23 SSPs in the U.S. A thematic content analysis was employed to identify and group themes across the domains of interest based on inductive and deductive coding of verbatim interview transcripts. RESULTS: Despite progress in expanding the number of SSPs in recent years, programs described encountering legal, policy, funding, and community barriers that are limiting the scope, scale, and reach of SSPs. To address these barriers, programs are employing multiple strategies to educate about and advocate for SSPs, engage policymakers and communities, combat pervasive stigma, strengthen funding, and reach at-risk populations. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study of a geographically diverse sample of SSPs provides key insights into the legal and policy barriers, funding challenges, and contextual factors impacting SSPs and the strategies programs are pursuing to counter these barriers. Coupling these strategies with policy changes that address the underlying legal and financial barriers and advancing efforts to combat stigma around drug use and addiction stand to substantially expand the role of SSPs as part of the public health response to the opioid crisis in the U.S.

Qualitative case study of needle exchange programs in the Central Appalachian region of the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Central Appalachian region of the United States is in the midst of a hepatitis C virus epidemic driven by injection of opioids, particularly heroin, with contaminated syringes. In response to this epidemic, several needle exchange programs (NEP) have opened to provide clean needles and other supplies and services to people who inject drugs (PWID). However, no studies have investigated the barriers and facilitators to implementing, operating, and expanding NEPs in less populous areas of the United States. METHODS: This qualitative case study consisted of interviews with program directors, police chiefs, law enforcement members, and PWID affiliated with two NEPs in the rural state of West Virginia. Interview transcripts were coded inductively and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. Final common themes related to barriers and facilitators of past program openings, current program operations, and future program plans, were derived through a consensus of two data coders. RESULTS: Both NEPs struggled to find existing model programs, but benefited from broad community support that facilitated implementation. The largest operational barrier was the legal conundrum created by paraphernalia laws that criminalize syringe possession. However, both PWID and law enforcement appreciated the comprehensive services provided by these programs. Program location and transportation difficulties were additional noted barriers. Future program operations are threatened by funding shortages and bans, but necessitated by unexpected program demand. CONCLUSION: Despite broad community support, program operations are threatened by growing participant volumes, funding shortages, and the federal government's prohibition on the use of funds to purchase needles. Paraphernalia laws create a legal conundrum in the form of criminal sanctions for the possession of needles, which may inadvertently promote needle sharing and disease transmission. Future studies should examine additional barriers to using clean needles provided by rural NEPs that may blunt the effectiveness of NEPs in preventing disease transmission.

Syringe Decriminalization Advocacy in Red States: Lessons from the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Syringe access programs (SAPs) are cornerstone harm reduction interventions for combatting the national opioid epidemic. The goal of this paper is to describe effective advocacy strategies for enacting syringe decriminalization legislation to foster the expansion of SAPs in high-need areas amidst political opposition. RECENT FINDINGS: Decades or research shows that SAPs prevent the transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID) and are a cost-effective tool for linking PWID to medical care, health education, and social services. In the USA, state laws criminalizing distribution and possession of syringes impede the expansion of SAPs into areas where they are sorely needed. In 2016, North Carolina became the first state to legalize SAPs with a Republican super majority. This paper distills strategies for community organizations seeking to advance syringe decriminalization legislation in politically conservative states with histories of prioritizing punitive sanctions over public health responses to drug use.

Access to Syringe Services Programs - Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia, 2013-2017.

The Appalachian region of the United States is experiencing a large increase in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections related to injection drug use (IDU) (1). Syringe services programs (SSPs) providing sufficient access to safe injection equipment can reduce hepatitis C transmission by 56%; combined SSPs and medication-assisted treatment can reduce transmission by 74% (2). However, access to SSPs has been limited in the United States, especially in rural areas and southern and midwestern states (3). This report describes the expansion of SSPs in Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia during 2013-August 1, 2017. State-level data on the number of SSPs, client visits, and services offered were collected by each state through surveys of SSPs and aggregated in a standard format for this report. In 2013, one SSP operated in a free clinic in West Virginia, and SSPs were illegal in Kentucky and North Carolina; by August 2017, SSPs had been legalized in Kentucky and North Carolina, and 53 SSPs operated in the three states. In many cases, SSPs provide integrated services to address hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, overdose, addiction, unintended pregnancy, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and other complications of IDU. Prioritizing development of SSPs with sufficient capacity, particularly in states with counties vulnerable to epidemics of hepatitis and HIV infection related to IDU, can expand access to care for populations at risk.

Federal funding for syringe exchange in the US: Explaining a long-term policy failure.

BACKGROUND: The United States prohibited federal funding for syringe exchange programs for people who inject drugs nearly continuously from 1988 to 2015, despite growing scientific evidence, diminishing AIDS-related controversy, and tens of thousands of deaths from injection-related AIDS. This study investigates the political and institutional bases of this long-term failure to support lifesaving public policy. METHODS: This study draws on national, regional, and local media coverage, archival sources, and semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 6 long-time syringe exchange researchers and activists from California. I use case-oriented process tracing methods to explain the persistence and reform of the federal funding ban. RESULTS: Though previous studies focus on the symbolic clash between conservative morality and empirical science, I find that changing demographic and regional inequalities in the effects of the AIDS epidemic and dynamics produced by the federal structure of US government were more important factors in the creation and persistence of the funding ban. CONCLUSION: The persistence and eventual repeal of the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange was a product of the changing demographic, geographic, and political effects of the AIDS epidemic within the federal structure of US government, rather than a consequence of intractable morality politics. These contextual dynamics continue to shape AIDS and public health policy at all levels of government.

Using drugs in un/safe spaces: Impact of perceived illegality on an underground supervised injecting facility in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are spaces where people can consume pre-obtained drugs in hygienic circumstances with trained staff in attendance to provide emergency response in the event of an overdose or other medical emergency, and to provide counselling and referral to other social and health services. Over 100 facilities with formal legal sanction exist in ten countries, and extensive research has shown they reduce overdose deaths, increase drug treatment uptake, and reduce social nuisance. No facility with formal legal sanction currently exists in the United States, however one community-based organization has successfully operated an 'underground' facility since September 2014. METHODS: Twenty three qualitative interviews were conducted with people who used the underground facility, staff, and volunteers to examine the impact of the facility on peoples' lives, including the impact of lack of formal legal sanction on service provision. RESULTS: Participants reported that having a safe space to inject drugs had led to less injections in public spaces, greater ability to practice hygienic injecting practices, and greater protection from fatal overdose. Constructive aspects of being 'underground' included the ability to shape rules and procedures around user need rather than to meet political concerns, and the rapid deployment of the project, based on immediate need. Limitations associated with being underground included restrictions in the size and diversity of the population served by the site, and reduced ability to closely link the service to drug treatment and other health and social services. CONCLUSION: Unsanctioned supervised injection facilities can provide a rapid and user-driven response to urgent public health needs. This work draws attention to the need to ensure such services remain focused on user-defined need rather than external political concerns in jurisdictions where supervised injection facilities acquire local legal sanction.