A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Barbara Andraka-Christou, University of Central Florida; Olivia Randall-Kosich, Georgia State University; Matthew Golan, Emory University; Rachel Totaram, University of Central Florida; Brendan Saloner, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Adam J Gordon, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System; Bradley D Stein, RAND Corporation
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-12-01
• Publisher: BMC
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © The Author(s) 2022
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40352-022-00178-6
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Health and Justice
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 1
• Grant/Funding Information: NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse, Awards # R01DA045800 and P50DA046351, with principal investigator Dr. Bradley Stein from the RAND Corporation. Brendan Saloner acknowledges funding support from Arnold Ventures. Adam Gordon acknowledges support from NIH UG1DA04944.
• Keywords: State law; Medication for opioid use disorder; Problem-solving courts; Methadone; Drug court; Buprenorphine
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Health Care Management; Health Sciences, Public Health

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.