Pridgen Bailey E, Bontemps Andrew P, Lloyd Audrey R, Wagner William P, Kay Emma S, Eaton Ellen F, Cropsey Karen L
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1670 University Blvd., Volker Hall, Suite L107, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Harm Reduct J. 2025 Jun 8;22(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12954-025-01238-4.
A wealth of research demonstrates that harm reduction interventions for substance use (SU) save lives and reduce risk for serious infectious diseases such as HIV, hepatitis C, and other SU-related health conditions. The U.S. has adopted several harm reduction interventions at federal and state levels to combat SU-related harm. While several policy changes on the federal and state levels decriminalized interventions and further support their use, other policies limit the reach of these interventions by delaying or restricting care, leaving access to life-saving interventions inconsistent across the U.S. Federal and state policies in the U.S. that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), criminalize possession of drug paraphernalia, prevent syringe service programs and overdose prevention centers from operating, and limit prescribing of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) pose significant barriers to harm reduction access and implementation. This paper aims to bridge publications and reports on current state and federal harm reduction intervention policies and discuss policy recommendations. Federally, the DEA and SAMHSA should expand certification for methadone dispensing to settings beyond dedicated opioid treatment programs and non-OTP prescribers. Congress can decriminalize items currently categorized as paraphernalia, permit purchasing of syringes and all drug checking equipment using federal funds, amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow for expansion of overdose prevention centers, protect Medicaid coverage of PrEP, and expand Medicaid to cover residential SU treatment. At the state level, states can reduce regulations for prescribing MOUD and PrEP, decriminalize drug paraphernalia, codify Good Samaritan laws, and remove restrictions for syringe service program and overdose prevention center implementation. Lastly, states should expand Medicaid to allow broader access to treatment for SU and oppose Medicaid lock-outs based on current SU. These changes are needed as overdose deaths and serious infectious disease rates from SU continue to climb and impact American lives.
大量研究表明,针对物质使用(SU)的减少伤害干预措施可挽救生命,并降低感染严重传染病(如艾滋病毒、丙型肝炎和其他与SU相关的健康状况)的风险。美国在联邦和州层面采取了多项减少伤害干预措施,以应对与SU相关的危害。虽然联邦和州层面的多项政策变化将干预措施合法化,并进一步支持其使用,但其他政策通过延迟或限制护理来限制这些干预措施的覆盖范围,导致美国各地获得救生干预措施的机会不一致。美国联邦和州的政策限制了阿片类药物使用障碍(MOUD)药物的获取,将持有吸毒用具定为犯罪,阻止注射器服务项目和过量预防中心运营,并限制暴露前预防(PrEP)的处方,这对减少伤害措施的获取和实施构成了重大障碍。本文旨在衔接有关当前州和联邦减少伤害干预政策的出版物和报告,并讨论政策建议。在联邦层面,美国缉毒局(DEA)和美国药物滥用和精神健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)应将美沙酮配药认证扩大到专门的阿片类药物治疗项目和非OTP开处方者以外的场所。国会可以将目前归类为用具的物品合法化,允许使用联邦资金购买注射器和所有毒品检测设备,修订《受控物质法》以允许扩大过量预防中心,保护PrEP的医疗补助覆盖范围,并扩大医疗补助以覆盖住院SU治疗。在州层面,各州可以减少MOUD和PrEP处方的规定,将吸毒用具合法化,编纂《好撒玛利亚人法》,并取消对注射器服务项目和过量预防中心实施的限制。最后,各州应扩大医疗补助,以允许更广泛地获得SU治疗,并反对基于当前SU的医疗补助锁定。由于SU导致的过量死亡和严重传染病发病率持续攀升并影响美国人的生活,这些改变是必要的。