ArticleJournal of health economics2024
Investigating the complexity of naloxone distribution: Which policies matter for pharmacies and potential recipients.
Article in Journal of health economics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing bias and precision in state policy evaluations: a comparative analysis of time-varying estimators using policy simulations.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing Naloxone Distribution for Opioid Users in the USA: A Cost-Utility Analysis of Academic Detailing to Clinicians.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Improving Policy Evaluations Of The Opioid Crisis.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025Article
- Early estimates of awareness and uptake of over-the-counter naloxone.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Naloxone Knowledge, Carrying, Purchase, and Use.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Price Sensitivity and Information Barriers to the Take-Up of Naloxone.American economic journal. Economic policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite efforts to expand naloxone access, opioid-related overdoses remain a significant contributor to mortality. We study state efforts to expand naloxone distribution through pharmacies by reducing the non-monetary costs to prescribers, dispensers, and/or potential recipients of naloxone. We find that laws that only address liability costs have small and insignificant effects on the volume of naloxone dispensed through pharmacies. In contrast, we estimate large effects of laws removing the need for patients to obtain prescriptions from traditional prescribers (e.g., primary care physicians): laws authorizing non-patient-specific prescription distribution and laws granting pharmacists prescriptive authority. We test whether areas designated as primary care shortage areas-where it would be costlier to obtain a prescription-were disproportionately impacted. Shortage areas experienced sharper growth in pharmacy naloxone dispensing in states adopting prescriptive authority policies. These gains were primarily due to those facing low out-of-pocket costs, suggesting that price barriers also must be addressed to increase naloxone purchases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.