Policy News Roundup: November 14, 2024

What does Trump’s election potentially mean for addiction response?

The main point: Overall, a Trump administration is likely to be more focused on law enforcement and supply side responses to the overdose crisis, rather than approach the challenge from a public health perspective.

The details:

• Treatment: We do not expect there will be efforts to remove barriers and expand access to methadone. There could be some efforts to expand buprenorphine (particularly telemedicine models).
• Harm Reduction: Harm reduction received unprecedented federal support under the Biden administration. It is unlikely that such support will continue. Efforts to expand naloxone distribution may continue, but other harm reduction strategies (e.g., syringe service programs, overdose prevention sites) are not likely to receive support in a Trump administration.
• Criminal Legal System: The use of Medicaid to provide medications for opioid use disorder in jails/prisons will likely face increased scrutiny. As part of a broader effort to limit Medicaid costs, a Trump administration may push to restrict federal funding for these programs. Drug courts and diversion programs will likely continue to receive support.
• Insurance: There could be major changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes some of the strongest insurance protections available for addiction, and Medicaid, which covers more addiction treatment than any other insurer. The enhanced ACA premium subsidies that led to record levels of insurance enrollment are not likely to be extended after they expire next year, and there may be efforts to slash funding for enrollment outreach, promote short-term health plans with skimpier coverage and allow insurers to charge sicker people higher premiums. Medicaid is likely to be targeted for funding cuts, and the Trump administration is likely to revive efforts to implement work requirements for Medicaid coverage.
• Marijuana: It is not clear what a Trump administration will mean for marijuana. While previously strongly opposed to easing restrictions, Trump more recently came out in support of the legalization initiative in Florida (his home state) and the Biden administration’s push to reschedule marijuana.
• Penalties: A Trump administration could push for harsher penalties for drug offenses.
• Drug Trafficking: Combatting drug trafficking is likely to be the main focus for the administration on this issue. Rhetoric will likely focus on the U.S.-Mexico border, even though evidence has shown that most drugs are brought into the U.S. at legal ports of entry by U.S. citizens. There is likely to be continued pressure on Mexico and China for their role in fentanyl and precursor trafficking.
• Federal Agencies: If the Trump administration takes action on plans to scale back federal agencies, it could lead to a reduced role for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, potentially in favor of the Department of Justice or Drug Enforcement Administration. Department of Health and Human Services agencies are also likely in for budget cuts and major changes in authority and focus, which could reduce the role of health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration in addressing the addiction crisis and the funding available to do so.

Why it’s important:

• Federal funding for addiction has remained stable but shifts between law enforcement/interdiction and treatment, depending on the administration’s priorities. An increased focus on law enforcement/interdiction could mean less funding and focus on treatment. Funding for prevention has remained small and relatively the same.

A caveat: It is early. Trump’s campaign did not focus heavily on policy proposals or on this issue, and we do not know yet who will be appointed to top health roles in the administration.

Source: Looking Ahead: Drug Policy in the Next Trump Administration (Georgetown Law O’Neill Institute); Trump’s health agenda (Axios); Trump’s White House Return Poised To Tangle Health Care Safety Net (KFF Health News)

Several states also had drug-related ballot initiatives on their ballots this election.

The main point: In recent elections, ballot measures focused on liberalizing drug policies (e.g., legalizing marijuana, decriminalizing drugs) have passed. This time, however, these types of measures failed, signaling concerns about these drug policies.

The details:

• Marijuana: Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota all rejected measures to legalize recreational marijuana. Nebraska did approve a measure to legalize medical marijuana, but a judge could invalidate the results due to a pending lawsuit. Opponents cited concerns about crime, addiction and becoming like liberal states that have legalized marijuana. While most Americans continue to support marijuana legalization, the downsides of marijuana production and negative health impacts of high-potency marijuana and teen use have recently been in the spotlight.
• Psychedelics: Massachusetts rejected a measure to legalize therapeutic use of certain psychedelics (psilocybin, psilocin, DMT, ibogaine, mescaline). Voters in more than a dozen Oregon cities also voted to ban sales and use of psilocybin, after the state approved licensed psilocybin treatment centers four years ago. Psychedelics have gained increased support across the political spectrum, but concerns are growing about allowing psychedelics to proliferate before there has been adequate research.
• Penalties: California passed a measure to repeal a 2014 ballot initiative that had lessened penalties for certain drug offenses. The new measure reclassifies certain theft- and drug-related crimes as felonies, rather than misdemeanors. It also establishes court-mandated treatment for those with repeat drug offenses. Voters perceive social disruption from public drug use and want more law and order.

Another thing: Daniel Lurie won his race to be mayor of San Francisco, beating incumbent London Breed. Much of the campaign focused on debates about how to address public drug use in the city. Lurie ran on promises to expand police staffing, build more homeless shelter beds and shut down open-air drug markets.

Why it’s important: This is part of the broader recent backlash toward efforts to liberalize drug policies and emphasize treatment and harm reduction over punitive responses.

• Increases in visible homelessness, mental illness and substance use following COVID, the rise of fentanyl and the continuing high level of overdose deaths have led many to feel that recent efforts are not working. This is exacerbated by rhetoric tying “failed” drug policies to supposed spikes in crime and drug use.

Source: State votes on marijuana and psychedelics signal drug policy concerns (The Washington Post)

What’s new: A report by scientists convened by the California Department of Public Health suggests that state policymakers must do more to warn consumers of the health dangers of high-potency marijuana and deter its use.

The background:

• Most of the marijuana sold in California is high potency, with a concentration of THC five to ten times greater than the marijuana of the 1970s and 1980s.
• High-potency marijuana is more likely to be addictive and cause serious health problems, like psychosis or cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.

The takeaways: The authors say policymakers should take lessons from successful campaigns to reduce smoking and drinking. Among other ideas, they recommend:

• Restricting marijuana advertising, packaging and marketing
• Barring flavored products that appeal to kids
• Limiting THC content
• Raising taxes on high-potency products
• Launching a public education campaign about high-potency marijuana’s health effects

What’s next: The authors say they are lobbying the California Department of Public Health, the California Department of Cannabis Control, the state legislature and other state agencies to boost regulation.

Source: Danger Zone (Politico)