Health literacy on the correct use of drugs and medication is a significant step toward realizing the desired outcomes of public health. This is an essential study area, specifically on how a drug reacts with a patient’s body. Evaluating the potential harm remains a major issue in which seeking corrective measures would be appropriate. The social determinants of health are assigned a major role in defining the wrong use of medicines for the intended purpose or in the incorrect amount. This is a major concern whereby corrective measures to reverse the side effects become a major health disparity. The use of Fentanyl as an over-the-counter drug mainly used in the management of pain has resulted in its use being termed a pandemic (Dayton et al.). This is based on the fact that the drug, among other opioids, has been categorized as causing major harm and crisis in the US, provided that about 1500 persons die every week from overdose (Kahn et al. 115). The contributing factor resulting in the misuse of the drug is based on easy access and poverty-related factors in which the drugs are cheaper than other drugs used for pain management. A combination of these factors has created a surge in the demand for the drug, thus resulting in an uncontrollable situation. Pregnant women have been cited for using the drugs and also at the home level among patients as an alternative to seeking medical help (Latkin et al. 999). This is, therefore, seen as a major health problem that needs immediate attention to help reverse the outcomes while creating awareness of the alternatives that would help ease the tension around the opioid pandemic. Narcan availability is seen as a major alternative whose impact in addressing the pandemic is sought to be a major intervention to help ease the opioid crisis while creating a safe space in which overdose and wrong use of drugs such as Fentanyl could be reduced. This paper is tailored to demonstrate how Narcan Availability would serve as an alternative to Fentanyl use as a major intervention towards reducing the opioid pandemic.
Manipulating increased access to Narcan medication as an over-the-counter drug would be a major intervention to influence the deliberate move toward reversing opioid use. This would include increasing access through grocery stores, among other convenient places in the community (Latkin et al. 1000). This option will be critical towards enhancing decentralized awareness efforts in which the uncertainty of how many people will have the drug on their shelves is addressed. Pharmacies are another option that will be used to expand access to Narcan drugs with increased stocking of the drug, making it more preferred for use among chronic pain patients using opioids. This action will help improve Narcan’s rural access, thus influencing the continued efforts by the pharmacy to stock the drug (Stein et al. 148). The expansion of access may be influenced by increased advocacy intervention through state legislation that would include aspects of legal immunity (Dayton et al.). This will serve a critical role in shaping the availability of the drugs for which the pharmacists will be required to prescribe the drugs directly. The aim is to reduce the barriers to access to the drug among the states. The action to empower the doctors to make independent standing orders on drug prescription as authorized by state legislation would be critical towards expanding access to Narcan.
Cost should be another consideration to help improve access to Narcan as an over-the-counter drug. This should be done by substantiating the cost from $45 to reduce the related barriers. This is an important consideration, and the need to address the cost implications will be critical to expanding the role of the drug, especially when a patient is required to use more than one dose (Stein et al. 146). The opioid crisis is common among lower-income persons, which is a critical disparity that should be addressed through the action of expanding Medicaid and Medicare insurance to reduce the expense of accessing Narcan. This is a critical intervention in which the fentanyl crisis should be viewed as a disorder that needs attention through the expansion of access to Narcan medication. Free access to the drug would be a substantial intervention in which the public will be encouraged to access the drug to reverse the effects of Fentanyl. This would include the role of harm reduction organizations whose focus on distribution will be critical in increasing access to the drug. Access to free prescriptions, along with training on how to use the drug among the locals, would help ease the tension of Fentanyl use.
Regulations related to the insurance coverage of Narcan drugs may vary from state to state, and this may be seen as a major discrepancy related to the access to the medication. On this note, it is important to identify that a balance between the out-of-pocket costs and the insurance coverage should be prioritized to reduce the uncertainty of accessing the drug. The need to reconcile the variation in state-by-state regulation should be enforced through expanding insurance coverage (Mahonski et al. 118). This is a significant intervention in which the standing orders should be eased to ensure more access is enforced. Private insurance coverage should also join the race to widen access to Narcan medication (Dayton et al.). The requirement that the patient pay out of pocket and then make a further claim should be reconciled to ensure that the prevalence of Fentanyl use does not persist. These efforts should be reinforced through increased awareness of the accommodative to help reduce the disparities related to medical insurance and state-by-state regulations (Mahonski et al. 120). This should include deliberate action to reduce the confusion, especially on the out-of-pocket requirements.
Increased awareness of the use of Narcan should be considered a critical appraisal and effort toward expanding access to the drug to help reverse the effects of opioid use (Stein et al. 148). This is an important intervention that should be deliberated across various stakeholders, such as doctors, pharmacists, and grocery sellers, among other persons authorized in the sale of drugs. The intervention is important, especially when considering the role of the drug in reversing opioid use. There is a greater gap, especially with the information asymmetry about how Narcan has been of great importance in reversing opioid use (Berardi et al.). This is supported by increased reluctance among the doctors to prescribe the drug. Also, state regulations have served as another barrier to access to drugs, especially concerning the use of standing orders on the prescription of the drug (Dayton et al.). Therefore, there is an increased need for awareness intervention to help raise the acceptance of Narcan as a drug to reverse opioid use. Awareness of the insurance coverage of the drug should be reinforced to ensure that the acceptance rate among the public is higher.
However, in as much as Narcan medication would play a significant role in terms of influencing the deliberate move to reversing opioid use, it is relatively costly to access the drug. That would call for most individuals to go the extra mile trying to get it; in some situations, it would not be manageable to access the medication (Berardi et al.). The average cost of the medicines is 0.4mg, approximately $61, depending on the pharmacy one visits (Bessen et al. 142). In that case, as much as the medication would save lives, it is a bit costly; thus, individuals may find it challenging to access it. Inconsistency in state regulations regarding the insurance coverage of OTC Narcan will serve as a critical barrier to the increase of access to the drug. This is subject to the use of the standing orders as required by the doctors and pharmacists in dispensing the medicines, with a prescription being mandatory. Thus, structural barriers will remain a significant problem in accessing Narcan. Besides, the lack of knowledge regarding distribution locations and indications for use would limit the use of opioids despite their benefits (Bessen et al. 146). In this case, the medication providers would need more understanding regarding Narcan use, which would also be translated to the users. For example, people would buy the medication but need more awareness of its use, which would be a significant challenge and thus would hinder the deliberate reversal of its use.
Conclusion
The availability of Narcan medication as an over-the-counter drug will be a critical effort toward reducing and reversing the effects of the opioid pandemic. This will be a critical move towards expanding access to safe medication to prioritize public safety. The opioid pandemic has been evidenced to cause major havoc in public health with increased efforts to help reverse the outcome of the drug. The popularity of opioids is based on easy access and poverty-related issues in which the public uses the drug as a cheaper alternative. Therefore, an effort to provide a cheaper alternative that is safer, as in the case of Narcan, would be important to help the impact of the opioid crisis, which has resulted in about 1500 deaths every week. This is substantive data that is worth addressing to ease the tension caused by the opioid pandemic. However, there is a need for increased sensitization to ensure that the members of the public are aware of the danger of using opioids as well as the benefits of using Narcan medication. This action would be critical towards expanding the access of the later in which the harmful side effects of Fentanyl will be used. Government interventions should be involved in the discussion and awareness program to see that access to Narcan is expanded through insurance coverage and high distribution as an over-the-counter drug. This should be seen as a deliberate action in which reversing the effects of opioids will offer quick and long-term solutions to end the pandemic that has been the talk not only in the US but also on the global scale.
Work Cited
Berardi, Luca, et al. “Narcan and Narca: Implementation factors influencing police officer use of Narcan.” Social science & medicine 270 2021: 113669.
Bessen, Sarah, et al. “Barriers to naloxone use and acceptance among opioid users, first responders, and emergency department providers in New Hampshire, USA.” International Journal of Drug Policy 74 2019: 144–151.
Dayton, Lauren, et al. “More than just availability: Who has access and who administers take-home naloxone in Baltimore, MD.” PloS one 14.11 (2019): e0224686.
Kahn, Linda S., et al. “Narcan encounters:” overdose and naloxone rescue experiences among people who use opioids.” Substance Abuse 43.1 2022: 113–126.
Latkin, Carl A., et al. “Fentanyl and drug overdose: perceptions of fentanyl risk, overdose risk behaviors, and opportunities for intervention among people who use opioids in Baltimore, USA.” Substance Use & Misuse 54.6 2019: 998–1006.
Mahonski, Sarah G., et al. “Prepacked naloxone administration for suspected opioid overdose in the era of illicitly manufactured fentanyl: a retrospective study of regional poison center data.” Clinical Toxicology 58.2 2020: 117–123.
Stein, Michael D., et al. “Perceptions about fentanyl-adulterated heroin and overdose risk reduction behaviors among persons seeking treatment for heroin use.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 104 2019: 144–147.
write