Bill Overview
Title: PIPES Act
Description: This bill restricts the use of funding made available through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for community-based overdose prevention programs, syringe services programs, and other harm reduction programs. First, the bill prohibits the use of the act's funding to procure or distribute pipes or other paraphernalia that can be used to smoke, inhale, or ingest narcotics. Second, the bill applies to the act's funding the conditions that apply to other funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for syringe services programs and needle exchange programs. The conditions require that programs (1) operate in a jurisdiction experiencing (or at risk for) increased transmission of hepatitis and HIV infections due to injection drug use, (2) use nonfederal funds for the purchase of syringes or needles, and (3) otherwise follow applicable laws.
Sponsors: Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who use drugs
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The PIPES Act impacts community-based overdose prevention programs, syringe services programs, and other harm reduction programs.
- These programs usually target individuals who use drugs, especially those who inject drugs, as these individuals are often the beneficiaries of such services.
- The legislation specifically restricts funding for paraphernalia like pipes, which could affect the availability of harm reduction measures for people who smoke drugs.
- Harm reduction measures can prevent infections such as HIV and hepatitis and support public health efforts.
- Given the scope of drug use globally, particularly opioids, there are millions of people potentially impacted.
- Harm reduction services play a critical role in the support and health of these populations.
Reasoning
- The PIPES Act impacts harm reduction programs which are crucial for individuals who use drugs, especially those who inject them. The restriction on funding may affect the availability and effectiveness of these programs.
- Restricted access to non-judgemental harm reduction services may increase health risks such as HIV and hepatitis. The policy's budget limits may not adequately cover necessary health support services.
- The target population mainly consists of individuals who misuse opioids and inject drugs, estimated at around 3 million in the U.S. according to the CDC.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The local harm reduction program has been life-saving for me. It provides a safe space and necessary supplies.
- I'm worried that without funds for pipes, many users will share or use makeshift ones, increasing health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 5 |
Waitress (New York, NY)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use the services myself often, but I know they're important for many of my friends.
- This policy could lead to more dangerous practices, like sharing smoking equipment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Harm Reduction Program Coordinator (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy restricts effective harm reduction strategies, potentially increasing public health risks.
- Funding limitations will hurt both clients and overall community health strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Retired Nurse (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could make my job as a volunteer harder, increasing strain on community health efforts.
- Harm reduction is proven to reduce transmission of diseases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Substance Use Counselor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These programs often serve as the first step towards getting clean for many of my clients.
- Restricting access to harm reduction tools can hinder their journey to recovery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Freelance Writer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've personally benefited from these programs during my recovery process.
- Cutting resources with this policy seems short-sighted, especially during an opioid crisis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our state relies on comprehensive harm reduction strategies to curb crises.
- This policy may limit our capabilities drastically, impacting overall public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Nightclub DJ (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see harm reduction programs protect the nightlife community from outbreaks and misuse problems.
- Limiting these resources is risky for environments like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restricting funds seems counter-intuitive to harm reduction strategies we learn are effective.
- This has broader implications for community health and education policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our rural area is already struggling with drug misuse and needs every bit of help.
- Cutting specific funding can seriously impact our community support efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Year 2: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Year 3: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Year 5: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Year 10: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Year 100: $200000 (Low: $150000, High: $250000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily alters funding allocations and usage within existing programs, suggesting that costs incurred are primarily administrative or oversight-related.
- Potential savings from reduced drug-related health complications could offset the costs of policy enforcement.
- Public health implications must be monitored closely, as restricting paraphernalia could impact harm reduction effectiveness.