Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4358

Bill Overview

Title: Bruce's Law

Description: This bill reauthorizes certain grants through FY2027 and sets out other activities to address the dangers of fentanyl-related drug overdoses, with a particular focus on fentanyl contamination. Specifically, the bill (1) reauthorizes grants that are available through the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) for community-based coalitions to address local drug crises, and (2) authorizes new grants for coalitions to implement education and prevention strategies in communities that face significant levels of drug overdoses related to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. The ONDCP may delegate authority to execute the new grants to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must carry out a campaign to increase public awareness of the dangers of fentanyl, including the risk of fentanyl contamination in counterfeit drugs. The bill also establishes an interagency work group to coordinate and improve federal efforts to reduce and prevent overdoses involving fentanyl contamination in illegal drugs. Work group members include the ONDCP, HHS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State.

Sponsors: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Target Audience

Population: People affected by fentanyl-related drug overdoses

Estimated Size: 20000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Community Health Worker (Dayton, Ohio)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could finally give us more resources to expand our harm reduction programs.
  • The public awareness campaign is crucial. Many people don't understand how dangerous fentanyl contamination is.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 6 2
Year 10 5 2
Year 20 4 1

Non-Profit Manager (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We've been struggling with funding; these grants could help us increase our reach.
  • Improving federal coordination is essential to address the nuances of this crisis effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

Student (Baltimore, Maryland)

Age: 19 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Education on drugs needs to be in schools, not just in public campaigns.
  • I hope this leads to fewer families experiencing loss like ours.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 3
Year 2 4 3
Year 3 5 2
Year 5 5 2
Year 10 6 1
Year 20 5 1

Retired (Austin, Texas)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's good to see more awareness campaigns; often, older generations are left out of the loop.
  • I worry about drug safety, especially for my grandchildren.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 4 3

Emergency Medical Technician (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 41 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Every tool we get helps save lives; we see so many overdoses weekly.
  • Coordination between agencies could make our jobs slightly easier.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Healthcare Policy Analyst (New York City, New York)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This feels like a step in the right direction; policy cohesion is vital.
  • Awareness campaigns are important, but they need to be strategically executed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Pharmacist (Charleston, West Virginia)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Pharmacy practices need alignment with these initiatives.
  • Proper awareness will help reduce illegal market demand.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 4 3
Year 10 4 2
Year 20 3 1

Tech Support Specialist (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We need more education about the real risks of these synthetic drugs.
  • Support programs are crucial for families affected by addiction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 2

Elementary School Teacher (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Parents and educators need to be part of the awareness process.
  • It’s great this bill exists; drugs can be a terrifying topic for schools.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Police Officer (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Better coordination could improve our on-the-ground impact.
  • Reducing fentanyl on the streets should be our top priority.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 2

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $62000000 (Low: $52000000, High: $72000000)

Year 3: $64000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $74000000)

Year 5: $68000000 (Low: $58000000, High: $78000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations