Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5167

Bill Overview

Title: Temporary Emergency Scheduling and Testing of Fentanyl Analogues Act of 2022

Description: This bill (1) extends the temporary scheduling of fentanyl-related substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act for two years; (2) requires the Drug Enforcement Administration to submit synthetic compounds of fentanyl-related substances it has encountered thus far to the Food and Drug Administration for scientific and medical evaluations, if they have not yet been evaluated; and (3) provides for the removal and rescheduling of fentanyl-related substances from schedule I if certain criteria are met, as well as notifications about any such scheduling changes to individuals who were or are being prosecuted for offenses related to such substances.

Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

Target Audience

Population: People involved with fentanyl-related substances

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Substance Use Counselor (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe the policy won't directly help my clients unless it focuses on recovery options, not just regulation.
  • The DEA's evaluations could eventually improve treatment options, but it may take years.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Nurse Practitioner (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Scheduling might help reduce street availability, but medical support is still lacking.
  • Policy could complicate patient treatment if not coordinated with healthcare systems.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

DEA Agent (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy aligns well with current federal efforts to curb opioid distribution.
  • Scientific evaluations are essential for understanding how to handle these substances better.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Pharmaceutical Researcher (Boston, MA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Temporary scheduling affects research as approvals become bureaucratic.
  • Scientific evaluation could streamline future research, if done well.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 9 6

Fentanyl User (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't address my needs directly. I need access to recovery services.
  • Rescheduling might reduce illicit supplies, but support systems need improvement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Law Enforcement Officer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Helpful in reducing street crime, aligning resources to arrest distributors.
  • Focus must also be on rehabilitation to prevent repeat offenses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Health Policy Analyst (San Diego, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Temporary scheduling needs a follow-up policy that includes addiction treatment programs.
  • Evaluations are crucial for future policy formulation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Public Defender (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could lead to unnecessary prosecutions if transitional measures are unclear.
  • Rescheduling might improve legal clarity, benefitting defendants.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Emergency Room Doctor (Miami, FL)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Scheduling might decrease overdose numbers temporarily.
  • Long-term impact requires comprehensive drug treatment strategies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

University Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act is a step but needs to be part of a larger, more systemic solution.
  • The scientific evaluations could be crucial for future public health policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

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

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

Key Considerations