OxyContin's Reformulation Linked to Rising Suicides by Children
The study is one of several documenting the perverse impact of an intervention aimed at reducing substance abuse.

In 2010, Purdue Pharma replaced the original version of OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone pill, with a reformulated product that was much harder to crush for snorting or injection. The idea was to deter nonmedical use, and the hope was that the reformulation would reduce addiction and opioid-related deaths. That is not how things worked out.
The reformulation of OxyContin was instead associated with an increase in deaths involving illicit opioids and, ultimately, an overall increase in fatal drug overdoses. Researchers identified that pattern by looking at the relationship between pre-2010 rates of OxyContin misuse, as measured by surveys, and subsequent overdose trends. They found that death rates rose fastest in states where reformulation would have had the biggest impact. A new study by RAND Corporation senior economist David Powell extends those findings by showing that the reformulation of OxyContin also was associated with rising suicides among children and teenagers.
The root cause of such perverse effects was the substitution that occurred after the old version of OxyContin was retired. Nonmedical users turned to black-market alternatives that were more dangerous because their potency was highly variable and unpredictable—a hazard that was compounded by the emergence of illicit fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute. The fallout from the reformulation of OxyContin is one example of a broader tendency: Interventions aimed at reducing the harm caused by substance abuse frequently have the opposite effect.
From 1988 to 2010, Powell notes in the journal Demography, the suicide rate among 10-to-17-year-olds fell by 36 percent. That drop was "followed by eight consecutive years of increases—resulting in an 83% increase in child suicide rates." Based on interstate differences in nonmedical use of OxyContin prior to 2010, Powell estimates that "the reformulation of OxyContin can explain 49% of the rise in child suicides."
Since "the evidence suggests that children's illicit opioid use did not increase," Powell says, it looks like "the illicit opioid crisis engendered higher suicide propensities by increasing suicidal risk factors for children," such as child neglect and "alter[ed] household living arrangements." He notes a prior study that found "states more
affected by reformulation experienced faster growth in rates of child physical abuse
and neglect starting in 2011." And he suggests the suicide rate may also have been boosted by "parental death and incarceration" associated with the shift from legally produced pharmaceuticals to illicit drugs.
"Areas more impacted by the transition to illicit opioids due to higher rates of previous OxyContin misuse showed sharper growth in child suicide rates," Powell said in a press release. "The results are consistent with the growth in illicit opioid use among the adult population generating worsening conditions for children by increasing rates of child neglect."
This study is one of several documenting the unintended effects of OxyContin's reformulation. In a 2021 American Journal of Health Economics article, Powell and University of Southern California economist Rosalie Liccardo Pacula noted that the intervention was immediately followed by an increase in heroin-related deaths, a trend that was especially pronounced in states with relatively high pre-2010 rates of OxyContin misuse. In subsequent years, they found, "reformulation stimulated illicit drug markets to grow and evolve," ultimately resulting in more fentanyl-related deaths.
"More exposed areas experienced disproportionate increases in fatal overdoses involving synthetic opioids (fentanyl) and nonopioid substances like cocaine, suggesting that these new epidemics are related to the same factors driving the rise in heroin deaths," Powell and Pacula wrote. "Instead of just short-term substitution from prescription opioid to heroin overdoses, the transition to illicit markets spurred by reformulation led to growth in the overall overdose rate to unprecedented levels."
The eventual impact of that transition was dramatic. "We estimate that reformulation increased the 2013 overdose rate by 1.7 overdoses per 100,000 people, a 14 percent increase relative to the counterfactual," Powell and Pacula wrote. "However, by 2017, our estimates imply that reformulation increased overdose rates by over 11.6 overdoses per 100,000 people, more than a 100 percent increase relative to our counterfactual."
What about the expectation that reformulating OxyContin would ultimately reduce opioid abuse? "The potential benefits of reformulation include reductions in the propensity of beginning to misuse opioids," Powell and Pacula noted. "However, there is little empirical evidence that such reductions are having a meaningful impact on overdose rates. The relationship between exposure to reformulation and overdose rates has strengthened over time. In addition, initial substance use treatment admissions are also increasing faster in states more exposed to reformulation, suggesting that initiation rates are still not declining in response."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What the study author and Sullum neglect to mention is that this shows how powerful government is, and that is the proper result: Mission Accomplished. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Why do we have to wait for the roll-back of the drug war before we at least try some kind of intervention into opioid deaths?
Republicans prefer to demonize drug addicts and Democrats cower in fear of being accused of being soft on drugs.
Ahh. Explains the death increases from OD in Portland. It is all politics. Never the users fault.
Yes. Drug prohibition which is government coercion makes using drugs less safe.
Drugs are inherently unsafe. Addicts will trade safety for price. See crack epidemic. Worse drug. Just as illegal. Bigger high. Cheaper.
The narrative is just that.
So is sugar. It can make you obese and diabetic not to mention the many complications of both conditions. Our monkey brains make us love the taste to a point where it can be considered an addiction and it's a damned hard habit to break.
But sugar is legal and people who are destroying themselves on sugar can seek medical help and their insurance will cover much of the costs of seeking weight management assistance.
Some drugs being illegal creates thousands of unintended consequences which are often far worse than doing the actual drugs. Getting clean is hard to do when most insurance companies wont cover the injuries sustained while committing crimes. That is the, admittedly ham handed, message of this article. I suspect brevity would have improved the message.
I’d say covering up the fact that your son smuggled cocaine into the White House isn’t exactly “cowering in fear.”
That was probably accurate like 20 years ago.
I think we did that and it didn't make anything better.
Not that those were the best or only possible interventions. But making relatively safer drugs less convenient to use doesn't seem to be the answer. Letting people live in filth and openly get high on the street doesn't seem to be working either.
Or we could legalize all drugs (not decriminalize as that still leaves the black market; and not tax the shit out of legal drugs either, as the black market would still exist), enforce property rights, and prosecute violent crime. You know, the libertarian position.
Portland decriminalized drugs (not legalize), practically abandoned any enforcement of property rights, and excuses violent crimes, in effect. That is a cocktail of actions that all but ensures worse outcomes.
What does government have to do with this? Do you seriously think any company would not voluntarily take steps to prevent recreational use of their addictive and dangerous pain killers by children?
This is like when Woke-uh-cola replaced sugar with HFCS.
Not in México. And today you can buy Mexican Coca-Cola with real sugar in NYC Bodegas. In glass bottles!
it's bo-ge-dah. ask Jill.
Some folks may not want to travel outside the US all the way to NY. Perhaps the original Oxy is still available at select speakeasies.
You can also get it at Sam's club, at least in Texas. A bit more expensive due to the glass bottles, but completely worth it.
Wow you can buy Mexican Coca Cola in NYC! Yeah, we have that in bumfuck North Carolina too. Get over yourself.
Since “the evidence suggests that children’s illicit opioid use did not increase,” Powell says, it looks like “the illicit opioid crisis engendered higher suicide propensities by increasing suicidal risk factors for children,” such as child neglect and “alter[ed] household living arrangements.” He notes a prior study that found “states more affected by reformulation experienced faster growth in rates of child physical abuse and neglect starting in 2011.” And he suggests the suicide rate may also have been boosted by “parental death and incarceration” associated with the shift from legally produced pharmaceuticals to illicit drugs.
Whoa… ok… so… back in the 80s, I was told that “all Domestic violence was Reagan’s fault, because the #1 issue that sparks domestic violence is [issues over] family finances.”
Thus, because of Reagan’s economic policies driving the working class deeper into poverty, all domestic violence can be laid at Reagan’s feet.
In the Reason/progressive world, people have no agency or moral responsibility. According to these collectivists, we're all just statistics, responding to reward, punishment, and indoctriation.
Maybe i read this wrong, but summarizing seems to say people will abuse drugs in any manner they can. Not sure i blame regulators or pharma for this specific behavior. When the high got less they turned to other avenues to get high. But this exists nominally any person who abuses drugs. Opioid users turn to heroin and fentanyl, as mentioned. But the study doesn't say they wouldn't have even without regulations or drug changes.
It is a self agency issue to be. The abuser of the drugs remains responsible.
This study has a very, very dark undertone. It suggests no one anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances has any agency. That we are all just pieces on a checkers board, being slid from square to square by every byzantine government policy.
By definition an addict has lost control and agency. It is a big problem.
Explains all those addicts in recovery...
If they're in recovery are they addicts?
Ask sarc.
Yes. Ask AA or NA.
Forever an addict
Yes. Talk to any recovering addict.
And what social-legal actions are you eager to justify with that problem?
By definition an addict has lost control and agency. It is a big problem.
No, that is incorrect. An addict often faces a choice between feeling pain and taking some action that harm to themselves or others. It may be a choice we can sympathize with, but it is a deliberate choice they make. Addicts have agency and are in possession of their mental faculties, even if they may be diminished.
However, while usually not having lost their agency, they may have lost their legal competency and may need to be treated as such.
An addict has to do something to get money, then find a pusher and buy his drug. He has agency, and is applying it in a destructive way.
Well I don't think it is quite that dark.
I do think it means that any approach to seriously legalize all drugs ought to consider the effects of addiction.
The social welfare state has its solution with 'harm reduction' strategies and more social safety net spending. If we libertarians don't like that, we ought to propose our own ideas.
Prohibit government coercion?
That is fine. But if we go with Diane/Paul's premise, then those individuals who are addicts have lost their agency. What happens to them?
The same thing we do with anybody who has lost their agency: we assign them legal guardians. If there are no legal guardians, we let charity take care of them. If no charity takes care of them, they become institutionalized by the state.
What we don't do is pretend that they still have agency, let them roam around the street, and don't punish them for crimes. That's neither good "for society" nor for the addicts.
You didn’t want people who didn’t take the jab to be allowed medical care, but you want to give money to junkies to make their lives easier?
And this is my fundamental issue with Jeff. He wants to subsidize bad choices and failure while declaring subsidies libertarian.
He takes from one and gives to another despite oppositional choices. He sees government as a way to pay for bad choices.
He wants to subsidize bad choices and failure while declaring subsidies libertarian.
Government subsidies? Or subsidization via private charity?
Should drug addicts get some help from some source? Or are they just condemned to die in the gutter because they made poor moral choices?
Using private charity as a weapon of moral condemnation is social conservatism, not libertarianism.
You didn’t want people who didn’t take the jab to be allowed medical care,
That was JFree (I think), not me.
but you want to give money to junkies to make their lives easier?
In the form of voluntary charities? To an extent yes. Don't you?
I don’t care what individuals do with their own money.
The social welfare state has its solution with ‘harm reduction’ strategies and more social safety net spending.
Empirically, the social welfare state does no such thing, and it's not difficult to see why: the people running the social welfare state gain more wealth and power by putting more people into misery and poverty.
"we libertarians" LOL
I think the main reason people switch from pills to heroin is because it costs less. So, yeah, at least some people would switch to illicit stuff anyway. Fentanyl I think is mostly an economic phenomenon. I don't think anyone would choose it over heroin if price or availability wasn't a concern. It has taken over because it is cheap and convenient to transport since it's so potent.
Yes, drug abusers are responsible for their actions. But those who criminalize some drugs are responsible for the consequences of eliminating legal ways for the user to seek help in breaking the cycle of addiction. Booze is legal so all sorts of programs are available to help get that particular monkey off your back. Tobacco is legal and again many programs available to help you quit.
Programs to help get you clean from illegal drugs are not so plentiful and most insurance won't cover the programs or medicines to help addicts recover.
Again, unintended consequences of hopefully well meaning folks.
"OxyContin's Reformulation Linked to Rising Suicides by Children"
Awesome, "suicides" for everyone. Libertarian choice at it's finest. Much more please.
Choices!
Name approved.
Oh look, it's someone who hates me and can't discuss issues honestly. My guess is it's one of ML's or R Mac's alts.
Yeah, I think it’s outrageous!
Chemjeff kiddie-diddler, would have been better.
chemjeff child castrator, chemjeff criminal childslayer, chemjeff fascist manipulator, chemjeff euthanasia fetishist...
Not me, but I do indeed hate you...
but then again so does literally everyone else, so you've got a couple of hundred people to choose from.
Needs moar gish gallop.
Children should be allowed to kill themselves with the approval of their parents. /Jeffy
What it really is; is social engineering another drug war.
Less than 1 per 100,000 is hardly a mass-hysteria 'issue'.
It would be nice if media and the government could tone down their OCD.
>>From 1988 to 2010 ... the suicide rate among 10-to-17-year-olds fell by 36 percent ... "followed by eight consecutive years of increases—resulting in an 83% increase in child suicide rates."
clearly Obama's fault.
2012 IG was bought by Facebook. I can apparently correlate that as well.
2010 was the final shitty season of Lost. Drove people to depression.
https://bestlifeonline.com/2010-events/
Ironically also the first pandemic trial run.
lolz
"OxyContin's Reformulation Linked to Rising Suicides by Children"
Or
Federal drug policies Linked to Rising Suicides by Children
I prefer government not be responsible for the choices an individual makes themselves.
Truth.
When the government places obstacles for getting help dealing with the consequences of those bad choices then we have a problem.
Almost every insurance policy will not pay for treatment of a condition resulting from illegal activities. Those drugs being illegal means out of pocket for all expenses of getting clean. That is a serious impediment to recovery.
WTF?
Making a legal medication harder to misuse leads to more suicide, but only because people eager for a high experimented with illegal substitutes? Or do you just hate Purdue Pharma?
You know what else increases teen suicides (and clinical anxiety and depression)? Leftist apocalyptic politics. See the documented higher mental health issues among liberal adults and their children.
Of course, the causation might go the other way, and people with mental health issues are more likely to become Democrats.
> Nonmedical users turned to black-market alternatives that were more dangerous because their potency was highly variable and unpredictable—a hazard that was compounded by the emergence of illicit fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute.
What the?!... unregulated markets are dangerous and harm people WHY I NEVER
The study is one of several documenting the perverse impact of an intervention aimed at reducing substance abuse.
Just when you think Reason's drug arguments couldn't get any more ludicrous, you prove us wrong.
FFS, manufacturers make it hard to crush and inject pain killers not just because it's the right thing to do, but because if they don't, the parents of those children will sue them for insufficient child protection. They would do this no matter what government regulatory regime we have for recreational drugs.
Give me my
gender affirming carepharmaceutical narcotics orImy children will commit suicide!Wait, let me make sure I have something straight.
The reformulation of a drug that's being abused, for the purpose of preventing its abuse, is at fault for leading to rising suicides (and child suicides at that, *fainting couch*) because those who seek to abuse it are frustrated by its reformulation and *checks notes* turning to illegal drugs for the explicit purpose of abusing them.
Just say, "I support addicts abusing the opioids."
It's what you ultimately mean.
Y'know, I had an airbag recall awhile back. They fixed it, and made corrections to prevent its potential for unintended harm. This is like you complaining about the recall because idiots go out and seek aftermarket steering columns because they're hoping for the unintended harm to happen.
Just say, “I support addicts abusing the opioids.”
Or at least, "Children are better off with happier addicts as parents."
To me it looks like someone decided that reformulated Oxycontin was the problem and did all kinds of mental gymnastics to "prove" it.
Well, with stories like this, I'm quite happy to not have donated to Reason. Sullum doesn't deserve a single penny for this garbage masquerading as news.
""YOU MURDERED MY DAUGHTER": RELATIVES OF OXYCONTIN VICTIMS CONFRONT THE SACKLERS"
I went back to the original scene of the crime and found proof that the Sacklers did indeed hold her daughter down and force an overdose of Oxycontin into her mouth, murdering her callously in the name of profits. Rumors to the contrary that her daughter was a drug addict abusing dangerous narcotics are false and misleading! They'll sue anyone who defames their innocent daughter and mocks her death!
https://addictionrecoveryebulletin.org/you-murdered-my-daughter-relatives-of-oxycontin-victims-confront-the-sacklers/
Yet another classic 'reason' strawman. The headline and the first part of the article try to make it sound like the deaths were among children who were legally prescribed the drug, but it turns out that the deaths were due to illegal users ("Nonmedical users turned to black-market alternatives that were more dangerous because their potency was highly variable and unpredictable) who then increased their abuse of children (""The results are consistent with the growth in illicit opioid use among the adult population generating worsening conditions for children by increasing rates of child neglect.")
Who exactly buys your donkey dreck?