Syringe services programs (SSPs) have been a key part of efforts to address the overdose crisis in the United States. However, some states are now reconsidering their support for these programs. Idaho ended its authorization for SSPs in 2024, and West Virginia is currently considering similar action with HB 4413. Some local governments in California and Colorado have also attempted to ban SSPs, while areas in Washington and Oregon have imposed new restrictions that make it harder for these organizations to function.
SSPs distribute sterile injection equipment to reduce needle sharing among people who inject drugs, which helps prevent the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. These organizations also provide on-site testing for HIV and hepatitis C, education about disease prevention, and connections to further care. According to research, SSPs can lower the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C by about half in both rural and urban settings.
Beyond disease prevention, as of 2019, most SSPs in the U.S. also offer resources aimed at reducing overdose deaths. They train clients to recognize and respond to overdoses—including teaching rescue breathing—and distribute naloxone, an overdose-reversal medication. Many programs also supply drug-checking services so users can test substances for contaminants such as fentanyl or xylazine.
In addition to providing direct health benefits, SSPs often serve as a bridge connecting clients with long-term treatment options for substance use disorder. “Trust can help reduce stigma and improve engagement with the healthcare system,” according to advocates. Data suggests participants in these programs are five times more likely to enter treatment compared to non-participants.
SSPs also contribute to public safety by collecting used syringes, offering safe disposal tools, and organizing community clean-ups. Participants tend to dispose of syringes properly more often than those not involved with SSPs. The presence of an SSP can decrease syringe litter in neighborhoods where demand exists.
Financially, SSPs offer significant savings by preventing expensive medical treatments associated with diseases like HIV. Studies show that every dollar invested saves between $6 and $7 solely through avoided HIV treatment costs; even greater savings occur when factoring other health outcomes such as opioid overdose deaths.
Restrictions or bans on SSPs may lead to negative consequences for communities. For example, stricter rules on existing programs in West Virginia contributed to past outbreaks of HIV linked to injection drug use. Modeling from Scott County, Indiana indicated that closing an SSP could cause new HIV cases to rise by 60 percent within five years compared with keeping the program open.
Similarly, when Pueblo, Colorado banned its local SSP program, naloxone distribution fell immediately—raising concerns about increased risk of fatal overdoses—and trust within the community suffered even after the ban was reversed.
“Lawmakers who want to reduce illicit substance use and associated harms should authorize SSPs to operate and support flexible policies that allow them to adapt to local needs,” experts state.
###
