The Effect of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on Crime

Over the last decade there has been a substantial increase in opioid use and abuse in the United States. In response to this opioid epidemic, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been implemented in 49 states. These programs collect, monitor and analyze opioid data with the goal of preventing the abuse and diversion of controlled substances and they have generally been found to be effective in reducing opioid prescriptions and opioid related deaths with the unintended consequence of increased time burdens placed on doctors and preliminary evidence of increase in heroin usage. This paper contributes to the literature of the effects of PDMP on societal outcomes beyond drug consumption and is the first to uncover evidence of the effects of PDMP laws on crime. Using data from the Uniform Crime Reports and a difference-in-difference empirical strategy, we exploit the variation in the timing of recent PDMP implementation on criminal activity. We find that PDMP laws do in-fact reduce crime, particularly property crime among men between the ages of 18 and 30. The recent implementation of PDMP decreased crime by approximately 4% and the more rigorous (“must access”) PDMP decreased crime by 7% among 18-30 year-old men. These findings remain robust to different specifications such as using monthly data or deleting outliers.

In terms of types of crime, when we disaggregate Type I crimes into violent and property crimes, we find that PDMPs particularly affect property crimes. PDMP implementation decreases property crimes among 18-30 year old men by 5.7% and this decrease is even larger in “must access” states, where men between the ages of 18 and 30 experience a 9.1% decrease in crime. This is consistent with prior literature that establishes a link between substance use and property crimes (Carpenter, 2007). It is also consistent with the thought that property crimes are the primary type of crime used to fund a drug habits (Silverman and Spruill, 1977; Manzoni et al 2006). While PDMPs do not significantly affect total violent crimes, studying violent offenses separately we find that they did decreases murder and manslaughter.

Taken together, our results contribute to an important societal debate about the efficacy of PDMPs. Even though PDMPs were not implemented as a tool to fight crime, we find that its implementation affected crime to an extent comparable to more controversial and costly policies, such as increasing the size of police force by approximately 10% (Evans and Owens 2007; Chalfin and McCrary 2007). Given that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the estimated reductions in crime associated with PDMPs represent sizable reductions in crime. Given the societal costs of crime in the U.S., the reductions in crime associated with PDMPs likely have had a considerable economic effect.

Overall, these results suggest an additional benefit of PDPM programs as an effective social policy that mitigates the negative consequences of opioid misuse and addiction and hence previous analysis of PDMP laws appreciably underestimate the full benefits of the program.