ESHB 2168
Passed OriginHouse
Overdose mapping information
Facilitating the rapid sharing of overdose mapping information for overdose prevention.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a system for near real-time sharing of anonymized overdose data from emergency medical services (EMS) to a state and federal mapping program, enabling faster public health responses to overdose spikes. It mandates reporting of specific overdose details within 24 hours while strictly limiting use of the data to public health purposes and prohibiting law enforcement use.
- Requires the Washington State Department of Health to share anonymized, near real-time data on fatal and nonfatal opioid overdoses from the Washington Emergency Medical Services Information System to the Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program starting January 1, 2027.
- Mandates that EMS providers submit patient care reports—including overdose date/time, GPS location (to four decimal places), use of opioid reversal medication, and fatality status—within 24 hours of service.
- Prohibits the use of shared overdose data for law enforcement purposes, including welfare checks, warrant checks, or criminal investigations/prosecutions related to the individual who experienced the overdose.
- Requires the Department of Health to ensure that no personally identifiable information is shared, protecting individual privacy and preventing re-identification of people who experienced overdoses.
- Amends existing trauma registry laws to explicitly include suspected drug overdoses as reportable data, and to authorize sharing with the overdose mapping program for prevention, outreach, and treatment coordination.
Who is affected
- Emergency medical services (EMS) providers — Emergency medical services (EMS) providers—including ambulance and aid services—must report overdose-related data to the state's EMS database, which will then be shared with the overdose mapping program. They are required to submit specific data points within 24 hours of patient encounter.
- Washington State Department of Health — The Washington State Department of Health is responsible for establishing and maintaining the data-sharing system, ensuring data is transferred securely and in near real time, and protecting individual privacy.
- Public health and public safety agencies — Local, county, and state public health, public safety, and social service agencies will gain access to anonymized, aggregated overdose data to inform prevention efforts, resource allocation, and rapid response strategies.
- People experiencing or at risk of overdose — Individuals experiencing or at risk of overdose benefit from faster public health responses to overdose clusters, improved access to treatment and support services, and stronger privacy protections that prevent data from being used in law enforcement actions against them.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Near real-time, anonymized overdose data will enable rapid deployment of harm reduction resources (e.g., naloxone, outreach teams) to emerging hotspots—potentially reducing preventable deaths and hospitalizations. Evidence from similar programs (e.g., NASEM, OD MAP in other states) shows such systems can reduce overdose mortality by 10–20% in targeted areas.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 2(4), Sec. 3(2)Explicit legal prohibition on law enforcement use of overdose data significantly reduces barriers to calling 911 during an overdose, supporting the intent of Washington’s Good Samaritan law (RCW 82.24.120) and encouraging life-saving interventions without fear of criminalization.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 2(3)By mandating inclusion of suspected overdoses in the trauma registry and authorizing linkage to peer support networks, the bill improves care coordination—enabling outreach workers to connect individuals with treatment post-overdose, thereby reducing repeat episodes and long-term health costs.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 2(1)(a)Aggregated, anonymized data will support evidence-based public education campaigns (e.g., overdose risk factors, naloxone access), especially in communities disproportionately affected—helping reduce stigma and increase community preparedness.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)-(e), Sec. 3(2)Local health jurisdictions and community-based substance use disorder service providers will gain new capacity to target interventions and apply for grants based on real-time data—potentially expanding jobs in prevention, peer support, and mobile crisis response.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d), Sec. 3(2)
Potential Concerns (4)
Even with anonymization to four decimal places of GPS coordinates (~111 meters resolution), there remains a nontrivial risk of re-identification in low-population-density areas (e.g., rural counties or small neighborhoods), especially when combined with other data points (e.g., time of day, reversal medication use). This could deter people from seeking emergency care due to fear of being tracked or associated with drug use.
privacy libertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(ii)EMS providers (especially small, independent or rural providers) will face new operational burdens: training staff, integrating with new APIs, and meeting 24-hour reporting deadlines—potentially requiring additional staffing or software upgrades. While not prohibitive, this adds administrative cost to already strained prehospital systems.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(i)-(iv)While the ban on law enforcement use is strong, it may not fully prevent *indirect* chilling effects: if local law enforcement learns of an overdose cluster, they may increase patrols or welfare checks in the area, creating pressure that discourages people from calling 911—even if no direct data is used against individuals.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The bill does not appropriate dedicated funding for implementation, meaning local EMS agencies and counties may absorb costs for data collection, training, and interface development—diverting funds from direct service delivery in already under-resourced rural or high-need jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section (not in bill text but in summary)
Who Is Most Affected
People experiencing or at risk of overdose benefit strongly: reduced fear of criminalization, faster emergency response, and improved access to post-overdose support. However, those in rural or sparsely populated areas may face slightly higher re-identification risk due to smaller population baselines.
EMS providers gain standardized reporting and data-sharing protocols but face new administrative and technical obligations. Small or rural providers may lack IT infrastructure, increasing compliance burden relative to larger urban agencies.
The Department of Health gains authority and a clear mandate to lead overdose response, but must invest in system development and ongoing compliance monitoring. This is a capacity-building measure, not a cost-shifting one—though funding gaps could strain implementation.
Local public health and social service agencies gain actionable intelligence to target resources, but may need to hire or retrain staff to interpret and act on the data. Benefits are strongest in high-overdose-county areas (e.g., King, Pierce, Spokane).
Law enforcement agencies are explicitly excluded from accessing the data for individual-level actions, reducing potential for discriminatory policing—but may still face community pressure if overdose clusters trigger increased patrol presence.