If optimism alone was enough to solve the opioid epidemic in Massachusetts, it would appear the battle is almost won.

"I cannot express how important this legislation is to our Commonwealth and to the overall fight in combating the opioid crisis we currently face," state Rep. Harold Naughton Jr. said of the recently passed legislation in the Bay State. Adding to the hopefulness was Attorney General Maura Healy: "We have not seen, and we will not see a more comprehensive, thoughtful, game-changing piece of legislation in this entire country."

According to Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, this new set of laws related to opioid prescribing is "landmark legislation that will help the individuals and communities affected by the deadly opioid and heroin epidemic." And Gov. Charlie Baker summed up the optimistic endorsements of the regulations, which he signed into law on March 14, by calling them "the most comprehensive measure in the country to combat opioid addiction."

Like many other states across the country, Massachusetts has an opioid addiction and overdose problem, with estimates of up to four deaths every day resulting from misuse. How exactly we solve this problem has been an elusive conundrum for healthcare professionals and politicians alike. This new legislation is supposedly a big step in the right direction.

So what exactly does the new legislation accomplish?

First, it recommends no more than a seven-day supply of opioids be given to a patient when prescribed "for the first time." I say "recommends" because the language of the legislation allows a prescriber to issue a larger supply "if, in the prescriber's medical judgment, a greater supply is necessary."

The assumption behind this restriction must be that an excessive amount of opioids are being prescribed for initial, acute pain — which leads to addiction or diversion — when a smaller quantity would actually have been sufficient.

Next, the regulations allow patients to request a smaller quantity of a prescribed opioid without the need for the pharmacist to obtain the prescriber's approval. While the prescriber must still be notified after the fact, the patient can request the pharmacy reduce the amount dispensed, understanding that the balance is forfeited.

Again, this new measure appears to seek to reduce the pool of unused opiates sitting in medicine cabinets, which could potentially be inappropriately used for recreational purposes.

Some other portions of these "bold" new laws will ultimately require physicians to utilize the state prescription monitoring program (PMP) before prescribing an opiate. Schools will have to submit their substance abuse screening plans, and emergency rooms will be required to perform a substance abuse evaluation on patients admitted for opiate overdoses resulting in stays of 24 hours or more. These are just some of the measures that this new set of laws will now require.

So, given the abundant optimism and broad nature of the newly approved laws, can we expect to see fewer Massachusetts deaths related to opioid overdoses in the near future?

My somewhat less-than-optimistic response is "Sure, if you want to."

The problem with statistics about opioid overdoses and deaths is they vary widely depending on what you are looking at. For example, if the death also involved the use of alcohol or illegal drugs such as heroin, should the prescription opiate bear the blame? If the death was an intentional suicide because the patient wasn't receiving adequate pain relief, is the pain medication really to blame?

As a pharmacist working on the front lines of this issue, I think politicians avoid dealing with the most obvious solutions to the opiate addiction problem.

How about financially rewarding hospitals and physician practices that show a year-over-year reduction in opiate prescribing? The fact is it takes time, precious time, to sit and work with a patient on an addiction-related matter. It is much faster and easier to just keep writing the opiate.

Here is another bold move: How about requiring insurance companies to pay a fee to pharmacies who refuse to fill an opiate based on PMP data? Or increasing reimbursement fees to pharmacies who carefully avoid early refills of opiates? Or creating a payment for service option for pharmacists who take more time to counsel a patient on a plan to reduce their dependence on opiates?

How about requiring insurance companies to eliminate co-pays and cover without prior authorization a naloxone rescue kit? Or how about requiring such a kit for any patient receiving opiates above a specified quantity monthly?

Author James Branch Cabell once said, "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true." I don't know if the recent legislation in Massachusetts is a representation of the best that can be done politically to solve our opioid problem. I'm afraid it might be true.