Background/Objectives: Recent state legislation has sought to expand naloxone pharmacy distribution in order to reduce opioid-related harms. This study aimed to examine experts’ views on various state-level naloxone pharmacy access policies. Methods: We recruited a purposive sample of 46 key stakeholders (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with experience and expertise in naloxone pharmacy access policies to participate in an online Delphi process. We provided participants with a list of 15 state-level policies: five targeting naloxone prescribers/prescription, six targeting naloxone dispensers/distribution, and four targeting patients/individuals obtaining naloxone. In Round One, stakeholders in Panel A (n=24) rated the average effect of each policy (assuming it had been implemented as intended) on naloxone pharmacy distribution, opioid use disorder prevalence (OUD), nonfatal opioid overdoses, and opioid overdose mortality. Stakeholders in Panel B (n=22) rated the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. In Round Two, participants reviewed the Round One results and engaged in an anonymous, moderated, online discussion with other participants. In Round Three, participants revised their Round One responses in light of Round Two. We examined consensus on the effects of opioid-related outcomes (Panel A) and on implementation-related considerations (Panel B). Results: Experts rated three policies to yield a decrease on fatal overdose: Statewide Standing/Protocol Order, Over-the-Counter Pharmacy Supply, and Statewide “Free Naloxone”. Of these, experts rated only Statewide Standing/Protocol Order as high on all implementation criteria (i.e., high acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability). Experts perceived liability protections and required provision of education or training as having little-to-no effect on naloxone distribution. All policies had little-to-no change on prevalence of OUD and nonfatal overdose. All Naloxone Dispenser/Distribution policies had high acceptability, while all Naloxone Prescriber/Prescription policies had little-to-no change on fatal overdose. While only five policies (33%) have “high” equitability, no policy has “low” acceptability, feasibility, affordability, or equitability. Conclusion: The results of this study will help researchers better characterize naloxone policies and guide policymakers in making decisions about naloxone access. Analyses will inform an evidence-to-decision framework for policymakers in this area and will be used in future empirical work characterizing state-level opioid ecosystems.