Perspectives of internal medicine physicians regarding medication abortion provision in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand medication abortion attitudes and interest in future provision among Internal Medicine primary care providers (IM PCPs), and to characterize barriers to provision. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a survey with IM attendings and trainees at a large academic medical center in Western Pennsylvania. We used descriptive statistics to characterize attitudes towards medication abortion provision, including the belief that it is within their scope of practice and interest in future provision, and to explore perceived barriers to provision. We used logistic regression models to assess factors associated with each of these attitudes. RESULTS: Of 397 eligible attendings and trainees, 121 (30%) completed the survey. Among those surveyed, 44% believed medication abortion is within the scope of practice of IM PCPs with trainees and female-identifying providers being significantly more likely to believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice compared to attending physicians and male physicians (60% vs 30%, p < 0.01 and 53% vs 31%, p = 0.01, respectively). Similarly, 43% endorsed interest in future provision, with trainees (67% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and female providers (54% vs 27%, p = 0.002) being more likely to express interest. The most cited barriers to provision included limited training in residency (70%) and low familiarity with abortion medications (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Many IM providers- particularly trainees- believe medication abortion is within their scope of practice and would like to provide this care. Interventions are needed to provide education and assistance complying with state and federal regulations to enable safe and efficient medication abortion provision by IM providers. IMPLICATIONS: IM departments and residency programs should seek to ensure training is offered to clinicians interested in providing medication abortion as a part of their primary care practice.

The legal and medical necessity of abortion care amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, states have ordered the cessation of non-essential healthcare. Unfortunately, many conservative states have sought to capitalize on those orders to halt abortion care. In this short paper, we argue that abortion should not fall under any state's non-essential healthcare order. Major medical organizations recognize that abortion is essential healthcare that must be provided even in a pandemic, and the law recognizes abortion as a time-sensitive constitutional right. Finally, we examine the constitutional arguments as to why enforcing these orders against abortion providers should not stand constitutional scrutiny. We conclude that no public health purpose can be served by this application because abortion uses less scarce resources and involves fewer contacts with healthcare professionals than prenatal care and delivery assistance, which is continuing to be provided in this public health emergency.