The Role of Publicly Funded Family Planning Sites In Health Insurance Enrollment.

CONTEXT: Publicly funded family planning providers are well positioned to help uninsured individuals learn about health insurance coverage options and effectively navigate the enrollment process. Understanding how these providers are engaged in enrollment assistance and the challenges they face in providing assistance is important for maximizing their role in health insurance outreach and enrollment. METHODS: In 2014, some 684 sites participating in California's family planning program were surveyed about their involvement in helping clients enroll in health insurance. Weighted univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine enrollment activities and perceived barriers to facilitating enrollment by site characteristics. RESULTS: Most family planning program sites provided eligibility screening (68%), enrollment education (77%), on-site enrollment assistance (55%) and referrals for off-site enrollment support (91%). The proportion of sites offering each type of assistance was highest among community clinics (83-96%), primary care and multispecialty sites (65-95%), Title X-funded sites (72-98%), sites with contracts to provide primary care services (64-93%) and sites using only electronic health records (66-94%). Commonly identified barriers to providing assistance were lack of staff time (reported by 52% of sites), lack of funding (47%), lack of physical space (34%) and lack of staff knowledge (33%); only 20% of sites received funding to support enrollment activities. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were significant variations among them, publicly funded family planning providers in California are actively engaged in health insurance enrollment. Supporting their vital role in enrollment could help in the achievement of universal health insurance coverage.

Implementation in Practice: Adaptations to Sexuality Education Curricula in California.

BACKGROUND: Local implementation of evidence-based curricula, including sex education, has received increasing attention. Although there are expectations that practitioners will implement evidence-based programs with fidelity, little is known regarding the experiences of instructors in meeting such standards. During 2005 to 2009, the California Department of Public Health funded local agencies through its Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs (TPP) to provide comprehensive sex education. METHODS: To improve understanding of how agencies implemented curricula, in-depth telephone interviews with 128 coordinators were conducted in 2008 to 2009. Qualitative data were analyzed for content and themes. Selected data were quantified and analyzed to examine differences in curriculum adaptations across settings and curricula type. RESULTS: Whereas over half of the TPP agencies (59%) implemented evidence-based curricula, most agencies (95%) reported adapting the curriculum, with the majority (83%) adding content. Reasons for adaptations included ensuring that the material was accurate and appropriate; responding to logistical or time constraints; and other factors, such as parental and institutional support. CONCLUSION: These adaptations reflected agencies' efforts to balance state and local requirements, maintain curriculum fidelity, and provide more up-to-date and accessible information. These experiences highlight the need for guidelines that enable appropriate adaptations, while maintaining fidelity to the core components of the original curriculum.

Factors influencing the provision of long-acting reversible contraception in California.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) beliefs and practices among site directors who represent the family planning services delivered in their practices. METHODS: Medical directors from 1,000 sites listed in the Family Planning Access Care and Treatment program (California's family planning Medicaid program) provider database were mailed a survey in the fall of 2011 regarding their LARC beliefs and practices. Participants responded by mail, online, or telephone. Data on family planning clients served and LARC dispensing were obtained from administrative claims data. All analyses were limited to advanced practice clinician respondents. General estimating equation models identified the respondent and practice characteristics associated with LARC provision. RESULTS: After three follow-up mailings and telephone calls, 68% of eligible sites responded to the survey (636/939). Most respondents were physicians (448/587). They were most likely to consider women with a history of pelvic inflammatory disease unsuitable for hormonal (27%, n=161) and copper (26%, n=154) intrauterine devices. Smokers were the most likely to be considered unsuitable for the implant (16%, n=96). Nearly three fourths of respondents routinely discussed intrauterine devices (413/561) and half (271/558) discussed implants with their contraceptive patients. Characteristics that predicted onsite LARC provision included LARC training, beliefs, and health care provider type. CONCLUSION: Although there has been significant progress in expanding access and understanding about LARC, many clinicians from sites offering family planning services held beliefs limiting the provision of intrauterine devices and were unfamiliar with the implant, suggesting the need for targeted trainings aimed at informing clinicians of recent developments in LARC recommendations.

Cost-savings from the provision of specific contraceptive methods in 2009.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that contraceptive provision generates significant public sector cost-savings by preventing health care and social service expenditures on unintended pregnancies. Over the past decade, women's contraceptive options have expanded considerably, calling for the need to better understand the relative cost-benefit of new contraceptive methods. METHODS: We estimated the number of pregnancies averted by each specific contraceptive method by subtracting the total number of pregnancies expected under Family PACT from the total number of pregnancies that would be expected if the program were not available. The cost of providing each method was compared with the savings in reduced public expenditures from averted pregnancies. A resultant cost-benefit ratio was calculated for 11 specific contraceptive methods provided to women under Family PACT. RESULTS: Every contraceptive method studied saved more in public expenditures for unintended pregnancy than it costs to provide. Over half (51%) of the pregnancies averted in 2009 were attributable to the most commonly used method, oral contraceptives. Injectable methods accounted for 13% of averted pregnancies, followed by intrauterine contraceptives (12%), and barrier methods (9%). Intrauterine contraception and contraceptive implants had the highest cost-savings with approximately $5.00 of savings for every dollar spent for users of these methods. CONCLUSIONS: Because no single method is recommended clinically for every woman, it is medically and fiscally advisable to offer women all contraceptive methods to enable them to choose methods that best meet their needs, increasing the likelihood of compliance with the method chosen and prevention of unintended pregnancies.