Association Between Restricted Abortion Access and Child Entries Into the Foster Care System.

Importance: The 2022 US Supreme Court decision Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections to abortion care, allowing many states to severely restrict or ban access to abortion. Given the implications of the Dobbs ruling, there is a need to understand the full consequences of restricted abortion access. Before 2022, many states restricted access to safe and legal abortions through Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which provide a historical mode for estimating the consequences of abortion restrictions. Objective: To use TRAP law enactment as a natural experiment to quantify the association between restricted abortion access and foster care entries. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, data on the enactment of TRAP laws and case-level data on foster care entries were used to estimate the association between restricted abortion access and foster care entries in each of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The sample included children conceived between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2011, who were placed into foster care at any point between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was performed from January 2023 to July 2023. Exposures: Restricted abortion access due to state-level TRAP laws during pregnancy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the number of children entering foster care in each state, measured by year of child conception. The analysis was performed using a generalized difference-in-differences design, comparing entries into foster care in states with TRAP laws to states without TRAP laws, before and after their implementation. Results: This study included 4 179 701 children who were placed into foster care during the study period, with 11 016 561 entries. More than half of the children were male (51.4%), and the mean (SD) age was 7.4 (5.2) years. There was an 11% increase in foster care placement after abortion access was restricted in states with TRAP laws, relative to states without TRAP laws (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.23]). These laws had significant consequences for Black children (IRR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.28]) and racial and ethnic minority children (IRR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.02-1.30]). The increase in entries due to TRAP laws was particularly attributable to housing inadequacy (IRR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.32]). Conclusions and Relevance: Restricted abortion access can have numerous consequences, and these findings reveal a heightened strain on the US foster care system, particularly affecting marginalized racial and ethnic communities and financially vulnerable families. These placements have been shown to have lifelong consequences for children and substantial costs for both states and the federal government. To further examine the widespread implications of the overturning of Roe v Wade, future studies should forecast the expected increase in foster care entries and estimate the expenditure needed to support these children.

Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

Trends in Filled Naloxone Prescriptions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

This cohort study analyzes the trends in filled naloxone prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and compare these to opioid prescriptions and overall prescriptions.