Medicaid reimbursement program for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception improves uptake regardless of insurance status.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a Medicaid reimbursement program for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is associated with an increased rate of LARC uptake. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who delivered at a large, urban, tertiary medical center one year before and after Missouri Medicaid coverage changed to reimburse immediate postpartum LARC in October 2016. Patients were identified through the electronic medical record and excluded if they delivered prior to 24 weeks gestation or had a contraindication to immediate postpartum LARC. The primary outcome was placement of immediate postpartum LARC, which we examined overall and stratified by insurance type. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the impact of the policy change while adjusting for appropriate confounders. RESULTS: A total of 6,233 eligible patients delivered during the study period: 3105 before and 3128 after the change in reimbursement for immediate postpartum LARC. Patients delivering after the policy change were more likely to be Hispanic, have commercial insurance or be uninsured, and have a BMI >30. Placement of immediate postpartum LARC increased from 0.7% pre- to 9.7% postpolicy change (aOR 15.6; 95% CI 10.1-24.2). In our stratified analysis, immediate postpartum LARC uptake increased for patients with Medicaid (aOR 15.8; 95% CI 9.9-25.4) and commercial insurance (aOR 9.7; 95% CI 3.0-31.8). CONCLUSION: The change in Missouri Medicaid reimbursement for placement of immediate postpartum LARC had systemic impact with an increase in postpartum LARC uptake in all patients, regardless of insurance provider. IMPLICATIONS: Insurance reimbursement has the power to influence hospital policy and patient care. Overall, changes to Medicaid reimbursement increased access to postpartum LARC for all patients at a large academic institution, regardless of insurance status.

Differences in Financial and Social Burdens Experienced by Patients Traveling for Abortion Care.

OBJECTIVE: We compared perceived stress between women traveling 50 or fewer miles and more than 50 miles for abortion care. Secondary objectives were to compare individual-level stigma and hardship scores in patients by distance traveled to the clinic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients presenting for care at an independent abortion clinic in southern Illinois. Participants completed a self-administered, tablet computer-based survey asking about their experiences seeking abortion, including the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and Individual Level Abortion Stigma (ILAS) scale. We created a composite score to characterize patient hardship regarding abortion care (range, 0-4). We examined responses stratified by the patients' self-reported one-way distance traveled to the clinic (group 1, ≤50 miles; group 2, >50 miles). RESULTS: A total of 308 women completed the survey. There was no significant difference in mean PSS scores (p = .71) or median ILAS scores (p = .40) between groups. A majority of the cohort reported moderate or high stress (68.2%). The median hardship score was significantly higher in the greater than 50 mile group (median, 1 [interquartile range, 0-2] vs. 2 [interquartile range 1-3]; p < .001). Patients who traveled more than 50 miles reported difficulties related to missing work (58.3%), delays in obtaining an abortion owing to financial costs (35.7%), lodging (13.9%), and transportation (11.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in PSS or ILAS scores by distance traveled among patients seeking an abortion; however, patients who traveled more than 50 miles had a higher hardship score, suggesting greater difficulty accessing abortion. The most common difficulties encountered included missing time from work and financial costs associated with the abortion.

The association between state-level abortion restrictions and maternal mortality in the United States, 1995-2017.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study examining maternal mortality in the United States from 1995 to 2017. We used the Global Health Data Exchange and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER databases to extract maternal mortality data for all 50 states for each year from 1995 to 2017. We categorized states as restrictive, neutral, or protective of abortion access according to policy information published by the Guttmacher Institute. We assessed associations between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality ratios (maternal deaths per 100,000 live births). RESULTS: In 1995, the mean maternal mortality ratios were similar across all groups of states (Restrictive 12.6, 95% CI 11.4-13.6; Neutral 12.2, 95% CI 10.9-13.4; Protective 10.9, 95% CI 9.6-11.9). Maternal mortality ratios increased for each group of states over time and in 2017, the mean maternal mortality ratio was higher in restrictive states than in protective states (Restrictive 28.5, 95% CI 20.7-35.1; Neutral 22.9, 95% CI 16.1-28.6; Protective 15.7, 95% CI 10.7-19.9). Regressions accounting for policy, state and year showed a statistically significant increase in maternal mortality ratios in restrictive states relative to neutral states (1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) and a non-significant decrease associated with protective states (0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: States that restrict abortion have higher maternal mortality than states that either protect or are neutral towards abortion. Further investigation is needed to determine how abortion restrictions are associated with increased maternal mortality. IMPLICATIONS: The association between abortion restrictions and maternal mortality may reflect the overall legislative priorities of individual states as restrictive states are less likely to pass proactive legislation demonstrated to improve maternal outcomes.