Provider and community stakeholder perspectives of expanding Medicaid coverage of abortion in Illinois.

BACKGROUND: Many people seeking abortion encounter financial difficulties that delay or prevent them from accessing care. Although some patients qualify for Medicaid (a public program that can help cover health care costs), laws in some states restrict the use of Medicaid for abortion care. In 2017, Illinois passed House Bill 40 (HB-40), which allowed patients with Medicaid to receive coverage for their abortion. This study aimed to understand how HB-40 affected abortion affordability from the perspectives of individuals that work directly or indirectly with abortion patients or facilities providing abortion care. METHODS: We conducted interviews with clinicians and administrators from facilities that provided abortion services; staff from organizations that provided resources to abortion providers or patients; and individuals at organizations involved in the passage and/or implementation of HB-40. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We created codes based on the interview guides, coded each transcript using the web application Dedoose, and summarized findings by code. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 38 participants. Participants reflected that HB-40 seemed to remove a significant financial barrier for Medicaid recipients and improve the experience for patients seeking abortion care. Participants also described how the law led to a shift in resource allocation, allowing financial support to be directed towards uninsured patients. Some participants thought HB-40 might contribute to a reduction in abortion stigma. Despite the perceived positive impacts of the law, participants noted a lack of public knowledge about HB-40, as well as confusing or cumbersome insurance-related processes, could diminish the law's impact. Participants also highlighted persisting barriers to abortion utilization for minors, recent and undocumented immigrants, and people residing in rural areas, even after the passage of HB-40. CONCLUSIONS: HB-40 was perceived to improve the affordability of abortion. However, participants identified additional obstacles to abortion care in Illinois that weakened the impact of HB-40 for patients and required further action, Findings suggest that policymakers must also consider how insurance coverage can be disrupted by other legal barriers for historically excluded populations and ensure clear information on Medicaid enrollment and abortion coverage is widely disseminated.

"We have to respect that option": The abortion aversion complex in safety-net healthcare organizations.

In July 2019, the Trump administration began implementing its domestic gag rule to ban discussion of abortion in pregnancy options counseling and ensure physical separation of contraceptive and abortion services at clinical sites funded by the federal government's Title X Family Planning program. In this paper, we examine how organizational policy utilization correlated with organization-level protocols for discussing abortion in options counseling interactions while the domestic gag rule policy was under legal contest. From April 2018 to July 2019, we conducted in-depth interviews with 50 administrators in charge of setting clinical protocols regarding options counseling after a positive pregnancy test at 20 Title X-covered and 14 non-Title X-covered safety-net healthcare organizations in Ohio. We found that organizational characteristics and Title X policy utilization did not explain the heterogeneity in approaches to abortion referral that administrators reported. Administrators from 2 of 20 organizations covered by Title X policy requirements pre-emptively restricted discussion of abortion in their facilities in advance of policy enactment. Meanwhile, administrators from 10 of 14 non-Title X-covered organizations did not restrict discussion of abortion. Our analysis demonstrates how safety-net healthcare organizations' response to federal policy is shaped by administrators' institutional entrepreneurship within the abortion aversion complex: a pattern of policy miscomprehension and endorsed abortion stigma that facilitates the structural stigmatization of abortion within safety-net healthcare organizations. We conclude that current efforts to reverse the domestic gag rule will fail unless local abortion aversion complexes are targeted with intervention.

Lessons learned: Illinois providers' perspectives on implementation of Medicaid coverage for abortion.

OBJECTIVE: On January 1, 2018, Illinois became the first Midwestern state to cover abortion care for Medicaid enrollees. This study describes state implementation of the policy, the impact on abortion providers, and lessons learned. STUDY DESIGN: We documented abortion providers' perspectives on the service delivery consequences of Medicaid coverage for abortion in Illinois. We conducted in-depth interviews with clinicians and administrators (N = 23) from 15 Illinois clinics, including clinics that provided other services and those primarily providing abortion. We conducted interviews in person or by phone between April and October 2019. They lasted ≤100 minutes, were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded in Dedoose. We developed code summaries to identify salient themes across interviews. RESULTS: All participants supported the law and expected benefits to patients. Many struggled to implement the policy because of difficulties obtaining certification to bill the state Medicaid program, confusing and cumbersome paperwork requirements, reimbursement delays, confusing claim denials, and uncertain protocols for Medicaid patients covered under the exceptions defined by the Hyde Amendment. Nearly all participants expressed concern that low reimbursement rates were insufficient to cover costs. Implementation was easier for multiservice clinics and those nested in larger institutions. Several clinics closed during implementation; one clinic opened. Clinics leveraged internal resources, external funding, and technical assistance to ensure that Medicaid enrollees could receive care without costs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Medicaid coverage for abortion requires proactive and responsive state institutions, improvements to reimbursement processes, and adequate reimbursement rates. In Illinois, successful implementation depended on clinic adaptability, external support, and advocacy. IMPLICATIONS: Our research suggests that successful, sustainable implementation of Medicaid coverage for abortion depends on state policies that allow clinics to enroll patients, process claims in 30 to 90 days, and receive reimbursements covering the cost of care. Without these measures, ensuring immediate patient access may depend upon clinics mobilizing resources and external transitional support.

Situating stigma in stratified reproduction: Abortion stigma and miscarriage stigma as barriers to reproductive healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether race and reported history of abortion are associated with abortion stigma and miscarriage stigma, both independently and comparatively. STUDY DESIGN: Self-administered surveys with 306 new mothers in Boston and Cincinnati, United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Abortion stigma perception (ASP); miscarriage stigma perception (MSP); and comparative stigma perception (CSP: abortion stigma perception net of miscarriage stigma perception). RESULTS: Regardless of whether or not they reported having an abortion, white women perceived abortion (ASP) to be more stigmatizing than Black and Latina women. Perceptions of miscarriage stigma (MSP), on the other hand, were dependent on reporting an abortion. Among those who reported an abortion, Black women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than white women, but these responses were flipped for women who did not report abortion. Reporting abortion also influenced our comparative measure (CSP). Among those who did report an abortion, white women perceived more stigma from abortion than miscarriage, while Black and Latina women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than abortion. CONCLUSIONS: By measuring abortion stigma in comparison to miscarriage stigma, we can reach a more nuanced understanding of how perceptions of reproductive stigmas are stratified by race and reported reproductive history. Clinicians should be aware that reproductive stigmas do not similarly affect all groups. Stigma from specific reproductive outcomes is more or less salient dependent upon a woman's social position and lived experience.

Reproductive Life Plan Counseling and Effective Contraceptive Use among Urban Women Utilizing Title X Services.

BACKGROUND: Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs recommend inclusion of reproductive life plan counseling (RLPC) in all well-woman health care visits, no studies have examined the effect of RLPC sessions on the decision to use effective contraception at publicly funded family planning sites. RLPC could be a particularly impactful intervention for disadvantaged social groups who are less likely to use the most effective contraceptive methods. METHODS: Using data from 771 nonpregnant, non-pregnancy-seeking women receiving gynecological services in the Cincinnati-Hamilton County Reproductive Health and Wellness Program, multinomial logistic regression models compared users of nonmedical/no method with users of 1) the pill, patch, or ring, 2) depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, and 3) long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). The effect of RLPC on the use of each form of contraception, and whether it mediated the effect of race/ethnicity and education on contraceptive use, was examined while controlling for age, insurance status, and birth history. The interaction between RLPC and race/ethnicity and the interaction between RLPC and educational attainment was also assessed. FINDINGS: RLPC was not associated with contraceptive use. The data suggested that RLPC may increase LARC use over nonmedical/no method use. RLPC did not mediate or moderate the effect of race/ethnicity or educational attainment on contraceptive use in any comparison. CONCLUSIONS: In this system of publicly funded family planning clinics, RLPC seems not to encourage effective method use, providing no support for the efficacy of the RLPC intervention. The results suggest that this intervention requires further development and evaluation.