Provision of Contraception in New York City School-Based Health Centers: Impact on Teenage Pregnancy and Avoided Costs, 2008-2017.

CONTEXT: Since 2008, the School-Based Health Center Reproductive Health Project (SBHC RHP) has supported SBHCs in New York City (NYC) to increase the availability of effective contraception; however, its impact on teenage pregnancy and avoided costs has not been estimated. METHODS: The impact of the SBHC RHP on patterns of contraceptive use and on the numbers of pregnancies, abortions and births averted in 2008-2017 was estimated using program data and public data from the NYC Bureau of Vital Statistics and Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Data from the Guttmacher Institute on the cost of publicly funded births and abortions were used to estimate costs avoided; NYC-specific teenage pregnancy outcome data were employed to estimate the proportion of overall declines attributable to the SBHC RHP. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2017, the SBHC RHP supported a substantial increase in the proportion of sexually active female clients using effective contraceptives. Most dramatically, 14% of clients in the SBHC RHP method mix used LARCs in 2017, compared with 2% in the non-SBHC RHP mix. The project averted an estimated 5,376 pregnancies, 2,104 births and 3,085 abortions, leading to an estimated $30,360,352 in avoided one-time costs of publicly funded births and abortions. These averted events accounted for 26-28% of the decline in teenage pregnancies, births and abortions in NYC. CONCLUSIONS: When comprehensive reproductive health services are available in SBHCs, teenagers use them, resulting in substantially fewer pregnancies, abortions and births, and lower costs to public health systems.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency contraception options over 1 year.

BACKGROUND: The copper intrauterine device is the most effective form of emergency contraception and can also provide long-term contraception. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device has also been studied in combination with oral levonorgestrel for women seeking emergency contraception. However, intrauterine devices have higher up-front costs than oral methods, such as ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel. Health care payers and decision makers (eg, health care insurers, government programs) with financial constraints must determine if the increased effectiveness of intrauterine device emergency contraception methods are worth the additional costs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 emergency contraception strategies-ulipristal acetate, oral levonorgestrel, copper intrauterine device, and oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device-over 1 year from a US payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Costs (2017 US dollars) and pregnancies were estimated over 1 year using a Markov model of 1000 women seeking emergency contraception. Every 28-day cycle, the model estimated the predicted number of pregnancy outcomes (ie, live birth, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion) resulting from emergency contraception failure and subsequent contraception use. Model inputs were derived from published literature and national sources. An emergency contraception strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, the cost to prevent 1 additional pregnancy) was less than the weighted average cost of pregnancy outcomes in the United States ($5167). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probability of being the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy were calculated from 1000 probabilistic model iterations. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty in the cost of emergency contraception, subsequent contraception, and pregnancy outcomes as well as the model probabilities. RESULTS: In 1000 women seeking emergency contraception, the model estimated direct medical costs of $1,228,000 and 137 unintended pregnancies with ulipristal acetate, compared to $1,279,000 and 150 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel, $1,376,000 and 61 unintended pregnancies with copper intrauterine devices, and $1,558,000 and 63 unintended pregnancies with oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device was the most cost-effective emergency contraception strategy in the majority (63.9%) of model iterations and, compared to ulipristal acetate, cost $1957 per additional pregnancy prevented. Model estimates were most sensitive to changes in the cost of the copper intrauterine device (with higher copper intrauterine device costs, oral levonorgestrel plus same-day levonorgestrel intrauterine device became the most cost-effective option) and the cost of a live birth (with lower-cost births, ulipristal acetate became the most cost-effective option). When the proportion of obese women in the population increased, the copper intrauterine device became even more most cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Over 1 year, the copper intrauterine device is currently the most cost-effective emergency contraception option. Policy makers and health care insurance companies should consider the potential for long-term savings when women seeking emergency contraception can promptly obtain whatever contraceptive best meets their personal preferences and needs; this will require removing barriers and promoting access to intrauterine devices at emergency contraception visits.

Emergency Contraception.

Emergency contraception (EC) may help prevent pregnancy in various circumstances, such as contraceptive method failure, unprotected sexual intercourse, or sexual assault, yet it remains underused. There are 4 approved EC options in the United States. Although ulipristal acetate requires a provider's prescription, oral levonorgestrel (LNG) is available over the counter for women of all ages. The most effective method of EC is the copper intrauterine device, which can be left in place for up to 10 years for efficacious, cost-effective, hormone-free, and convenient long-term primary contraception. Ulipristal acetate tends to be more efficacious in pregnancy prevention than is LNG, especially when taken later than 72 hours postcoitus. The mechanism of action of oral EC is delay of ovulation, and current evidence reveals that it is ineffective postovulation. Women who weigh more than 75 kg or have a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2) may have a higher risk of unintended pregnancy when using oral LNG EC; therefore, ulipristal acetate or copper intrauterine devices are preferable in this setting. Providers are often unaware of the range of EC options or are unsure of how to counsel patients regarding the access and use of EC. This article critically reviews current EC literature, summarizes recommendations, and provides guidance for counseling women about EC. Useful tips for health care providers are provided, with a focus on special populations, including breast-feeding women and those transitioning to long-term contraception after EC use. When treating women of reproductive age, clinicians should be prepared to counsel them about EC options, provide EC appropriately, and, if needed, refer for EC in a timely manner.

Availability and Accuracy of Information Regarding Nonprescription Emergency Contraception.

BACKGROUND: Although access to emergency contraception (EC) has increased with nonprescription status and approval of Plan B One-Step without age restrictions, barriers may still remain in patient education. This study assesses product availability and accuracy of information for EC among community pharmacies in Rhode Island, comparing changes from 2009 to 2012. METHODS: Two female investigators posing as patients seeking EC followed a standardized script over telephone conversations. Investigators assessed EC availability, product use information, and cost at all community (retail) pharmacies in Rhode Island. Data were reported as group results with no identifiers. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to analyze results. RESULTS: During spring of 2009 and 2012, 165 and 171 pharmacies were telephoned, respectively. Approximately 90% of pharmacies stocked EC both years. In all, 62% versus 28% (P < .001) indicated EC should be taken as soon as possible; 82.5% versus 87.7% (P = .220) provided correct administration information; 67% versus 84% (P < .001) warned about adverse effects; and 67% versus 53% (P = .123) provided the correct minimum age for purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Access to nonprescription EC in Rhode Island is very good. Sites not stocking EC should reassess plans for patients to obtain medication. There is need for reeducation on EC labeling to improve counseling provided over the telephone.

Male access to emergency contraception in pharmacies: a mystery shopper survey.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy access to emergency contraception (EC) could involve men in pregnancy prevention. The objectives were to assess the availability and cost of EC. STUDY DESIGN: Male mystery shoppers visited 158 pharmacies in three neighborhoods in New York City. They asked for EC and its cost and noted weekend hours. RESULTS: Twenty-two (73.3%) of 30 pharmacies created barriers to get EC. The cost of EC was higher in the higher-socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhood (p<.001), and the higher-SES neighborhood pharmacies had a greater number of weekend hours (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, males had a 20% probability of not being able to access EC. The national dialogue should include males.

Effect of changes to cost and availability of emergency contraception on users' profiles in an emergency department in Catalunya.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency contraception (EC) accessibility has evolved differently in Catalunya as compared with other autonomous communities in Spain. Free-of-charge access within the Public Health System was authorised in 2004, and over-the-counter (OTC) access was implemented in 2009. The aim of the study is to assess the impact of these measures on demand and users' profiles at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective study, in our Emergency Department, was conducted to evaluate EC requests in relationship to accessibility modifications. The age of women and which days of the week they attended were analysed. RESULTS: The number of EC requests, the distribution by age and the demand over the week remained stable after access to EC became free of charge. However, requests sharply decreased following OTC access implementation. Distribution by age also changed, with a significant increase in requests from women under 25 years (72% vs 56%, p < 0.001). Demand was greatest on Sunday and Monday, and this distribution persisted over the study period. CONCLUSION: EC requests remained unchanged following free-of-charge access to EC, but decreased after OTC implementation. Women currently seeking EC at no cost at our institution are more likely to be younger and to request it on a Monday.

Emergency contraception - potential for women's health.

Emergency contraception (EC) is a safe and effective method which is used to prevent unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse. Many of the unwanted pregnancies end in unsafe abortions. The search for an ideal contraceptive, which does not interfere with spontaneity or pleasure of the sexual act, yet effectively controls the fertility, is still continuing. Numerous contraceptive techniques are available, yet contraceptive coverage continues to be poor in India. Thus, even when not planning for a pregnancy, exposure to unprotected sex takes place often, necessitating the use of emergency contraception. This need may also arise due to failure of contraceptive method being used (condom rupture, diaphragm slippage, forgotten oral pills) or following sexual assault. Emergency contraception is an intervention that can prevent a large number of unwanted pregnancies resulting from failure of regular contraception or unplanned sexual activity, which in turn helps in reducing the maternal mortality and morbidity due to unsafe abortions. However, a concern has been expressed regarding repeated and indiscriminate usage of e-pill, currently the rational use of emergency contraception is being promoted as it is expected to make a significant dent in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions. In fact, since the introduction of emergency contraception, the contribution of unsafe abortion towards maternal mortality has declined from 13 to 8 per cent.

What happens the morning after? The costs and benefits of expanding access to emergency contraception.

Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy after sex, but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Over the past 15 years, access to EC has been expanded at both the state and federal level. This paper studies the impact of those policies. We find that expanded access to EC has had no statistically significant effect on birth or abortion rates. Expansions of access, however, have changed the venue in which the drug is obtained, shifting its provision from hospital emergency departments to pharmacies. We find evidence that this shift may have led to a decrease in reports of sexual assault.

The price of emergency contraception in the United States: what is the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate versus single-dose levonorgestrel?

BACKGROUND: Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a novel form of emergency contraception (EC) that appears to be more effective than the prevailing method, single-dose levonorgestrel (LNG). This study examines the cost-efficacy of UPA compared with LNG. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of UPA versus LNG in preventing unintended pregnancy when taken within 120 h of unprotected intercourse. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses, as well as Monte Carlo simulation and threshold analyses, were performed. RESULTS: Utilizing UPA instead of LNG would result in 37,589 fewer unintended pregnancies per 4,176,572 estimated US annual EC uses (UPA 54,295 pregnancies; LNG 91,884 pregnancies) and a societal savings of $116.3 million annually. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analyses suggest a 96% probability that UPA is more cost-effective at a willingness to pay $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: UPA is cost-effective in preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Efforts should be promoted to increase access to UPA.

Availability of over-the-counter emergency contraception in 2 disparate New York City neighborhoods.

We conducted a telephone survey of pharmacies in 2 New York City neighborhoods on same-day availability, type, and cost of over-the-counter emergency contraception. There was no difference in availability of over-the-counter emergency contraception between Upper East Side and East Harlem pharmacies (93% vs 94%; P = .71). Average cost of medication was less in East Harlem than in the Upper East Side ($45.16 vs $51.64; P < .001). Efforts should accentuate overcoming cost and knowledge barriers associated with the use of emergency contraception.

Emergency contraception: an underutilized resource.

This emergency contraception update and telephone triage guide can help ensure that your patients get the help they need, when they need it.

A qualitative exploration of emergency contraception users' willingness to select the copper IUD.

BACKGROUND: The copper T intrauterine device (IUD) is an effective but underutilized method of emergency contraception (EC). This study investigates the factors influencing a woman's decision around which method of EC to select. STUDY DESIGN: In-depth interviews with 14 IUD and 14 oral EC users aged 18-30 years accessing public health clinics. RESULTS: Emergency contraception users associated long-term methods of contraception with long-term sexual relationships. Women were not aware of the possibility of using the copper IUD for EC. Cost was identified as a major barrier to accessing IUDs. Perceived side effects and impact on future pregnancies further influenced the EC method a participant selected. CONCLUSIONS: Women think about contraception in the context of each separate relationship and not as a long-term individual plan. Most women were unaware of the copper IUD for EC. Furthermore, there is little discussion between women and their health-care providers around EC.