Beyond Hobby Lobby: Employer's responsibilities and opportunities to improve network access to reproductive healthcare for employees.

The majority of United States (US) women age 15-49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees' health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.

"My Hands Are Tied": Abortion Restrictions and Providers' Experiences in Religious and Nonreligious Health Care Systems.

CONTEXT: Abortion is generally prohibited in Catholic hospitals, but less is known about abortion restrictions in other religiously affiliated health care facilities. As religiously affiliated health systems expand in the United States, it is important to understand how religious restrictions affect the practices of providers who treat pregnant patients. METHODS: From September 2016 to May 2018, in-depth interviews were conducted with 31 key informants (clinical providers, ethicists, chaplains and health system administrators) with experience working in secular, Protestant or Catholic health care systems in Illinois. A thematic content approach was used to identify themes related to participants' experiences with abortion policies, the role of ethics committees, the impact on patient care and conflicts with hospital policies. RESULTS: Few limitations on abortion were reported in secular hospitals, while Catholic hospitals prohibited most abortions, and a Protestant-affiliated system banned abortions deemed "elective." Religiously affiliated hospitals allowed abortions in specific cases, if approved through an ethics consultation. Interpretation of system-wide policies varied by hospital, with some indication that institutional discomfort with abortion influenced policy as much as religious teachings did. Providers constrained by religious restrictions referred or transferred patients desiring abortion, including for pregnancy complications, with those in Protestant hospitals having more latitude to directly refer such patients. As a result of religiously influenced policies, patients could encounter delays, financial obstacles, restrictions on treatment and stigmatization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking abortion or presenting with pregnancy complications at Catholic and Protestant hospitals may encounter more delays and fewer treatment options than they would at secular hospitals. More research is needed to better understand the implications for women's access to reproductive health care.

"Am I Going to Be in Trouble for What I'm Doing?": Providing Contraceptive Care in Religious Health Care Systems.

CONTEXT: Catholic systems control a growing share of health care in the United States. Because patients seeking contraceptives in Catholic facilities face doctrinal restrictions that may affect access to and quality of care, it is important to understand whether and how providers work within and around institutional policies regarding contraception. METHODS: In 2016-2018, in-depth interviews were conducted in Illinois with 28 key informants-including providers (obstetrician-gynecologists, other physicians, nurse-midwives) and nonclinical professionals (ethicists, administrators, chaplains)-who had experience in secular, Protestant or Catholic health care systems. Interviews addressed multiple aspects of reproductive care and hospital and system policy. A thematic content approach was used to identify themes related to participants' experiences with and perspectives on contraceptive care. RESULTS: While respondents working in secular and Protestant systems reported few limitations on contraceptive care, those working in Catholic systems reported multiple barriers. Providers who had worked in Catholic systems described variable institutional policies and enforcement practices, ranging from verbal admonishments to lease agreements prohibiting contraceptive provision in secular clinics on church-owned land. Despite these restrictions, patients' needs motivated many providers to utilize work-arounds; some providers reported having been pressured or directly instructed to document false diagnoses in patients' medical records. Interviewees described how these obstacles burdened patients, especially those with social and financial constraints, and resulted in delayed or lower quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Providers working in Catholic hospitals are limited in their ability to serve women of reproductive age. Work-arounds intended to circumvent restrictions may inadvertently stigmatize contraception and negatively affect patient care.

Well-woman Care Barriers and Facilitators of Low-income Women Obtaining Induced Abortion after the Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVES: This study uses the abortion visit as an opportunity to identify women lacking well-woman care (WWC) and explores factors influencing their ability to obtain WWC after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with low-income women presenting for induced abortion who lacked a well-woman visit in more than 12 months or a regular health care provider. Dimensions explored included 1) pre-abortion experiences seeking WWC, 2) postabortion plans for obtaining WWC, and 3) perceived barriers and facilitators to obtaining WWC. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: Thirty-four women completed interviews; three-quarters were insured. Women described interacting psychosocial, interpersonal, and structural barriers hindering WWC use. Psychosocial barriers included negative health care experiences, low self-efficacy, and not prioritizing personal health. Women's caregiver roles were the primary interpersonal barrier. Most prominently, structural challenges, including insurance insecurity, disruptions in patient-provider relationships, and logistical issues, were significant barriers. Perceived facilitators included online insurance procurement, care integration, and social support. CONCLUSIONS: Despite most being insured, participants encountered WWC barriers after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Further work is needed to identify and engage women lacking preventive reproductive health care.

Prevalence and Correlates of Having a Regular Physician among Women Presenting for Induced Abortion.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and correlates of having a regular physician among women presenting for induced abortion. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of women presenting to an urban, university-based family planning clinic for abortion between January 2008 and September 2011. We conducted bivariate analyses, comparing women with and without a regular physician, and multivariable regression modeling, to identify factors associated with not having a regular physician. RESULTS: Of 834 women, 521 (62.5%) had a regular physician and 313 (37.5%) did not. Women with a prior pregnancy, live birth, or spontaneous abortion were more likely than women without these experiences to have a regular physician. Women with a prior induced abortion were not more likely than women who had never had a prior induced abortion to have a regular physician. Compared with women younger than 18 years, women aged 18 to 26 years were less likely to have a physician (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.62). Women with a prior live birth had increased odds of having a regular physician compared with women without a prior pregnancy (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.16). Women without medical/fetal indications and who had not been victims of sexual assault (self-indicated) were less likely to report having a regular physician compared with women with medical/fetal indications (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.17-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The abortion visit is a point of contact with a large number of women without a regular physician and therefore provides an opportunity to integrate women into health care.

Variation in Pregnancy Options Counseling and Referrals, And Reported Proximity to Abortion Services, Among Publicly Funded Family Planning Facilities.

CONTEXT: As frontline providers, publicly funded family planning clinics represent a critical link in the health system for women seeking information about pregnancy options, yet scant information exists on their provision of relevant services. Understanding their practices is important for gauging how well these facilities serve patients' needs. METHODS: A 2012 survey of 567 publicly funded family planning facilities in 16 states gathered information on referral-making for adoption and abortion services, and perceived proximity to abortion services. Chi-square, multivariable logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to assess differences among facilities in referral-making and reported proximity to abortion services. RESULTS: Abortion referrals were provided by a significantly smaller proportion of providers than were adoption referrals (84% vs. 97%). Health departments and community health centers were significantly less likely than comprehensive reproductive health centers to refer for abortion services and to have a list of abortion providers available (odds ratios, 0.1-0.2). Rural facilities were more likely than urban ones to report a distance of more than 100 miles to the closest first-trimester abortion provider (relative risk ratio, 11.4), second-trimester abortion provider (8.7) and medication abortion provider (8.0). Health departments were more likely than comprehensive reproductive health centers not to know the location of the closest first-trimester, second-trimester or medication abortion provider (2.5-3.5). CONCLUSION: A better understanding of disparities in provision of pregnancy options counseling and referrals at publicly funded family planning clinics is needed to ensure that women get timely care.

Factors influencing parental involvement among minors seeking an abortion: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: We explored factors that influenced whether minors involved or excluded a parent when seeking an abortion. METHODS: In the summer of 2010, we conducted interviews with 30 minors who sought an abortion in a state that did not require parental involvement at the time. Interviews were coded and analyzed following the principles of the grounded theory method. RESULTS: The majority of minors involved a parent. Commonly cited factors were close or supportive parental relationships, a sense that disclosure was inevitable, a need for practical assistance, and compelled disclosure. Motivations for not wanting to involve a parent, although some minors ultimately did, included preservation of the parent-daughter relationship, fear or detachment, and preservation of autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Minors were motivated to involve parents and other adults who were engaged in their lives at the time of the pregnancy, particularly those who supported them in obtaining an abortion. Motivations to exclude a parent were often based on particular family circumstances or experiences that suggested that involvement would not be helpful, might be harmful, or might restrict a minor's ability to obtain an abortion.

Abortion-seeking minors' views on the Illinois parental notification law: a qualitative study.

CONTEXT: Thirty-seven states have laws in effect that mandate parental involvement in adolescent abortion decisions. Little is known about minors' opinions of parental involvement laws. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 minors presenting for an abortion at one of three Chicago-area clinics in 2010. Interviewers described the Illinois parental notification law (which was passed in 1995 but is not in effect because of legal challenges) and a corresponding judicial bypass option to the minors and asked their opinions about them. Interviews were coded and analyzed using content analysis and grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Most minors perceived the law negatively, citing fears that it would lead to diminished reproductive autonomy for minors, forced continuation of pregnancies, adverse parental reactions (including emotional or physical abuse) and damaged parental relationships. A few held positive or ambivalent opinions, concluding that notifying a trusted adult could provide an adolescent with needed support, but that parental involvement should not be mandated. Most participants held negative opinions of judicial bypass, describing it as overwhelming and logistically complicated, and worrying that some minors might go to extreme lengths to avoid the process. CONCLUSIONS: Many minors have deep concerns about the potential harm that could result from parental involvement laws. These opinions provide a valuable addition to the debate on such laws, which purportedly are intended to ensure minors' best interests.