A Prospective Study on the Effects of Medicaid Regulation and Other Barriers to Obtaining Postpartum Sterilization.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess unfulfilled sterilization requests, specifically regarding issues with the Medicaid consent for sterilization, and determine the proportion of women who subsequently received interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective observational cohort study of women who gave birth over an 8-month period and requested immediate postpartum sterilization. Records of women with unfulfilled requests were reviewed up to 3 months postpartum to determine rates of postpartum follow-up and interval sterilization. Primary analysis examined unfulfilled sterilization requests associated with the Medicaid consent form and, secondarily, all other reasons for unfulfilled requests, as well as alternative contraceptive methods chosen. RESULTS: Of the 334 women who requested immediate postpartum sterilization, 173 (52%) received the requested sterilization and 161 (48%) did not. Among those whose request was unfulfilled, 91 (56.5%) still wanted the procedure, and of those women, more than two-thirds were unable to receive it because of Medicaid consent issues. Within this group, only 6 received interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum; more than one-third received a form of long-acting reversible contraception, and 24.6% did not receive postpartum care. DISCUSSION: A sizable proportion of women requesting postpartum sterilization have unfulfilled requests because of an issue with the Medicaid consent and also have a low likelihood of receiving interval sterilization by 3 months postpartum. The Medicaid consent may create barriers for women requesting postpartum sterilization, the vast majority of whom face subsequent barriers obtaining interval sterilization, thereby increasing the risk for unintended pregnancy in an at-risk population. This has important implications for reproductive justice efforts to protect vulnerable populations while minimizing barriers to desired care.

"Doctor, what would you do?": physicians' responses to patient inquiries about periviable delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess obstetricians' and neonatologists' responses to standardized patients (SPs) asking "What would you do?" during periviable counseling encounters. METHODS: An exploratory single-center simulation study. SPs, portraying a pregnant woman presenting with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, were instructed to ask, "What would you do?" if presented options regarding delivery management or resuscitation. Responses were independently reviewed and classified. RESULTS: We identified five response patterns: 'Disclose' (9/28), 'Don't Know' (11/28), 'Deflect' (23/28), 'Decline' (2/28), and 'Ignore' (2/28). Most physicians utilized more than one response pattern (22/28). Physicians 'deflected' the question by: restating or offering additional medical information; answering with a question; evoking a hypothetical patient; or redirecting the SP to other sources of support. When compared with neonatologists, obstetricians (40% vs. 15%) made personal or professional disclosures more often. Though both specialties readily acknowledged the importance of values in making a decision, only one physician attempted to elicit the patient's values. CONCLUSION: "What would you do?" represented a missed opportunity for values elicitation. Interventions are needed to facilitate values elicitation and shared decision-making in periviable care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If physicians fail to address patients' values and goals, they lack the information needed to develop patient-centered plans of care.

Using simulation to assess the influence of race and insurer on shared decision making in periviable counseling.

INTRODUCTION: Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling. METHODS: We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P < 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P = <0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients' sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study.