ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the characteristics of foreign-born abortion patients compared to those born in the Unites States and to explore whether barriers for foreign-born patients varied by state Medicaid coverage of abortion care. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey, a national sample of patients obtaining clinic-based abortion care in the United States. We compared sociodemographic characteristics of foreign- and US born respondents, as well as barriers to care. Among foreign-born patients, we compared those in Medicaid coverage states vs states that restrict Medicaid coverage. RESULTS: Some 12% of the 6429 respondents were born outside the United States. Compared to US born patients, they were less likely to have Medicaid coverage and more likely to be Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or Hispanic, to have no health insurance, and to have completed the survey in Spanish. In addition, foreign-born patients were more likely to report delays because they did not know where to get an abortion (18.3% vs. 12.6% for US born). Compared to foreign-born patients living in Medicaid coverage states, those in non-Medicaid states reported multiple barriers, particularly related to cost: respondents in non-Medicaid states were three times as likely to pay out of pocket for abortion (75.8% vs 27.4%) and five times more likely to rely on financial assistance (24.1% vs 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Foreign-born abortion patients face knowledge and financial barriers to accessing abortion care compared to those who are US born, and these financial burdens are amplified for those living in non-Medicaid coverage states. IMPLICATIONS: Abortion patients born outside the United States may have overcome many obstacles to obtain care. Expanding state Medicaid coverage of abortion could reduce cost burdens for foreign-born populations.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to describe the sociodemographic and situational circumstances of adolescents obtaining abortion in the United States prior to the Dobbs decision. We use data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2021-2022 Abortion Patient Survey, a cross-sectional survey of 6698 respondents; our analytic sample includes 633 adolescents (<20 years), 2152 young adults (20-24 years), and 3913 adults (25+ years). We conducted bivariate analyses to describe the characteristics and logistical and financial circumstances of adolescents obtaining abortions in comparison to respondents in the other age groups. The majority of adolescents identified as non-white (70%), and 23% identified as something other than heterosexual. We found that 26% of adolescents reported having no health insurance, and two-thirds of adolescent respondents reported that somebody had driven them to the facility. Adolescents differed from adults in their reasons for delays in accessing care; a majority of adolescents (57%) reported not knowing they were pregnant compared to 43% of adults, and nearly one in five adolescents did not know where to obtain the abortion compared to 11% of adults. Adolescents were more likely than adults to obtain a second-trimester abortion, which has increased costs. This study found that this population was more vulnerable than adults on several measures. Findings suggest that adolescents navigate unique barriers with regard to information and logistics to access abortion care.
Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced , Humans , Adolescent , United States , Female , Abortion, Induced/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Adult , Pregnancy , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , MaleABSTRACT
Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted contraceptive service provision in the United States (US). We aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the publicly supported family planning network at the provider level. This study adds to the literature documenting the challenges of the pandemic as well as how telehealth provision compares across timepoints. Study design: We conducted a survey among sexual and reproductive health (SRH) providers at 96 publicly supported clinics in four US states asking about two timepoints-one early in the pandemic and one later in the pandemic. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data. Results: We found that almost one-third of sites reduced contraceptive services because of the pandemic, with a few temporarily stopping contraceptive services altogether. More sites stopped provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), Pap tests, and Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations than other methods or services. We also found that sites expanded some practices to make them more accessible to patients, such as extending existing contraceptive prescriptions without consultations for established patients and expanding telehealth visits for contraceptive counseling. In addition, sites reported high utilization of telehealth to provide contraceptive services. Conclusions: Understanding how service delivery changed due to the pandemic and how telehealth can be used to provide SRH services sheds light on how these networks can best support providers and patients in the face of unprecedented crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications: This study demonstrates that providers increased provision of telehealth for sexual and reproductive health care during the COVID-19 pandemic; policymakers in the US should support continued reimbursement of telehealth care as well as resources to expand telehealth infrastructure. In addition, this study highlights the need for more research on telehealth quality.