Reasons for Not Pursuing Virtual Prenatal Care in 2020 Through 2021 and Policy Implications.

Aim: To investigate patterns of virtual prenatal visits and examine reasons for not pursuing virtual visits for prenatal care. Methods: A pooled cross-sectional study used Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System from October 2020 through June 2021, a nationally representative surveillance system targeted at women who recently gave live birth. Individuals (n = 11,829) who reported their prenatal care experiences were included. A modified poison regression estimated prevalence ratios for virtual prenatal visits and reasons for not using virtual services. Results: One-third of participants used virtual prenatal care. Hispanics were more likely to use virtual prenatal care than whites. Compared with college graduates, those with high school graduation (Prevalence Ratios [PR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.99; p = 0.033) or some college education (PR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96; p = 0.009) were less likely to use virtual visits. A preference for in-person was the most common reason for not pursuing virtual visits (77.1%), followed by no available virtual appointments (29.5%), technology barriers (6.1%), and no private space (1.7%). Individuals with less than or with high school graduation had 4.16 times (95% CI 2.32-7.46; p ≤ 0.001) and 2.72 times (95% CI 1.67-4.43; p ≤ 0.001) greater technology barriers, and 10.03 times (95% CI 3.42-29.46; p ≤ 0.001) and 4.29 times (95% CI 1.56-11.80; p = 0.005) greater likelihood of lacking private space, respectively, while they had a lesser in-person preference. Conclusions: In a disrupted health care landscape, barriers to accessing virtual prenatal care may have further exacerbated access to care and effective management of pregnancy among those underserved. The findings provide practical implications for safe and effective prenatal care.

Adversity in Infancy and Childhood Cognitive Development: Evidence From Four Developing Countries.

Objectives: We investigated whether adverse experiences at age 1 (AE-1) affect the level of and change in cognition during childhood using harmonized data from four developing countries. Methods: Data included children born in 2001/2002 and were followed longitudinally in 2006/2007 and in 2009/2010 by Young Lives study in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. Childhood cognition was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) at ages 5 (PPVT-5) and 8 (PPVT-8). We also examined the effect on a change in cognition between age 5-8 (PPVT-Change). The AE-1 scores were constructed using survey responses at age 1. The ordinary least squares regression was used for estimation. Results: We found that children with higher adversities as infants had lower cognition scores at ages 5 and 8. The change in cognition between the two ages was also generally smaller for those with severe adversities at infancy. The negative association between adversities and childhood cognition was strongest for India. Conclusion: The results provide policy relevant information for mitigation of undesirable consequences of early life adversities through timely interventions.

Medicaid Cost Savings from Provision of Contraception to Beneficiaries in South Carolina, 2012-2018.

This study assesses cost savings associated with specific contraceptive methods provided to beneficiaries enrolled in South Carolina Medicaid between 2012 and 2018. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, defined as the additional cost of contraception provision per live birth averted, were estimated for 4 contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs], implants, injectable contraceptives, and pills), relative to no prescription method provision, and savings per dollar spent on method provision were calculated. Costs associated with publicly funded live births were derived from published sources. The analysis was conducted for the entire Medicaid sample and separately for individuals enrolled under low-income families (LIFs), family planning, and partners for healthy children (PHC) eligibility programs. Sensitivity analysis was performed on contraceptive method costs. IUDs and implants were the most cost-effective with cost savings of up to $14.4 and $7.2 for every dollar spent in method provision, respectively. Injectable contraceptives and pills each yielded up to $4.8 per dollar spent. However, IUDs and implants were less cost-effective than injectable contraceptives and pills if the average length of use was less than 2 years. Medicaid's savings varied across Medicaid eligibility programs, with the highest and lowest savings from contraceptive provision to women in the LIFs and PHC eligibility programs, respectively. The results suggest the need to account for unique needs and preferences of beneficiaries in different Medicaid eligibility categories during contraception provision. The findings also inform program administration and provide evidence to justify legislative appropriations for Medicaid reproductive health care services.