Medicaid Policy on Sterilization — Anachronistic or Still Relevant?

Female sterilization, typically accomplished by means of tubal ligation, is a widely used method of contraception that is highly effective at preventing unintended pregnancy. Yet there appears to be unmet demand for the procedure in certain segments of the U.S. population. Specifically, low-income women and women from minority racial and ethnic groups may face substantial system-level barriers to obtaining a desired sterilization procedure. One such barrier is the federal policy regarding Medicaid-funded sterilizations. Although this policy was designed to protect vulnerable populations, we believe that it does not effectively fulfill that intention — in fact, it restricts the reproductive autonomy of the women it intends to serve. With the upcoming Medicaid expansions, the number of women affected by these barriers could increase substantially.Population Research Cente

Family Discussions About Contraception And Family Planning: A Qualitative Exploration Of Black Parent and Adolescent Perspectives

Parent-adolescent communication is associated with increased adolescent contraceptive use. However, studies of this association are limited by their lack of examination of the communication process, reliance on cross-sectional designs and infrequent comparison of parent and adolescent perspectives. Examining communication in black families is particularly important, given the high pregnancy rate among black adolescents

Patient-provider conversations about sterilization: A qualitative analysis.

ObjectivesAlthough female sterilization is the second most commonly used contraceptive method in the US, research suggests that providers may serve as barriers to desired sterilization.Study designWe conducted a modified grounded theory analysis of audio-recorded contraceptive counseling visits with 52 women who specified on a previsit survey that they wanted no future children and a supplemental analysis of visits with 14 women who wanted or were unsure about future children in which sterilization was mentioned.ResultsSterilization was discussed in only 19 of the 52 visits, primarily with patients who were older women with children. Although some framed sterilization positively, many clinicians discouraged patients from pursuing sterilization, encouraging them instead to use long-acting reversible methods and framing the permanence of sterilization as undesirable. In the 33 remaining sessions, sterilization was not mentioned, and clinicians largely failed to solicit patients' future reproductive intentions. We found no clear patterns regarding discussion of sterilization in the 14 supplemental cases.ConclusionClinicians did not discuss sterilization with all patients for whom it might have been appropriate and thus missed opportunities to discuss sterilization as part of the full range of appropriate methods. When they did discuss sterilization, they only infrequently presented the method in positive ways and more commonly encouraged patients to choose a long-acting reversible method instead. Clinicians may want to reflect on their counseling practices around sterilization to ensure that counseling is centered on patient preferences, rather than driven by their own assumptions about the desirability of reversibility.ImplicationsClinicians often fail to discuss sterilization as a contraceptive option with potentially appropriate candidates and, when they do, often discourage its selection. Clinicians should consider assessing reproductive intentions to ensure that potentially relevant methods are included in counseling

The Legal and Medical Necessity of Abortion Care Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, states have ordered the cessation of non-essential healthcare. Unfortunately, many conservative states have sought to capitalize on those orders to halt abortion care. In this short paper, we argue that abortion should not fall under any state’s non-essential healthcare order. Major medical organizations recognize that abortion is essential healthcare that must be provided even in a pandemic, and the law recognizes abortion as a time-sensitive constitutional right. Finally, we examine the constitutional arguments as to why enforcing these orders against abortion providers should not stand constitutional scrutiny. We conclude that no public health purpose can be served by this application because abortion uses less scarce resources and involves fewer contacts with healthcare professionals than prenatal care and delivery assistance, which is continuing to be provided in this public health emergency

Federally funded sterilization: time to rethink policy?

In the 1970s, concern about coercive sterilization of low-income and minority women in the United States led the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to create strict regulations for federally funded sterilization procedures. Although these policies were instituted to secure informed consent and protect women from involuntary sterilization, there are significant data indicating that these policies may not, in fact, ensure that consent is truly informed and, further, may prevent many low-income women from getting a desired sterilization procedure. Given the alarmingly high rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, especially among low-income populations, we feel that restrictive federal sterilization policies should be reexamined and modified to simultaneously ensure informed decision-making and honor women's reproductive choices