Search

Aims We examined relationships between pregnancy-specific alcohol policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment for pregnant people in the USA. Methods We merged state-level policy and treatment admissions data for 1992–2019. We aggregated data by state-year to examine effects of nine pregnancy-specific alcohol policies on the number of admissions of pregnant women where alcohol was reported as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance related to the treatment episode (N  = 1331). We fit Poisson models that included all policy variables, state-level controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and an offset variable of the number of pregnancies in the state-year to account for differences in population size and fertility. Results When alcohol was reported as the primary substance, civil commitment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10–1.89] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04–1.77] were associated with greater treatment admissions. Findings for alcohol as primary, secondary, or tertiary substance were similar for civil commitment [IRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.08–1.59] and reporting requirements for assessment and treatment purposes [IRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00–1.47], although mandatory warning signs [IRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98] and priority treatment for pregnant women [IRR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78–0.99] were associated with fewer treatment admissions. Priority treatment findings were not robust in sensitivity analyses. No other policies were associated with treatment admissions. Conclusions Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies related to greater treatment admissions tend to mandate treatment rather than make voluntary treatment more accessible, raising questions of ethics and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the politicization of abortion, professionals working in U.S. health departments (HDs) may not be receptive to communications about abortion, despite often regulating abortion facilities. This paper reports results of a randomized, prospective, observational study to test the effects of e-mail language when disseminating evidence on abortion to HD professionals. Our sample was 302 HD employees who oversee healthcare facilities inspection/regulation in all 50 U.S. state HDs, clustered by HD and randomized into two study groups. In November–December 2019, we sent biweekly e-mails containing links to a website summarizing evidence on abortion facility regulation. E-mails/headers sent to one group emphasized public health values and did not include the word abortion; e-mails/headers to the other group used the word abortion. Primary outcome measures were e-mail open rates and click-through rates. Among 221 participants to whom e-mails were deliverable, the overall open rate was 36%. Open rate was 25% for PH values and 46% for abortion groups (p <.05). Effects were moderated by state abortion policy environment: in both supportive and restrictive environments, participants in the abortion messaging group were statistically more likely to open e-mails than those in the PH values group. There was no difference between groups in states with middle-ground abortion policy environments. Among participants opening at least one e-mail, 19% clicked through to the website, with no significant difference by group. This study demonstrates that repeated targeted e-mail campaigns can reach HD professionals with research summaries. Concerns that communications to HDs should avoid the word abortion are unsupported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Methods Results Discussion Financial costs remain one of the greatest barriers to abortion, leading to delays in care and preventing some from getting a desired abortion. Medication abortion is available through in‐person facilities and telehealth services. However, whether telehealth offers a more affordable option has not been well‐documented.We used Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)'s Abortion Facility Database, which includes data on all publicly advertising abortion facilities and is updated annually. We describe facility out‐of‐pocket prices for medication abortion in 2021, 2022, and 2023, comparing in‐person and telehealth provided by brick‐and‐mortar and virtual clinics, and by whether states allowed Medicaid coverage for abortion.The national median price for medication abortion remained consistent at $568 in 2021 and $563 in 2023. However, medications provided by virtual clinics were notably lower in price than in‐person care and this difference widened over time. The median cost of a medication abortion offered in‐person increased from $580 in 2021 to $600 by 2023, while the median price of a medication abortion offered by virtual clinics decreased from $239 in 2021 to $150 in 2023. Among virtual clinics, few (7%) accepted Medicaid. Median prices in states that accept Medicaid were generally higher than in states that did not.Medication abortion is offered at substantially lower prices by virtual clinics. However, not being able to use Medicaid or other insurance may make telehealth cost‐prohibitive for some people, even if prices are lower. Additionally, many states do not allow telehealth for abortion, deepening inequities in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 12 states banned or restricted abortion access under elective-procedure restrictions. The rationale was preserving hospital capacity and personal protective equipment (PPE); however, abortions commonly take place in clinics and use less PPE than childbirth. This paper investigates the discursive construction of abortions, the people who get them, and the fetuses in this legislation. The authors analyzed 13 antiabortion documents using an iterative process of thematic coding and memo writing. Twenty-three percent of the legislation listed abortion as banned, whereas the remaining laws implied abortion within the terms "elective" or "nonessential." Legislation used common antiabortion tactics, such as the trivialization of abortion, risk discourses, and constructions of motherhood and fetal personhood. Discourses delegitimized abortion providers and used quasi-medical justifications for banning abortion. Finally, legislation constructed abortion clinics as sites of contagion and waste and consequently as risks to public health. The results highlight the vulnerability of abortion and the connection between abortion policy and other conservative policies, and they gesture toward a strategic attempt to ban abortion federally. These findings have several implications for a post-Roe United States and for stakeholders wishing to increase abortion access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]