User login
Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.
Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.
The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.
Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).
Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.
Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.
Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.
“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”
As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”
However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
Study details
About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.
Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.
They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.
Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.
There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).
When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.
A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.
They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
Solutions are feasible
Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.
“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”
What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”
However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”
The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”
But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.
Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.
“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.
“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”
Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”
As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”
The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.
Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.
Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.
The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.
Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).
Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.
Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.
Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.
“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”
As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”
However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
Study details
About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.
Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.
They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.
Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.
There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).
When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.
A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.
They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
Solutions are feasible
Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.
“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”
What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”
However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”
The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”
But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.
Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.
“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.
“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”
Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”
As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”
The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.
Travel distance is an important determinant of access to abortion care in the United States, new findings show.
Increases in median travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility were associated with significant reductions in median abortion rate.
The abortion rate was 21.1 per 1,000 female residents of reproductive age among those who lived less than 5 miles from a facility, but that number dropped to 3.9/1,000 for those living 120 miles or further away.
Overall, in a model of 3,107 U.S. counties that included 62.5 million women of reproductive age, there were an estimated 696,760 abortions (at a mean rate of 11.1/1,000). The authors estimate that if abortion services were integrated into primary care, an additional 18,190 abortions would be performed (mean rate, 11.4/1,000).
Similarly, if telemedicine became widely available in this setting, this would allow approximately 70,920 abortions (mean rate 12.3/1,000). The study was published online in JAMA Open Network.
Reducing travel distances to abortion facilities would increase access, but additional clinics and providers would be needed to meet the demand. But as the population density of many counties with poor access is low, innovative strategies are also needed.
Integrating abortion into primary care or making medication abortion care available by telemedicine may decrease this unmet need, and lead author Kirsten Thompson, MPH, noted that there is growing evidence that both solutions are quite feasible to implement.
“A study published in 2018 has led primary care providers to adopt the same regimen for miscarriage care, showing that they are interested and capable, despite the barriers posed by the mifepristone [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] program for these patients,” said Ms. Thompson, who is program and communications director, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco. “Medical education programs designed specifically for primary care providers have trained family medicine and other clinicians in abortion care for over a decade.”
As for telemedicine, Ms. Thompson explained that, during the pandemic, a preliminary injunction in a federal court case and then the Food and Drug Administration suspended enforcement of the in-person requirements of the mifepristone REMS. “In states that allow medical abortion care by telemedicine, providers have been able to offer remote care when medically appropriate, including mailing medical abortion pills to patients at home,” she said. “Researchers have already published evidence on the safety of and patient satisfaction with this approach.”
However, there are two main barriers to the widespread adoption of medical abortion by telemedicine in the United States. “One is the potentially temporary nature of the FDA’s enforcement discretion and second, are the 19 states with laws that ban it, singling out medical abortion as somehow different from other forms of care by telemedicine,” she said.
Study details
About one in four women in the United States will terminate a pregnancy during their lifetime, but the issue is highly contentious and many states have implemented policies that restrict access to abortion care. The authors pointed out that studies have documented clinic closures and women being unable to obtain abortion care, with low-income women and non-White women being disproportionately affected. Increased travel to a provider has also been associated with delays in care as well as increased costs and stress.
Prior research has shown that the further a woman lives from a facility, the less likely she is to obtain abortion care. In this study, Ms. Thompson and colleagues examined the association between travel distance to the nearest abortion care facility and the abortion rate, and then modeled the effect of reduced travel distance on rates.
They first conducted a cross-sectional geographic analysis using the American Community Survey and the U.S. Census to calculate county-level abortion rates per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 years. The 2015 data covered 1,948 counties in 27 states.
Abortion rates were then estimated for 3,107 counties in 48 states and the effect of different travel distance scenarios on the abortion rate was also estimated by multivariable model. Data were collected from April 2018 to October 2019.
There were 37.3 million women of reproductive age residing in the 27 states, and a total of 428,720 reported abortions (mean rate, 11.5/1,000; median rate, 9.9/1,000 women).
When looking at all 48 states, the population-weighted mean travel distance to the nearest facility was 25.6 miles, with a median travel distance of 8.2 miles.
A multivariable model showed that a greater travel distance was associated with lower abortion rates. When compared with traveling less than 5 miles, the abortion rate declined by 0.05/1,000 for women traveling between 5 to less than 15 miles for care, 0.22 for those traveling 15 to less than 30 miles, 0.34 for 30 to less than 60 miles, 0.43 for 60 to less than 120 miles, and 0.73 for those traveling 120 miles or more.
They estimated that, if all travel was under 30 miles, there would be a 2.6% increase or 18,190 additional abortions. A simulation also showed that there would be a 10.2% increase (70,920 additional abortions) using medication via telemedicine.
Solutions are feasible
Approached for an independent comment, Sarah W. Prager, MD, MAS, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and division chief, complex family planning, at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the solutions proposed by the authors were feasible.
“More than a third of abortions that are eligible are now done with medication,” she said, “And 89% of abortions are done in the first trimester.”
What this means is that early first-trimester abortions can conceivably be performed in the primary care setting. “Any primary care clinician – whether it’s a family practice or internal medicine physician, or nurse practitioner or nurse midwife – can all be trained to do aspiration or prescribe medication in the first trimester,” said Dr. Prager. “So it could easily be integrated into primary care settings if there was motivation for that to happen.”
However, she emphasized that more is involved than just training the provider. “The whole clinic has to buy into it,” Dr. Prager explained. “The nurses have to be willing to assist, you need the medical assistants, the scheduler or person who works the front desk – the whole clinic system has to buy into it and that’s where it becomes more challenging.”
The individual provider may be willing, but the system may still not be allowing that to happen. “This is also where telemedicine can come in, where the medication can be mailed so it can circumvent the problem to a certain extent,” Dr. Prager added. “You don’t have to have the infrastructure in the same way.”
But many states already have laws in place to make that illegal, especially for abortion care even if they allow it for similar types of care.
Another expert also weighed in and agreed that these two solutions can potentially be implemented.
“The concept of decreased rates of abortion associated with greater distances traveled is not new, but what is unique to this manuscript is the estimations that the authors conducted in understanding the impact of expanding access to abortion among primary care and telehealth providers,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Davis.
“The study provides convincing evidence regarding the need to strengthen infrastructures that support expansion of these services in primary care settings, among physicians and advanced care practitioners,” she said. “Training to provide medical abortion and first-trimester surgical abortion is simple. Many primary care providers are already doing gynecologic procedures – IUD insertions, colposcopies, endometrial biopsies.”
Thus, she noted, adding abortion care “to their toolkit isn’t too far of a stretch.”
As for telemedicine, Dr. Cansino pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has also expanded what both patients and providers think are safe options for providing and receiving good care. “Consultations through telemedicine coupled with access to medications for medical abortion through local pharmacies or express mail is definitely safe and feasible.”
The study was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and by an anonymous foundation for general operating support (Ms Thompson). Ms. Thompson reported receiving personal fees from GenBioPro outside the submitted work. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager have no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN