Association of Travel Distance to Nearest Abortion Facility With Rates of Abortion

How do we measure unmet need within sexual and reproductive health? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Addressing health inequality with sexual and reproductive health requires an understanding of unmet need within a range of populations. This review examined the methods and definitions that have been used to measure unmet need, and the populations most frequently assessed.

METHODS

Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Health Management and Policy Database (HMIC)) were searched for studies that described quantitative measurement of unmet need within sexual and/or reproductive health between 2010 and 2021. A narrative synthesis was then undertaken to ascertain themes within the literature.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 19,747 papers; 216 papers were included after screening. 190 studies assessed unmet reproductive health need, of which 137 were analyses of trends among people living in low/lower-middle income countries; 181 used cross-sectional data, with only nine analyses being longitudinal. Eighteen studies analysed unmet sexual health need, of which 12 focused on high and upper-middle income populations. 16 papers used cross-sectional analyses. The remaining 10 studies examined unmet need for a combination of sexual and reproductive health services, eight among populations from upper-middle or high income countries. All were cross-sectional analyses. 165 studies used the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) definition of unmet need; no other standardised definition was used among the remaining papers.

DISCUSSION

There is a significant focus on unmet need for contraception among women in low income countries within the published literature, leaving considerable evidence gaps in relation to unmet need within sexual health generally and among men in particular, and unmet reproductive health need in high income settings. In addition, using an increased range of data collection methods, analyses and definitions of unmet need would enable better understanding of health inequality in this area.

Association Between Restricted Abortion Access and Child Entries Into the Foster Care System

Importance

The 2022 US Supreme Court decision Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections to abortion care, allowing many states to severely restrict or ban access to abortion. Given the implications of the Dobbs ruling, there is a need to understand the full consequences of restricted abortion access. Before 2022, many states restricted access to safe and legal abortions through Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which provide a historical mode for estimating the consequences of abortion restrictions.

Objective

To use TRAP law enactment as a natural experiment to quantify the association between restricted abortion access and foster care entries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, data on the enactment of TRAP laws and case-level data on foster care entries were used to estimate the association between restricted abortion access and foster care entries in each of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The sample included children conceived between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2011, who were placed into foster care at any point between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was performed from January 2023 to July 2023.

Exposures

Restricted abortion access due to state-level TRAP laws during pregnancy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the number of children entering foster care in each state, measured by year of child conception. The analysis was performed using a generalized difference-in-differences design, comparing entries into foster care in states with TRAP laws to states without TRAP laws, before and after their implementation.

Results

This study included 4 179 701 children who were placed into foster care during the study period, with 11 016 561 entries. More than half of the children were male (51.4%), and the mean (SD) age was 7.4 (5.2) years. There was an 11% increase in foster care placement after abortion access was restricted in states with TRAP laws, relative to states without TRAP laws (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.23]). These laws had significant consequences for Black children (IRR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.28]) and racial and ethnic minority children (IRR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.02-1.30]). The increase in entries due to TRAP laws was particularly attributable to housing inadequacy (IRR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.32]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Restricted abortion access can have numerous consequences, and these findings reveal a heightened strain on the US foster care system, particularly affecting marginalized racial and ethnic communities and financially vulnerable families. These placements have been shown to have lifelong consequences for children and substantial costs for both states and the federal government. To further examine the widespread implications of the overturning of Roe v Wade, future studies should forecast the expected increase in foster care entries and estimate the expenditure needed to support these children.

Dual Barriers: Examining Digital Access and Travel Burdens to Hospital Maternity Care Access in the United States, 2020

Policy Points The White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis report released in June 2022 highlighted the need to enhance equitable access to maternity care. Nationwide hospital maternity unit closures have worsened the maternal health crisis in underserved communities, leaving many birthing people with few options and with long travel times to reach essential care. Ensuring equitable access to maternity care requires addressing travel burdens to care and inadequate digital access. Our findings reveal socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the United States face dual barriers to maternity care access, as communities located farthest away from care facilities had the least digital access.

CONTEXT

With the increases in nationwide hospital maternity unit closures, there is a greater need for telehealth services for the supervision, evaluation, and management of prenatal and postpartum care. However, challenges in digital access persist. We examined associations between driving time to hospital maternity units and digital access to understand whether augmenting digital access and telehealth services might help mitigate travel burdens to maternity care.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used 2020 American Hospital Association Annual Survey data for hospital maternity unit locations and 2020 American Community Survey five-year ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA)-level estimates of household digital access to telecommunication technology and broadband. We calculated driving times of the fastest route from population-weighted ZCTA centroids to the nearest hospital maternity unit. Rural-urban stratified generalized median regression models were conducted to examine differences in ZCTA-level proportions of household lacking digital access equipment (any digital device, smartphones, tablet), and lacking broadband subscriptions by spatial accessibility to maternity units.

FINDINGS

In 2020, 2,905 (16.6%) urban and 3,394 (39.5%) rural ZCTAs in the United States were located >30 minutes from the nearest hospital maternity units. Regardless of rurality, these communities farther away from a maternity unit had disproportionally lower broadband and device accessibility. Although urban communities have greater digital access to technology and broadband subscriptions compared to rural communities, disparities in the percentage of households with access to digital devices were more pronounced within urban areas, particularly between those with and without close proximity to a hospital maternity unit. Communities where nearest hospital maternity units were >30 minutes away had higher poverty and uninsurance rates than those with <15-minute access.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities face significant barriers to maternity care access, both with substantial travel burdens and inadequate digital access. To optimize maternity care access, ongoing efforts (e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program introduced in the 2021 Infrastructure Act), should bridge the gaps in digital access and target communities with substantial travel burdens to care and limited digital access.

The Role of Telehealth in Promoting Equitable Abortion Access in the United States: Spatial Analysis

BACKGROUND

Even preceding the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, patients in the United States faced exceptional barriers to reach abortion providers. Abortion restrictions disproportionately limited abortion access among people of color, young people, and those living on low incomes. Presently, clinics in states where abortion remains legal are experiencing an influx of out-of-state patients and wait times for in-person appointments are increasing. Direct-to-patient telehealth for abortion care has expanded since its introduction in the United States in 2020. However, the role of this telehealth model in addressing geographic barriers to and inequities in abortion access remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the amount of travel that patients averted by using telehealth for abortion care, and the role of telehealth in mitigating inequities in abortion access by race or ethnicity, age, pregnancy duration, socioeconomic status, rural residence, and distance to a facility.

METHODS

We used geospatial analyses and data from patients in the California Home Abortion by Telehealth Study, residing in 31 states and Washington DC, who obtained telehealth abortion care at 1 of 3 virtual abortion clinics. We used patients' residential ZIP code data and data from US abortion facility locations to document the round-trip driving distance in miles, driving time, and public transit time to the nearest abortion facility that patients averted by using telehealth abortion services from April 2021 to January 2022, before the Dobbs decision. We used binomial regression to assess whether patients reported that telehealth was more likely to make it possible to access a timely abortion among patients of color, those experiencing food insecurity, younger patients, those with longer pregnancy durations, rural patients, and those residing further from their closest abortion facility.

RESULTS

The 6027 patients averted a median of 10 (IQR 5-26) miles and 25 (IQR 14-46) minutes of round-trip driving, and 1 hour 25 minutes (IQR 46 minutes to 2 hours 30 minutes) of round-trip public transit time. Among a subsample of 1586 patients surveyed, 43% (n=683) reported that telehealth made it possible to obtain timely abortion care. Telehealth was most likely to make it possible to have a timely abortion for younger patients (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6) for patients younger than 25 years of age compared to those 35 years of age or older), rural patients (PR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6), those experiencing food insecurity (PR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.4), and those who averted over 100 miles of driving to their closest abortion facility (PR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the role of telehealth in reducing abortion-related travel barriers in states where abortion remains legal, especially among patient populations who already face structural barriers to abortion care. Restrictions on telehealth abortion threaten health equity.

Midwives Safeguarding Abortion Access: Establishing Medication Abortion Services

The abortion access landscape for patients has changed dramatically in the wake of the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June of 2022. In response, the Division of Midwifery at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, began a medication abortion service for both established patients and those who may seek care from out of state. This service increases access to abortion care now while also providing the clinical experience needed for student nurse-midwives to become future abortion providers. This article outlines the steps taken to implement a medication abortion service and ways it can be adopted by other midwifery practices. Strategies to address possible clinical, administrative, and logistical challenges are addressed. Finally, this article is a call to action because midwives are well qualified to provide high quality, safe, and comprehensive medication abortion within the midwifery model of care.

Demand for medication abortion among public university students in Washington

Provision of medication abortion in student health centers is safe and effective, but no public universities in Washington state provide such services. We estimate demand for medication abortion and describe barriers to care among students at four-year public universities in Washington. Using publicly available data, we estimated that students at the 11 Washington public universities obtained between 549 and 932 medication abortions annually. Students must travel an average of 16 miles (range:1-78) or 73 minutes via public transit (range:22-284) round trip to the nearest abortion-providing facility. Average wait time for the first available appointment was 10 days (range:4-14), and average cost was $711. Public universities can play an integral role in expanding abortion access post-Dobbs by providing medication abortion, effectively reducing barriers to care for students. The state legislature can pass legislation requiring universities to provide medication abortion, similar to what other states also protective of abortion rights have done.

Medication abortion via digital health in the United States: a systematic scoping review

Digital health, including telemedicine, has increased access to abortion care. The convenience, flexibility of appointment times, and ensured privacy to abortion users may make abortion services via telemedicine preferable. This scoping review systematically mapped studies conducted on abortion services via telemedicine, including their effectiveness and acceptability for abortion users and providers. All published papers included abortion services via telemedicine in the United States were considered. Articles were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases in September 2022. The findings were synthesized narratively, and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to report this study. Out of 757 retrieved articles, 33 articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2011 and 2022, with 24 published in the last 3 years. The study found that telemedicine increased access to abortion care in the United States, especially for people in remote areas or those worried about stigma from in-person visits. The effectiveness of abortion services via telemedicine was comparable to in-clinic visits, with 6% or fewer abortions requiring surgical intervention. Both care providers and abortion seekers expressed positive perceptions of telemedicine-based abortion services. However, abortion users reported mixed emotions, with some preferring in-person visits. The most common reasons for choosing telemedicine included the distance to the abortion clinic, convenience, privacy, cost, flexibility of appointment times, and state laws imposing waiting periods or restrictive policies. Telemedicine offered a preferable option for abortion seekers and providers. The feasibility of accessing abortion services via telemedicine in low-resource settings needs further investigation.

Abortion Care in the United States - Current Evidence and Future Directions

Abortion Care in the United StatesAbortion services are a vital component of reproductive health care. Jung and colleagues review medication abortion and procedural abortion as well as implications of increasing restrictions on access in the United States.

Association Between State-Level Access to Reproductive Care and Suicide Rates Among Women of Reproductive Age in the United States

Importance

Many states in the United States enforce restrictions to reproductive care, with access to abortion remaining a highly divisive issue. Denial of abortion is linked with heightened stress and anxiety among reproductive-aged women. However, no studies have tested whether access to reproductive care is linked to suicide.

Objective

To evaluate whether state-level restrictions in access to reproductive care in the United States were associated with suicide rates among reproductive-aged women from 1974 to 2016.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A longitudinal ecologic study with a difference-in-differences analysis assessed whether annual changes in the enforcement of state-level restrictions to reproductive care were related to annual state-level suicide rates vs rates of death due to motor vehicle crashes. Duration of follow-up varied between different states (range, 4-40 years), contingent on the first year that restrictions were implemented. Models controlled for year and state fixed effects and other relevant demographic and economic factors. Analyses were conducted between December 2021 and January 2022.

Exposures

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws index measuring state-year-level restrictions to reproductive care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual state-level suicide rates and motor vehicle crash death rates among reproductive-aged women (ages 20-34 years; target group) vs women of postreproductive age (ages 45-64 years; control group).

Results

Twenty-one US states enforced at least 1 TRAP law between 1974 and 2016. Annual rates of death by suicide ranged from 1.4 to 25.6 per 100 000 women of reproductive age to 2.7 to 33.2 per 100 000 women of postreproductive age during the study period (1974-2016). Annual motor vehicle crash death rates among women of reproductive age ranged from 2.4 to 42.9 per 100 000. Enforcement of TRAP laws was associated with higher suicide rates among reproductive-aged women (β = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.32; P = .02) but not women of postreproductive age (β = 0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.24; P = .47) nor to deaths due to motor vehicle crashes (β = 0.03, 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.11; P = .36). Among reproductive-aged women, the weighted average annual-state level suicide death rate when no TRAP laws were enforced was 5.5 per 100 000. Enforcement of a TRAP law was associated with a 5.81% higher annual rate of suicide than in pre-enforcement years. Findings remained significant when using alternative, broader indices of reproductive care access and different age categorizations.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study with a difference-in-differences analysis of US women, restrictions on access to reproductive care from 1974 to 2016 were associated with suicide rates among reproductive-aged women. Given the limitations of the ecologic design of this study, further research is needed to assess whether current factors affecting access to reproductive care services are related to suicide risk among women of reproductive age and to inform suicide prevention strategies.

Remote Delivery in Reproductive Health Care: Operation of Direct-to-Patient Telehealth Medication Abortion Services in Diverse Settings

PURPOSE

Established models of reproductive health service delivery were disrupted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study examines rapid innovation of remote abortion service operations across health care settings and describes the use of telehealth consultations with medications delivered directly to patients.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 clinical staff from 4 practice settings: family planning clinics, online medical services, and primary care practices-independent or within multispecialty health systems. Clinicians and administrators described their telehealth abortion services. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Staff roles, policies, and procedures were compared across practice settings.

RESULTS

Across all practice settings, telehealth abortion services consisted of 5 operational steps: patient engagement, care consultations, payment, medication dispensing, and follow-up communication. Online services and independent primary care practices used asynchronous methods to determine eligibility and complete consultations, resulting in more efficient services (2-5 minutes), while family planning and health system clinics used synchronous video encounters requiring 10-30 minutes of clinician time. Family planning and health system primary care clinics mailed medications from clinic stock or internal pharmacies, while independent primary care practices and online services often used mail-order pharmacies. Online services offered patients asynchronous follow-up; other practice settings scheduled synchronous appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid innovations implemented in response to disrupted in-person reproductive health care included remote medication abortion services with telehealth assessment/follow-up and mailed medications. Though consistent operational steps were identified across health care settings, variation allowed for adaptation of services to individual sites. Understanding remote abortion service operations may facilitate dissemination of a range of patient-centered reproductive health services.Annals "Online First" article.

How Ohio's proposed abortion bans would impact travel distance to access abortion care

CONTEXT

Since March 2021, the Ohio legislature has been actively considering laws that would ban abortion if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in 1973.

METHODS

We used a national database of publicly advertised abortion facilities to calculate driving distances for Ohioans before and after the activation of proposed abortion bans. Using a legal analysis of abortion laws following the overturn of Roe, we determined which states surrounding Ohio would continue providing abortion care. We calculated distances from each Ohio county centroid to the nearest open abortion facility in three scenarios: (1) as of February 2022, (2) the best-case post-Roe scenario (two of the five surrounding states continue to offer abortion care), and (3) worst-case post-Roe scenario (no surrounding states continue to offer abortion care). We calculated population-weighted distances using county-level data about women aged 15-44 years from the 2019 American Community Survey.

RESULTS

In February 2022, all Ohio county centroids were at most 99 miles from an abortion facility (median = 50 miles). The best-case post-Roe scenario shows 62 of Ohio's 88 counties to be 115-279 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 146). The worst-case shows 85 counties to be 191-339 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 264). The current average population-weighted driving distance from county centroid to the nearest facility is 26 miles; the post-Roe scenarios would increase this to 157 miles (best-case) or 269 miles (worst-case).

CONCLUSIONS

Ohio's proposed abortion bans would substantially increase travel distances to abortion care, impacting over 2.2 million reproductive-aged Ohioans.

Association Between Distance to an Abortion Facility and Abortion or Pregnancy Outcome Among a Prospective Cohort of People Seeking Abortion Online

IMPORTANCE

Many people face barriers to abortion care, including long distances to an abortion facility.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of distance to the nearest abortion facility with abortion or pregnancy outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using data from the Google Ads Abortion Access study, a prospective cohort study of individuals considering abortion recruited between August 2017 and May 2018. Individuals from 50 states and Washington, District of Columbia, who were pregnant and considering abortion based on self-report were recruited online using a stratified sampling technique. Participants completed online baseline and 4-week follow-up surveys. Data were analyzed between May and August 2021.

EXPOSURES

Driving distance to an abortion facility calculated from participant zip code and grouped into 4 categories (<5 miles, 5-24 miles, 25-49 miles, and ≥50 miles).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Abortion or pregnancy outcome reported at 4-week follow-up, categorized as had an abortion, still seeking an abortion, or planning to continue pregnancy. Other measures included reported experience of 8 distance-related barriers to abortion, such as having to gather money for travel expenses and having to keep the abortion a secret.

RESULTS

Among 1485 pregnant individuals considering abortion who completed the baseline survey and provided contact information, 1005 individuals completed follow-up (follow-up rate, 67.7%) and 856 participants were included in the analytic sample (443 individuals ages 25-34 years [51.8%]; 208 Black individuals [24.3%]; 101 Hispanic or Latinx individuals [11.8%], and 468 White individuals [54.8%]). Most participants had at least some college education (474 individuals [55.5%]). Distance to an abortion facility was less than 5 miles for 233 individuals (27.2%), 5 to 24 miles for 373 individuals (43.6%), 25 to 49 miles for 85 individuals (9.9%), and 50 or more miles for 165 individuals (19.3%) (mean [SD] distance = 28.3 [43.8] miles). Most participants reported at least 1 distance-related barrier (763 individuals [89.1%]), with a mean of 3.3 barriers (95% CI, 3.2-3.5 barriers) reported. For 7 of 8 distance-related barriers, an increased percentage of participants living farther from an abortion facility reported the barrier compared with participants living less than 5 miles from a facility; for example, 61.8% (95% CI, 53.5%-69.4%) of individuals living less than 5 miles reported having to gather money for travel expenses, while 81.2% (95% CI, 70.8%-88.5%; P = .002) of those living 25 to 49 miles and 75.8% (95% CI, 69.9%-81.0%; P = .02) of those living 50 or more miles from a facility reported this barrier. At follow-up, participants living 50 or more miles from a facility had higher odds of still being pregnant and seeking abortion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35-3.17; P = .001) or planning to continue pregnancy (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.06-3.63; P = .03) compared with participants living within 5 miles.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that greater distance from an abortion facility was associated with delays in obtaining abortion care and inability to receive abortion care. These findings suggest that innovative approaches to abortion provision may be needed to mitigate outcomes associated with long distances to abortion facilities.

Trends In Self-Pay Charges And Insurance Acceptance For Abortion In The United States, 2017-20

The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds, including Medicaid, from covering abortion care, and many states have legal restrictions that prevent private insurance plans from covering abortion. As a result, most people pay for abortion out of pocket. We examined patient self-pay charges for three abortion types (medication abortion, first-trimester procedural abortion, and second-trimester abortion), as well as facilities' acceptance of health insurance, during the period 2017-20. We found that during this time, median patient charges increased for medication abortion (from $495 to $560) and first-trimester procedural abortion (from $475 to $575) but not second-trimester abortion (from $935 to $895). The proportion of facilities that accept insurance decreased over time (from 89 percent to 80 percent). We noted substantial regional variation, with the South having lower costs and lower insurance acceptance. Charges for first-trimester procedural abortions are increasing, and acceptance of health insurance is declining. According to the Federal Reserve, one-quarter of Americans could not pay for a $400 emergency expense solely with the money in their bank accounts-an amount lower than any abortion cost in 2020. Lifting Hyde restrictions and requiring public and private health insurance to cover this essential, time-sensitive health service without copays or deductibles would greatly reduce the financial burden of abortion.

Patient and provider experiences using a site-to-site telehealth model for medication abortion

BACKGROUND

In the site-to-site telehealth for medication abortion model, patients visit a health center to meet with a remote clinician using telehealth technology. This model is safe, effective, and acceptable to patients and providers. The objective of this study was to document the experiences of patients and providers using telehealth for medication abortion in Planned Parenthood health centers across different geographical contexts in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with Planned Parenthood medication abortion patients who either met with a clinician at the clinic via telehealth or in-person about their experiences receiving care. We also interviewed Planned Parenthood staff members about their experiences implementing telehealth for medication abortion at their health center.

RESULTS

We interviewed 29 patients who received care at Planned Parenthood health centers in five states. Both telehealth and in-person patients described positive interactions with health center staff and clinicians. The vast majority of telehealth patients said that they felt comfortable speaking with the clinician over telehealth and had no trouble using the telehealth technology. We interviewed 12 providers, including clinicians and administrative staff, who worked in seven states. Providers largely thought that telehealth for medication abortion expanded access to medication abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

Across different locations, our findings indicate that patients found telehealth for medication abortion services to be highly acceptable and providers found that telehealth services may help improve medication abortion access. As the use of telehealth for medication abortion expands, future research should include additional measures of quality to ensure that services are acceptable across different identities and experiences, including age, race, gender, and income level.

Abortion at 12 or more weeks' gestation and travel for later abortion care among Mississippi residents

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between indicators of economic disadvantage and geographic accessibility of reproductive health services and abortions ≥12 weeks' gestation in Mississippi.

STUDY DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used data on Mississippi residents who obtained abortion care from 12 of 14 facilities in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee in 2018. We estimated logistic regression models to assess the association between levels of county deprivation, the number of obstetrician/gynecologists per 10,000 women, and one-way distance to the nearest facility with having an abortion ≥12 weeks' gestation. We compared the median one-way distance to the facility where patients <12 weeks', 12-15 weeks', and ≥16 weeks' gestation received care, using Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

Of the 4,455 Mississippi residents who obtained abortions, 73% were Black, 59% lived ≥50 miles from a facility, and 60% obtained care in Mississippi. Overall, 764 (17.2%) abortions were performed ≥12 weeks' gestation. In adjusted models, those in counties with moderate (OR, 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15-1.90) and high (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.01-1.83) (vs low) levels of economic deprivation and counties with 0.1-1.4 (vs ≥2.5) obstetrician/gynecologists per 10,000 women (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.06-2.27) had higher odds of obtaining an abortion ≥12 weeks' gestation. Mississippi residents who obtained abortions ≥16 weeks' gestation traveled a median 143 miles one way to the facility where they received care, compared to 69 miles and 60 miles traveled by those <12 weeks' and 12-15 weeks' gestation, respectively (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Many Mississippi residents obtained abortion care ≥12 weeks' gestation, which is related to greater economic constraints and limited geographic access to reproductive health services.

IMPLICATIONS

People's need for abortions ≥12 weeks' gestation may be higher in communities with limited access to reproductive health services and among those living in areas with greater economic disadvantage. State laws that narrow gestational limits would increase long-distance travel for later abortion care, and disproportionately affect those with fewer resources.

Barriers to Medication Abortion Among Massachusetts' Public University Students: Medication Abortion Barriers

OBJECTIVE

Proposed legislation in Massachusetts would require public university health centers to provide medication abortion services on campus. This study assesses need for these services by investigating current travel time, costs, wait times and insurance acceptance at off-campus, abortion-providing facilities nearest to public universities in Massachusetts.

STUDY DESIGN

This investigation projected the total number of medication abortions of students at 13 Massachusetts public universities based on campus enrollment figures and age- and state-adjusted medication abortion rates in the state. Using a cross-sectional study design, the research calculated the distance and public transit time from campuses to the nearest abortion-providing facilities. Researchers contacted facilities to determine costs, wait times and insurance acceptance.

RESULTS

We estimate 50 to 115 of Massachusetts public university students obtain medication abortion services each month, or 600 to 1,380 each year. Students have to travel between 2 and 42 miles to reach the nearest abortion-providing facility, with a population-weighted average distance of 19 miles. Travel time on public transportation to reach the nearest abortion-providing facility takes between 18 and 400 hundred minutes, with a population-weighted average of 103 minutes. Average cost of medication abortion was $680, and average wait time to the first available appointment was 8 days. Eight of 13 abortion-providing facilities did not have weekend appointments. All of the nearest abortion-providing facilities in Massachusetts accepted Mass Health, but one nearest facility was out of state and did not. All accepted multiple private insurance plans.

CONCLUSIONS

College students face cost, scheduling, and travel barriers to abortion care. Offering medication abortion on campus would reduce these barriers.