Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Distance traveled for Medicaid-covered abortion care in California

Authors: Nicole E. Johns, Diana Greene Foster, Ushma D. Upadhyay

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Access to abortion care in the United States is limited by the availability of abortion providers and their geographic distribution. We aimed to assess how far women travel for Medicaid-funded abortion in California and identify disparities in access to abortion care.

Methods

We obtained data on all abortions reimbursed by the fee-for-service California state Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) in 2011 and 2012 and examined distance traveled to obtain abortion care by several demographic and abortion-related factors. Mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine factors associated with traveling 50 miles or more. County-level t-tests and linear regressions were conducted to examine the effects of a Medi-Cal abortion provider in a county on overall and urban/rural differences in utilization.

Results

11.9% (95% CI: 11.5–12.2%) of women traveled 50 miles or more. Women obtaining second trimester or later abortions (21.7%), women obtaining abortions at hospitals (19.9%), and rural women (51.0%) were most likely to travel 50 miles or more. Across the state, 28 counties, home to 10% of eligible women, did not have a facility routinely providing Medi-Cal-covered abortions.

Conclusions

Efforts are needed to expand the number of abortion providers that accept Medi-Cal. This could be accomplished by increasing Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, increasing the types of providers who can provide abortions, and expanding the use of telemedicine. If national trends in declining unintended pregnancy and abortion rates continue, careful attention should be paid to ensure that reduced demand does not lead to greater disparities in geographic and financial access to abortion care by ensuring that providers accepting Medicaid payment are available and widely distributed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Jones RK, Jerman J. Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014;46(1):3–14.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Jones RK, Kooistra K. Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(1):41–50.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Jones RK, Jerman J. How far did US women travel for abortion services in 2008? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22(8):706–13.CrossRef
4.
Roberts S, Fuentes L, Kriz R, Williams V, Upadhyay U. Implications for women of Louisiana’s law requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. Contraception. 2015;91(5):368–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Reisinger TL, Reisinger WE, Robinson HA. Geographic disparities in access to abortion services in western New York [14]. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:5S.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Grossman D, Baum S, Fuentes L, White K, Hopkins K, Stevenson A, Potter JE. Change in abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. Contraception. 2014;90(5):496–501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Gerdts C, Fuentes L, Grossman D, White K, Keefe-Oates B, Baum SE, Hopkins K, Stolp CW, Potter JE. Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services after implementation of a restrictive law in Texas. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(5):857–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Henshaw SK. Factors hindering access to abortion services. Fam Plan Perspect. 1995;27(2):54–9. 87.CrossRef
9.
Henshaw SK, Finer LB. The accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2003;35(1):16–24.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Jones RK, Zolna MR, Henshaw SK, Finer LB. Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008;40(1):6–16.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Sethna C, Doull M. Far from home? A pilot study tracking women’s journeys to a Canadian abortion clinic. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(8):640–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sethna C, Doull M. Spatial disparities and travel to freestanding abortion clinics in Canada. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2013;38:52–62.CrossRef
13.
de Moel-Mandel C, Shelley JM. The legal and non-legal barriers to abortion access in Australia: a review of the evidence. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22(2):114–22.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Silva M, McNeill R. Geographical access to termination of pregnancy services in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32(6):519–21.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jerman J, Jones RK. Secondary measures of access to abortion services in the United States, 2011 and 2012: gestational age limits, cost, and harassment. Women’s Health Issues. 2014;24(4):e419–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Drey EA, Foster DG, Jackson RA, Lee SJ, Cardenas LH, Darney PD. Risk factors associated with presenting for abortion in the second trimester. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(1):128–35.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Finer LB, Frohwirth LF, Dauphinee LA, Singh S, Moore AM. Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception. 2006;74(4):334–44.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Foster DG, Jackson RA, Cosby K, Weitz TA, Darney PD, Drey EA. Predictors of delay in each step leading to an abortion. Contraception. 2008;77(4):289–93.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Upadhyay UD, Weitz TA, Jones RK, Barar RE, Foster DG. Denial of abortion because of provider gestational age limits in the united states. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):1687–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Kiley JW, Yee LM, Niemi CM, Feinglass JM, Simon MA. Delays in request for pregnancy termination: comparison of patients in the first and second trimesters. Contraception. 2010;81(5):446–51.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Child TJ, Thomas J, Rees M, MacKenzie IZ. Morbidity of first trimester aspiration termination and the seniority of the surgeon. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):875–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Cates Jr W, Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Tyler Jr CW. The effect of delay and method choice on the risk of abortion morbidity. Fam Plann Perspect. 1977;9(6):266–8. 273.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bartlett LA, Berg CJ, Shulman HB, Zane SB, Green CA, Whitehead S, Atrash HK. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):729–37.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Pazol K, Creanga AA, Jamieson DJ. Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2012. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2015;64(10):1–40.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Upadhyay UD, Desai S, Zlidar V, Weitz TA, Grossman D, Anderson P, Taylor D. Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):175–83.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Institute G. State policies in brief: state funding of abortion under Medicaid. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2016.
27.
California Department of Health Care Services. Medi-Cal funded induced abortions, 2010. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Care Services; 2011.
28.
Dennis A, Blanchard K. Abortion providers’ experiences with Medicaid abortion coverage policies: a qualitative multistate study. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(1):236–52.CrossRefPubMed
29.
ACCESS. Medi-Cal reimbursement for second trimester abortion. In: ACCESS Women’s health justice. 2006.
30.
31.
Shelton JD, Brann EA, Schulz KF. Abortion utilization: does travel distance matter? Fam Plann Perspect. 1976;8(6):260–2.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Dillon M, Savage S. Values and religion in rural America: Attitudes toward abortion and same-sex relations. 2006.
33.
Glusker AI, Dobie SA, Madigan D, Rosenblatt RA, Larson EH. Differences in fertility patterns between urban and rural women in Washington State, 1983–1984 to 1993–1994. Women Health. 2000;31(1):55–70.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ozimek A, Miles D. TRAVELTIME: Stata module to generate travel time and travel distance information. In: IDEAS statistical software components. 2012.
35.
Bernhard S. TRAVELTIME3: Stata command to retrieve travel time and road distance between two locations. In: IDEAS statsitical software components. 2013.
36.
37.
38.
Freedman L. Willing and unable: doctors’ constraints in abortion care. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press; 2010.
39.
Joffe C. Commentary: abortion provider stigma and mainstream medicine. Women Health. 2014;54(7):666–71.CrossRefPubMed
40.
ACOG. ACOG committee opinion No. 586: health disparities in rural women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):384–8.
41.
Dunn JT, Parham L. After the choice: challenging California’s physician-only abortion restriction under the state constitution. UCLA L Rev Discourse. 2013;61:22.
42.
Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion: California. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2015.
43.
Nash E, Gold RB, Rathbun G, Vierboom Y. Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: 2014 State Policy Review. In.: New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2015.
44.
45.
Dreweke J. New clarity for the U.S. Abortion debate: a steep drop in unintended pregnancy is driving recent abortion declines. Guttmacher Policy Review. 2016;19:16–22.
46.
Deprez EE. Abortion clinics Are closing at a record pace. In: Bloomberg Businessweek. 2016.
47.
Jones RK, Upadhyay UD, Weitz TA. At what cost? Payment for abortion care by U.S. women. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23(3):e173–178.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Slattery EL. The hidden consequences of forcing women to travel for abortions. In: Foundations OS, vol. 2016, editor. Voices. 2016.
49.
Paul M, Nobel K, Goodman S, Lossy P, Moschella JE, Hammer H. Abortion training in three family medicine programs: resident and patient outcomes. Fam Med. 2007;39(3):184–9.PubMed
50.
Westfall JM, Sophocles A, Burggraf H, Ellis S. Manual vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(6):559–62.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Godfrey EM, Rubin SE, Smith EJ, Khare MM, Gold M. Women’s preference for receiving abortion in primary care settings. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(3):547–53.CrossRef
52.
Logsdon MB, Handler A, Godfrey EM. Women’s preferences for the location of abortion services: a pilot study in two Chicago clinics. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(1):212–6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Rubin SE, Godfrey E, Gold M. Patient attitudes toward early abortion services in the family medicine clinic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21(2):162–4.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Rubin SE, Godfrey EM, Shapiro M, Gold M. Urban female patients’ perceptions of the family medicine clinic as a site for abortion care. Contraception. 2009;80(2):174–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Weitz TA, Taylor D, Desai S, Upadhyay UD, Waldman J, Battistelli MF, Drey EA. Safety of aspiration abortion performed by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants under a California legal waiver. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):454–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Reproductive Privacy Act, Cal. Health and Safety Code § 123460-123468. (Cal. Stat. 2002).
57.
Weitz TA, Taylor D, Upadhyay UD, Desai S, Battistelli M. Research informs abortion care policy change in California. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(10):e3–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Grossman DA, Grindlay K, Buchacker T, Potter JE, Schmertmann CP. Changes in service delivery patterns after introduction of telemedicine provision of medical abortion in Iowa. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):73–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Chubak J, Pocobelli G, Weiss NS. Tradeoffs between accuracy measures for electronic health care data algorithms. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3):343–349.e342.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Distance traveled for Medicaid-covered abortion care in California
Authors
Nicole E. Johns
Diana Greene Foster
Ushma D. Upadhyay
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2241-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Editorial

Sustainability in Health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 1: introducing a series of papers reporting an investigation of disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

Research article

The impacts of implementation of National Essential Medicines Policies on primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional study in China

Research article

Are physicians aware enough of patient radiation protection? Results from a survey among physicians of Pavia District– Italy

Research article

Measuring self-rated health status among resettled adult refugee populations to inform practice and policy – a scoping review

Research article

Social networks and expertise development for Australian breast radiologists

Erratum

Erratum to: A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization