Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Trends in Birth Rates After Elimination of Cost Sharing for Contraception by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


ABSTRACT:

Importance

Reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with improved patterns of contraception use. It is unknown whether reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with fewer births.

Objective

To evaluate changes in birth rates by income level among commercially insured women before (2008-2013) and after (2014-2018) the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, for women aged 15 to 45 years who were enrolled in an employer-based health plan and had pregnancy benefits for at least 1 year. Women without household income information and women with evidence of having undergone a hysterectomy were excluded.

Exposure

Section 2713 of the ACA.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of reproductive-aged women with a live birth by year (measured yearly from 2008 to 2018 [11 time points]) within 3 income categories. The secondary outcome was the distribution of contraceptive method fills in 3 categories by year: (1) most effective methods (long-acting reversible contraception or sterilization), (2) moderately effective methods (pill, patch, ring, and injectable), and (3) no prescription or surgical method.

Results

The analytic sample included 4 590 989 women (mean [SD] age; 30.8 [9.1] years in 2013; 3 069 053 White [66.9%]) enrolled in 47 721 health plans. A total of 500 898 participants (40.8%) resided in households with incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level in 2013. In all 3 years (2008, 2013, and 2018), women in the lowest income category were younger than women in the other income groups (median range, 21-22 years vs 30-34 years) and in households with a higher median number of dependents (9-10 vs 2-4). There was an associated decrease in births in all income groups in the period after the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. The estimated probability of birth decreased most precipitously among women in the lowest income group from 8.0% (95% CI, 7.4%-8.5%) in 2014 to 6.2% (95% CI, 5.7%-6.7%) in 2018, representing a 22.2% decrease (P < .001). The estimated probability decreased in the middle income group by 9.4%, from 6.4% (95% CI, 6.3%-6.4%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 5.7%-5.8%) (P < .001), and in the highest income group by 1.8%, from 5.6% (95% CI, 5.6%-5.7%) to 5.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-5.5%) (P < .001) in the period after the elimination of cost sharing.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the ACA was associated with improvements in contraceptive method prescription fills and a decrease in births among commercially insured women. Women with low income had more precipitous decreases than women with higher income, suggesting that enhanced access to contraception may address well-documented income-related disparities in unintended birth rates.

SUBMITTER: Dalton VK 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7648257 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Trends in Birth Rates After Elimination of Cost Sharing for Contraception by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Dalton Vanessa K VK   Moniz Michelle H MH   Bailey Martha J MJ   Admon Lindsay K LK   Kolenic Giselle E GE   Tilea Anca A   Fendrick A Mark AM  

JAMA network open 20201102 11


<h4>Importance</h4>Reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with improved patterns of contraception use. It is unknown whether reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with fewer births.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate changes in birth rates by income level among commercially insured women before (2008-2013) and after (2014-2018) the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cross-secti  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC7384237 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC11117145 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9206183 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6380174 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8101607 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5842919 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3770506 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10646725 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8727038 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4722206 | biostudies-literature