To determine the effect of state Medicaid family planning (FP) programs transitioning from a Section 1115 waiver to a State Plan Amendment (SPA) on reproductive health outcomes.
Materials and Methods:
Data were from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System on 75,082 women who had a live birth between 2007 and 2013 and were living in one of nine states. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis to quantify the effect of the transition on postpartum contraceptive (PPC) use and unintended births (UBs).
Results:
Over 80% of the sample reported using PPC; half reported an UB. The odds of PPC use among women who were living in a study state and gave birth after the transition were 1.14 times that of women who were living in a comparison state and/or gave birth before the transition (95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.24).
Conclusions:
Findings suggest that women living in states that transitioned from a waiver to SPA experienced an increased likelihood of PPC compared with those living in comparison states.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicaid in the United States. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017.
2.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Total Monthly Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment, 2017. Available at: www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and-chip-enrollment/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Total%20Monthly%20Medicaid%2FCHIP%20Enrollment%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D. Accessed March30, 2018.
3.
Medicaid.gov. April 2017 Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment Data Highlights, 2017; Available at: www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html. Accessed December1, 2017.
4.
SchneiderA, EliasR, GarfieldR.Medicaid eligibility. In SchneiderA. (ed.): The Medicaid Resource Book. San Francisco, CA: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 2002, pp. 3–48.
5.
Guttmacher Institute. Medicaid Family Planning Expansions. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2018.
6.
SonfieldA, GoldRB. Medicaid Family Planning Expansions: Lessons Learned and Implications for the Future. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2011.
7.
Guttmacher Institute, Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007.
8.
Medicaid.gov. About Section 1115 Demonstrations. Available at: www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/section-1115-demo/about-1115/index.html. Accessed July10, 2018.
9.
RanjiU, BairY, SalganicoffA.Medicaid and Family Planning: Background and Implications of the ACA. San Franciso, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2016.
10.
MannC.Family Planning Services Option and New Benefit Rules for Benchmark Plans. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DoHaHS, 2010.
11.
AdamsEK, GalactionovaK, KenneyGM. Medicaid family planning waivers in 3 States: Did they reduce unwanted births?. Inquiry, 2015; 52:pii: 0046958015588915.
12.
AdamsEK, KenneyGM, GalactionovaK.Effects of Medicaid Family Planning Waivers: The Arkansas Experience. Atlanta GA: Emory University and The Urban Institute, 2010.
13.
BeltzMA, SacksVH, MooreKA, TerzianM. State policy and teen childbearing: A review of research studies. J Adolesc Health, 2015; 56:130–138.
14.
LindroothRC, McCulloughJS. The effect of Medicaid family planning expansions on unplanned births. Womens Health Issues, 2007; 17:66–74.
15.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicaid State Plan Amendments. Available at: www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/medicaid-state-plan-amendments/index.html Accessed July10, 2018.
16.
MahanD.State Plan Amendments and Waivers: How States Can Change Their Medicaid Programs. Families USA, Washington, DC, 2012.
17.
SonfieldA, FrostJJ, GoldRB. Estimating the Impact of Expanding Medicaid Eligibility for Family Planning Services: 2011 Update. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2011.
18.
Guttmacher Institute. Unintended Pregnancy in the United States. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2015.
19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PRAMS, 2017. Available at: www.cdc.gov/prams Accessed March24, 2017.
20.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PRAMS Model Surveillance Protocol. Atlanta, GA, 2015.
21.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PRAMS Questionnaires, 2017. Available at: www.cdc.gov/prams/questionnaire.htm. Accessed December1, 2017.
22.
Oklahoma Health Care Authority. OHCA Policies and Rules. Available at: www.okhca.org/xpolicy.aspx. Accessed March30, 2018.
23.
HillI, HoganS, PalmerL, et al.Medicaid Outreach and Enrollment for Pregnant Women: What Is the State of the Art?. Washington, DC: Urban Institute and National Academy for State Health Policy, 2009.
24.
AngristJD, PischkeJ.Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
25.
WooldridgeJM.Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western, 2013.
26.
DimickJB, RyanAM. Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: The difference-in-differences approach. JAMA, 2014; 312:2401–2402.
27.
KomroKA, LivingstonMD, MarkowitzS, WagenaarAC. The effect of an increased minimum wage on infant mortality and birth weight. Am J Public Health, 2016; 106:1514–1516.
28.
StevensonAJ, Flores-VazquezIM, AllgeyerRL, SchenkkanP, PotterJE. Effect of removal of planned parenthood from the Texas Women's Health Program. N Engl J Med, 2016; 374:853–860.
29.
BranasCC, CheneyRA, MacDonaldJM, TamVW, JacksonTD, Ten HaveTR. A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. Am J Epidemiol, 2011; 174:1296–1306.
30.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Logic Models for Planning and Evaluation: A Resource Guide for the CDC State Birth Defects Surveillance Program Cooperative Agreement. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009.
31.
United Way of America. Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America, 1996.
32.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brief 5: Evaluating Policy Impact. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013.
33.
FurnhamA.Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Pers Individ Dif, 1985; 7:385–400.
34.
PaulhusD.Measurement and control of response bias. In: RobisonJ, ShaverP, WrightsmanL, eds. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991; pp. 17–60.
35.
SantelliJ, RochatR, Hatfield-TimajchyK, et al.The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health, 2003; 35:94–101.
36.
Conde-AgudeloA, Rosas-BermudezA, Kafury-GoetaAC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 2006; 295:1809–1823.
37.
ZhuBP.Effect of interpregnancy interval on birth outcomes: Findings from three recent US studies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2005; 89(Suppl 1):S25–S33.
38.
SonfieldA, HasstedtK, KavanaughML, AndersonR.The Social and Economic Benefits of Women's Ability to Determine Whether and When to Have Children. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute, 2013.
39.
FosterDG, BiggsMA, RostovtsevaD, de BocanegraHT, DarneyPD, BrindisCD. Estimating the fertility effect of expansions of publicly funded family planning services in California. Womens Health Issues, 2011; 21:418–424.
MayerJP.Unintended childbearing, maternal beliefs, and delay of prenatal care. Birth, 1997; 24:247–252.
42.
BarberJS, AxinnWG, ThorntonA. Unwanted childbearing, health, and mother-child relationships. J Health Soc Behav, 1999; 40:231–257.
43.
ChengD, SchwarzEB, DouglasE, HoronI. Unintended pregnancy and associated maternal preconception, prenatal and postpartum behaviors. Contraception, 2009; 79:194–198.
44.
LoganC, HolcombeE, ManloveJ, RyanS.The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing: A White Paper. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2007.
45.
KostK, LandryDJ, DarrochJE. Predicting maternal behaviors during pregnancy: Does intention status matter?. Fam Plann Perspect, 1998; 30:79–88.
46.
D'AngeloDV, GilbertBC, RochatRW, SantelliJS, HeroldJM. Differences between mistimed and unwanted pregnancies among women who have live births. Perspect Sex Reprod Health, 2004; 36:192–197.
47.
D'AngeloD, WilliamsL, MorrowB, et al.Preconception and interconception health status of women who recently gave birth to a live-born infant—Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), United States, 26 Reporting Areas, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ, 2007; 56:1–35.
