Justine Wu1, Jianying Zhang, Monika Mitra, Susan L Parish, Geeth Kavya Minama Reddy. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, Brandeis University, Waltham, and the Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts; and Mt. Sinai Downtown Residency in Urban Family Medicine, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate provision of moderately and highly effective reversible contraceptives to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. METHODS: We used data from the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database to identify women aged 15-44 years with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities who were continuously enrolled in a private commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare in 2012. We calculated the percentage of women aged 15-44 years who were not medically or surgically sterile and were provided 1) highly effective, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC, the intrauterine device or subdermal implant); or 2) prescriptions for moderately effective methods (pill, patch, ring, shot, or diaphragm). Logistic regression models estimated the odds of LARC and moderately effective method provision by disability status, adjusted for age, income, and Medicaid receipt. RESULTS: Among 915,561 women who were not medically or surgically sterile, 13,059 women (1.4%) had at least one intellectual and developmental disability. Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were less likely to be provided LARC (2.1% vs 4.2%, P<.001, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.38-0.48, P<.001) and moderately effective methods (21.1% vs 29.9%, P<.001, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.71, P<.001) than women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The one exception was the progestin shot, which was provided more often to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities than women without these disabilities (14.7% vs 4.3%, P<.001). Among a subset of women who only received moderately effective methods or LARC (n=310,344), women with intellectual and developmental disability had lower odds of receiving LARC than moderately effective methods (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.67). CONCLUSION: The study findings raise concerns that the provision of LARC and moderately effective methods differs based on the presence of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Greater understanding is needed regarding factors that underlie lower provision of LARC in comparison with moderately effective methods, especially the progestin shot, among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate provision of moderately and highly effective reversible contraceptives to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. METHODS: We used data from the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database to identify women aged 15-44 years with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities who were continuously enrolled in a private commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare in 2012. We calculated the percentage of women aged 15-44 years who were not medically or surgically sterile and were provided 1) highly effective, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC, the intrauterine device or subdermal implant); or 2) prescriptions for moderately effective methods (pill, patch, ring, shot, or diaphragm). Logistic regression models estimated the odds of LARC and moderately effective method provision by disability status, adjusted for age, income, and Medicaid receipt. RESULTS: Among 915,561 women who were not medically or surgically sterile, 13,059 women (1.4%) had at least one intellectual and developmental disability. Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were less likely to be provided LARC (2.1% vs 4.2%, P<.001, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.38-0.48, P<.001) and moderately effective methods (21.1% vs 29.9%, P<.001, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.71, P<.001) than women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. The one exception was the progestin shot, which was provided more often to women with intellectual and developmental disabilities than women without these disabilities (14.7% vs 4.3%, P<.001). Among a subset of women who only received moderately effective methods or LARC (n=310,344), women with intellectual and developmental disability had lower odds of receiving LARC than moderately effective methods (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.67). CONCLUSION: The study findings raise concerns that the provision of LARC and moderately effective methods differs based on the presence of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Greater understanding is needed regarding factors that underlie lower provision of LARC in comparison with moderately effective methods, especially the progestin shot, among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Authors: Nili Amir; Lauren D Smith; Anne M Valentine; Monika Mitra; Susan L Parish; Tiffany A Moore Simas Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 2.554