Women's Health Issues
Volume 17, Issue 2 , Pages 66-74 , March 2007

The Effect of Medicaid Family Planning Expansions on Unplanned Births

  • Richard C. Lindrooth, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to Richard C. Lindrooth, Department of Health Administration and Policy, Center for Health Economic and Policy Studies, Medical University of South Carolina, 151 Rutledge Dr. Building B, PO Box 250961, Charleston, SC 29425.
    • ,
  • Jeffrey S. McCullough, PhD

Received 10 August 2006 ,Revised 3 January 2007 ,Accepted 27 February 2007.

References 

  1. 2 Steps forward, one step back: Family planning made huge gains, then budget slashed. (March 4). In: The Post and Courier. 2006;p. A1
  2. A Backward Step – even for Missouri: Should Family Planning be Part of the Mission of Public Health Clinics. (March 21). In: St. Louis Post Dispatch. 2006;p. B8
  3. Arkansas Department of Human Services. (October 30). Evaluation of the family planning demonstration waiver: A report to the Division of Medical Services of the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Little Rock, AR: College of Public Health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; 2004;
  4. Bertrand M, Duflo EC, Mullainathan S. How much should we trust difference-in-differences estimates. Quarterly Journal of Econometrics. 2004;119(1):249–275
  5. In:  Brown SS,  Eisenberg L editor. The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. 1995;Institute of Medicine. Available: www.nap.edu/books/0309052300/html. Accessed February 26, 2007.
  6. California Department of Health Services. (May). Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment (FPACT): Medicaid 1115 Waiver Demonstration Project Renewal. Sacramento: Office of Family Planning, California Department of Health Services; 2004;
  7. Cartwright A. Unintended pregnancy that leads to babies. Social Science & Medicine. 1988;27:249–254
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unintended childbearing: Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring systems—Oklahoma, 1998–1991. MMWR. 1992;41:933–936
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Achievements in Public Health, 1990-1999: Family Planning. JAMA. 2000;283:326–331
  10. Edwards J, Bronstein J, Adams K. The effectiveness of barrier methods of contraception in preventing the spread of HIV. (November). Evaluation of Medicaid family planning demonstrations. Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation; 2003;CMS Contract No. 752-2-415921.
  11. Feldblum PJ, Morrison CS, Roddy RE, Cates W. The effectiveness of barrier methods of contraception in preventing the spread of HIV. AIDS. 1995;9(Suppl. A):S85–S93
  12. Foster DG, Klaisle CM, Blum M, Bradsberry ME, Brindis CD, Stewart FH. Expanded state-funded family planning services: Estimating pregnancies averted by the Family PACT program in California, 1997–1998. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:1341–1346
  13. Frost JJ, Sonfield A, Gold RB. Estimating the impact of expanding Medicaid eligibility for family planning services (Occasional Report). New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2006;
  14. Gold RB. Medicaid family planning expansions hit stride. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. 2003;6(4):11–14
  15. Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ. Revised birth and fertility rates for the 1990s and new rates for Hispanic populations, 2000 and 2001: United States. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2003;51(12):1–94
  16. Harlap S, Kost K, Forrest JD. Preventing pregnancy, protecting health: A new look at birth control choices in the United States. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 1991;
  17. Hatcher RA. Contraceptive technology. New York: Ardent Media; 2004;
  18. Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States, 1995–1996. Family Planning Perspectives. 1998;30:263–270
  19. Kost K, Landry DJ, Darroch JE. Predicting maternal behaviors during pregnancy: does intention status matter. Family Planning Perspectives. 1991;23:212–221
  20. Luukkainen T, Toivonen J. Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a method of contraception with therapeutic properties. Contraception. 1995;52:269–276
  21. More support for family planning: State, lawmakers should restore and expand funding. Star Tribune. 2006;(8A):(March 27).
  22. Oregon Department of Human Services. (May; with 2003 August Amendments). Family Planning Demonstration Project Extension Proposal. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Human Services; 2003;
  23. Pamuk ER, Mosher WD. Health aspects of pregnancy and childbirth: United States, 1982. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1988;[DHHS publication no.: 88-1992].
  24. Paton D. The economics of family planning and underage conceptions. Journal of Health Economics. 2002;21(2):207–225
  25. Social Security Act. Section 1903(a)(5). 1972;Available: www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1903.htm. Accessed February 26, 2007.
  26. Social Security Act. Section 1905(a)(4)(C). 1972;Available: www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1905.htm. Accessed February 26, 2007.
  27. Social Security Act. Section 1916(a)(2)(D). 1972;Available: www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1916.htm. Accessed February 26, 2007.
  28. Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, London R, Borden S, Henneberry J, et al. The economic value of contraception: A comparison of 15 methods. American Journal of Public Health. 1995;85(4):494–503
  29. Trussell J, Wiebe E, Schochet T, Gilbert E. Cost savings from emergency contraceptive pills in Canada. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2001;97:789–793
  30. Women struggling with cuts to clinics; Funding changes bring hard times to W. Texas family planning services. (March 26). In: The Houston Chronicle. 2006;p. 1A

PII: S1049-3867(07)00037-0

doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2007.02.012

Women's Health Issues
Volume 17, Issue 2 , Pages 66-74 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution