Did Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Increase After 2016 Election?

JAMA Internal Medicine

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 11 A.M. (ET), MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2019

Media advisory: To contact study author Lydia E. Pace, M.D., M.P.H., email Johanna Younghans at jyounghans@bwh.harvard.edu. The full study and commentary are linked to this news release.

Want to embed a link to this study in your story? This full-text link will be live at the embargo time: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2723071?guestAccessKey=0784ba9e-1dd9-46a3-92d7-9849b434a0e2

 

Bottom Line: Insertions of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods increased in the 30 business days after the 2016 presidential election based on an analysis of data for a large group of commercially insured women. Industry and media reports after the 2016 election of Donald Trump described an increase in the utilization of LARC methods; one proposed reason was that women were concerned about access to contraceptives if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was repealed under the Trump administration. LARC methods (intrauterine devices and implants) can be effective for years at preventing pregnancy. This study of commercially insured women (more than 3.4 million in 2015 and more than 3.2 million in 2016) compared LARC utilization during the 30 days after the 2016 election with 30 days before the election and the same time period in 2015. In 2015, the average adjusted daily LARC insertion rate during the 30 business days before and including November 8 was 12.9 per 100,000 women compared with 13.7 per 100,000 women during the subsequent 30 days; the comparable averages before and after the 2016 election were 13.4 vs. 16.3 per 100,000 women. The authors acknowledge important limitations of their study including that they only studied women with commercial insurance.

Authors: Lydia E. Pace, M.D., M.P.H., of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and coauthors

(doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7111)

Editor’s Note: The article contains conflict of interest disclosures. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.

#  #  #

For more information, contact JAMA Network Media Relations at 312-464-JAMA (5262) or emailmediarelations@jamanetwork.org.