Search

Objective: The objective was to investigate public funding policies for abortion in countries with liberal or liberally interpreted laws (defined as permitting abortion for economic or social reasons or upon request).Study Design: In May 2011-February 2012 and June 2013-December 2014, we researched online resources and conducted an email-based survey among reproductive health experts to determine countries' public funding policies for abortion. We categorized countries as follows: full funding for abortion (provided for free at government facilities, covered under state-funded health insurance); partial funding (partially covered by the government, covered for certain populations based on income or nonincome criteria, or less expensive in public facilities); funding for exceptional cases (rape/incest/fetal impairment, health/life of the woman or other limited cases) and no public funding.Results: We obtained data for all 80 countries meeting inclusion criteria. Among the world's female population aged 15-49 in countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws, 46% lived in countries with full funding for abortion (34 countries), 41% lived in countries with partial funding (25 countries), and 13% lived in countries with no funding or funding for exceptional cases only (21 countries). Thirty-one of 40 high-income countries provided full funding for abortion (n=20) or partial funding (n=11); 28 of 40 low- to middle-income countries provided full (n=14) or partial funding for abortion (n=14). Of those countries that did not provide public funding for abortion, most provided full coverage of maternity care.Conclusion: Nearly half of countries with liberal/liberally interpreted abortion laws had public funding for abortion, including most countries that liberalized their abortion law in the past 20 years. Outliers remain, however, including among developed countries where access to abortion may be limited due to affordability.Implications: Since cost of services affects access, country policies regarding public funding for services should be monitored, and advocacy should prioritize ensuring the affordability of care for low-income women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: In states requiring physicians to dispense mifepristone, the small number of providers offering the method limits its uptake. In 2008, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Iowa began providing medical abortion via telemedicine at clinics without an on-site physician. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients'' and providers'' experiences with telemedicine provision of medical abortion. Methods: Between October 2009 and February 2010, in-depth interviews were conducted at Planned Parenthood clinics with 25 women receiving medical abortion services (20 telemedicine patients and 5 in-person patients) and 15 clinic staff. Data were analyzed qualitatively for themes related to acceptability of the telemedicine service delivery model. Findings: Patients and providers cited numerous advantages of telemedicine, including decreased travel for patients and physicians and greater availability of locations and appointment times compared with in-person provision. Overall, patients were positive or indifferent about having the conversation with the doctor take place via telemedicine, with most reporting it felt private/secure and in some cases even more comfortable than an in-person visit. However, other women preferred being in the same room with the physician, highlighting the importance of informing women about their options so they can choose their preferred service modality. Conclusions: The findings from this study indicate that telemedicine can be used to provide medical abortion in a manner that is highly acceptable to patients and providers with minimal impact on the clinic. Practice Implications: This information demonstrates the feasibility of telemedicine to extend the reach of physicians and improve abortion access in rural settings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]