Search

There is increasing adoption of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention at the time of gynecologic surgery, which includes the postpartum period. However, there is no consensus on an ideal surgical approach for the parturient vasculature. We describe a safe, low-cost, and accessible approach for bilateral salpingectomy during cesarean delivery that we call the "Mesosalpinx Isolation Salpingectomy Technique" (MIST) that can guide institutions to standardize their postpartum salpingectomy procedures when advanced vessel-sealing devices are not available. In the MIST technique, avascular windows are created within the mesosalpinx close to the tubal vessels. The vasculature is thus fully skeletonized and isolated from the adjacent mesosalpinx before suture ligation, which ensures security of the free-tie to the individual vessels and avoids sharp injury to the mesosalpinx. Not using vessel-sealing devices also eliminates the risk of thermal injury to the adjacent ovarian tissue and vasculature and potentially achieves a cost-savings for the hospital and patient. MIST has been performed in 141 cesarean deliveries in the past 4 years. There were no noted bleeding complications during the salpingectomy procedure, blood transfusions, or instances of postoperative surgical reexploration. In our experience, a surgeon who is new to the procedure takes approximately 15 minutes to complete a bilateral salpingectomy. Those surgeons who are experienced in MIST need only 5 minutes. A video is included that demonstrates the technique., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large scale public investment in family welfare programme has made female sterilization a free service in public health centers in India. Besides, it also provides financial compensation to acceptors. Despite these interventions, the use of contraception from private health centers has increased over time, across states and socio-economic groups in India. Though many studies have examined trends, patterns, and determinants of female sterilization services, studies on out-of-pocket payment (OOP) and compensations on sterilisation are limited in India. This paper examines the trends and variations in out-of-pocket payment (OOP) and compensations associated with female sterilization in India., Methods: Data from the National Family Health Survey - 4, 2015-16 was used for the analyses. A composite variable based on compensation received and amount paid by users was computed and categorized into four distinct groups. Multivariate analyses were used to understand the significant predictors of OOP of female sterilization., Results: Public health centers continued to be the major providers of female sterilization services; nearly 77.8% had availed themselves of free sterilization and 61.6% had received compensation for female sterilization. About two-fifths of the women in the economically well-off state like Kerala and one-third of the women in a poor state like Bihar had paid but did not receive any compensation for female sterilization. The OOP on female sterilization varies from 70 to 79% across India. The OOP on female sterilization was significantly higher among the educated and women belonging to the higher wealth quintile linking OOP to ability to pay for better quality of care., Conclusion: Public sector investment in family planning is required to provide free or subsidized provision of family welfare services, especially to women from a poor household. Improving the quality of female sterilization services in public health centers and rationalizing the compensation may extend the reach of family planning services in India.

Objective: We sought to assess fulfillment of sterilization requests while accounting for the complex interplay between insurance, clinical and social factors in a contemporary context that included both inpatient and outpatient postpartum sterilization procedures., Study Design: This is a retrospective single-center cohort chart review study of 1331 women with a documented contraceptive plan at time of postpartum discharge of sterilization. We compared sterilization fulfillment within 90days of delivery, time to sterilization and rate of subsequent pregnancy after nonfulfillment between women with Medicaid and women with private insurance., Results: A total of 475 of 1030 Medicaid-insured and 100 of 154 privately insured women received postpartum sterilization (46.1% vs. 64.9%, p<.001). Women with Medicaid had a longer time from delivery to completion of the sterilization request (p<.001). After adjusting for age, parity, gestational age, mode of delivery, adequacy of prenatal care, race/ethnicity, marital status and education level, private insurance status was not associated with either sterilization fulfillment [odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.64] or time to sterilization (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% C.I. 0.73-1.34). Of the 555 Medicaid-insured women who did not receive a postpartum sterilization, 267 (48.1%) had valid Title XIX sterilization consent forms at time of delivery. Of women who did not receive sterilization, 132 of 555 Medicaid patients and 5 of 54 privately insured patients became pregnant within 1 year (23.8% vs. 9.3%, p=.023)., Conclusion: Differences in fulfillment rates of postpartum sterilization and time to sterilization between women with Medicaid versus private insurance are similar after adjusting for relevant clinical and demographic factors. Women with Medicaid are more likely than women with private insurance to have a short interval repeat pregnancy after an unfulfilled sterilization request., Implications: Efforts are needed to ensure that Medicaid recipients who desire sterilization receive timely services., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Bill 20, An Act to Enact the Act to promote access to family medicine and specialized medicine services and to amend various legislative provisions relating to assisted procreation, was introduced to reduce costs associated with Québec's healthcare in general and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in particular. Passed in November 2015, the new law introduces a number of exclusion criteria for access to and funding for IVF treatment. Remarkably, one exclusion criterion-prior voluntary sterilisation-has prompted little critical commentary. The two justifications offered for restricting funding for IVF on the basis of voluntary sterilisation are that (1) there are cheaper options than IVF for sterilised individuals who want children, and (2) society should not have to pay for IVF for persons who are infertile by choice. I argue that both of these justifications are unsatisfactory, insofar as they contravene the chief value underlying, and current practices of, Canadian healthcare, and rely on problematic ascriptions of personal responsibility for health., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Since the law of 4 July 2001, vasectomy has been recognized as a method of male contraception. We report the experience of vasectomy practice in a hospital-university center., Methods: A monocentric retrospective cohort study of 45 patients who benefited from a contraceptive vasectomy between July 2001 and May 2016. For each patient were studied: modalities of implementation, compliance with the recommendations of the 2001 law, costs and benefits generated by the intervention, the effectiveness of the gesture on the control spermograms, the satisfaction of the patients by a telephone questionnaire., Results: The mean age was 41.3 years. The second consultation was carried out in 91 % of the cases but the reflection period was not respected in 24 % of the cases. Written consent was signed in 89 % of cases. Vasectomy was performed on an outpatient basis in 73 % of cases, under local anaesthesia in 6.7 % of cases. The average cost per patient was 660.63 euros for an average gain of 524.50 euros, a loss of 136.13 euros. On the control spermogram, 54.3 % were azoosperms but the 3-month delay was not observed in 23 % of them. No patients expressed regret after surgery., Conclusion: The recommendations of the 2001 law were not systematically followed. This lack of standardization of practices, potential reflection of a lack of interest, is to be highlighted with the extra cost generated. The revaluation of the act should be integrated into the reflection of improvement of male sterilization practices., Level of Proof: 4., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE To determine characteristics of cats sterilized through a subsidized, reduced-cost spay-neuter program in Massachusetts and of owners who had their cats sterilized through this program. DESIGN Cross-sectional anonymous survey and telephone interviews. SAMPLE 1,188 (anonymous surveys) and 99 (telephone interviews) cat owners. PROCEDURES Owners who had a cat sterilized at clinics held between January 2006 and December 2008 were invited to complete anonymous surveys. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with owners who had a cat sterilized during clinics held in 2009. RESULTS Most cats had never been seen by a veterinarian previously; "too expensive" was the most common reason for this. Total annual household income was significantly associated with the number of times the cat had been examined by a veterinarian and reason why the cat had not been spayed or neutered previously. Most cats were acquired through informal means and without actively being sought, and there was often a time lag between acquisition and sterilization. Undesirable behavior and avoiding pregnancy were primary motivations for neutering and spaying, respectively. Nearly half of owners who indicated they would have had their cat sterilized through a private veterinarian if the clinic had not been available stated that the surgery would have been delayed because of cost. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Findings suggested that spay-neuter decisions were related to owner income and procedure cost, that elimination of the reduced-cost spay-neuter program would likely have exacerbated the spay-delay problem, and that gradations of financial need should be considered when evaluating relationships between income and spay-neuter decisions.

Sterilization, male and female combined, is the most common use of contraception in the United States. Despite the lower risk, higher cost-efficacy, and high efficacy of vasectomy compared with female sterilization, more US women rely on female sterilization than male sterilization. Reasons for low use of vasectomy include lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the procedure, lack of access, provider bias, and patient preferences. This article will provide a basic overview of male and female sterilization, an exploration of vasectomy barriers, and ways obstetrician-gynecologists can increase vasectomy uptake including regular recommendation of vasectomy to patients in long-term committed relationships considering sterilization.

Objective: Cross-sectional studies have found that low-income and racial/ethnic minority women are more likely to use female sterilization and less likely to rely on a partner's vasectomy than women with higher incomes and whites. However, studies of pregnant and postpartum women report that racial/ethnic minorities, particularly low-income minority women, face greater barriers in obtaining a sterilization than do whites and those with higher incomes. In this paper, we address this apparent contradiction by examining the likelihood a woman gets a sterilization following each delivery, which removes from the comparison any difference in the number of births she has experienced., Study Design: Using the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth, we fit multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression models to estimate odds ratios and hazard ratios for getting a postpartum or interval sterilization, respectively, according to race/ethnicity and insurance status., Results: Women's chances of obtaining a sterilization varied by both race/ethnicity and insurance. Among women with Medicaid, whites were more likely to use female sterilization than African Americans and Latinas. Privately insured whites were more likely to rely on vasectomy than African Americans and Latinas, but among women with Medicaid-paid deliveries reliance on vasectomy was low for all racial/ethnic groups., Conclusions: Low-income racial/ethnic minority women are less likely to undergo sterilization following delivery compared to low-income whites and privately insured women of similar parities. This could result from unique barriers to obtaining permanent contraception and could expose women to the risk of future unintended pregnancies., Implications: Low-income minorities are less likely to undergo sterilization than low-income whites and privately insured minorities, which may result from barriers to obtaining permanent contraception, and exposes women to unintended pregnancies., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The recent decline in fertility in India has been unprecedented especially in southern India, where fertility is almost exclusively controlled by means of permanent contraceptive methods, mainly female sterilization, which constitutes about two-thirds of overall contraceptive use. Many Indian women undergo sterilization at relatively young ages as a consequence of early marriage and childbearing in short birth intervals. This research aims to investigate the socioeconomic factors determining the choices for alternative contraceptive choices against the dominant preference for sterilization among married women in India., Methods: Data for this study are drawn from the 2005-06 National Family Health Surveys focusing on a sample of married women who reported having used a method of contraception in the five years preceding the survey. A multilevel multinomial logit regression is used to estimate the impact of socioeconomic factors on contraceptive choices, differentiating temporary modern or traditional methods versus sterilization., Findings: Religious affiliation, women's education and occupation had overarching influence on method choices amongst recent users. Muslim women were at higher odds of choosing a traditional or modern temporary method than sterilization. Higher level of women's education increased the odds of modern temporary method choices but the education effect on traditional method choices was only marginally significant. Recent users belonging to wealthier households had higher odds of choosing modern methods over sterilization. Exposure to family planning messages through radio had a positive effect on modern and traditional method choices. Community variations in method choices were highly significant., Conclusion: The persistent dominance of sterilization in the Indian family planning programme is largely determined by socioeconomic conditions. Reproductive health programmes should address the socioeconomic barriers and consider multiple cost-effective strategies such as mass media to promote awareness of modern temporary methods.

Objective: Medicaid sterilization policy, which includes a mandatory 30-day waiting period between consent and the sterilization procedure, poses significant logistical barriers for many women who desire publicly funded sterilization. Our goal was to estimate the number of unintended pregnancies and the associated costs resulting from unfulfilled sterilization requests due to Medicaid policy barriers., Study Design: We constructed a cost-effectiveness model from the health care payer perspective to determine the incremental cost over a 1-year time horizon of the current Medicaid sterilization policy compared to a hypothetical, revised policy in which women who desire a postpartum sterilization would face significantly reduced barriers. Probability estimates for potential outcomes in the model were based on published sources; costs of Medicaid-funded sterilizations and Medicaid-covered births were based on data from the Medicaid Statistical Information System and The Guttmacher Institute, respectively., Results: With the implementation of a revised Medicaid sterilization policy, we estimated that the number of fulfilled sterilization requests would increase by 45%, from 53.3% of all women having their sterilization requests fulfilled to 77.5%. Annually, this increase could potentially lead to over 29,000 unintended pregnancies averted and $215 million saved., Conclusion: A revised Medicaid sterilization policy could potentially honor women's reproductive decisions, reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and save a significant amount of public funds., Implication: Compared to the current federal Medicaid sterilization policy, a hypothetical, revised policy that reduces logistical barriers for women who desire publicly funded, postpartum sterilization could potentially avert over 29,000 unintended pregnancies annually and therefore lead to cost savings of $215 million each year., (© 2013.)

Little is known about Hispanics and their contraceptive choices in general, with some past studies detailing nonconsensual sterilization. This article is based on interviews with a mostly Hispanic sample of 44 women being sterilized at a public clinic in southeast Texas with the Essure device, which entails a new outpatient sterilization procedure. The women cited relationship factors, wanting to better their and their children's lives, and past reproductive histories as reasons for deciding on sterilization. They specifically chose Essure as a result of an apprehension of surgery and potential side effects from tubal ligation. Their choices, however, were limited by larger structural factors of work, family, the political economy, and the health care system. We concluded that this new sterilization technique provided more contraceptive choices for these women, yet more contraceptive decision-making autonomy and more equitable social structures are still needed.

Our goal was to determine whether it is more cost-effective to control feral cat abundance with trap-neuter-release programs or trap and euthanize programs. Using STELLA 7, systems modeling software, we modeled changes over 30 years in abundance of cats in a feral colony in response to each management method and the costs and benefits associated with each method . We included costs associated with providing food, veterinary care, and microchips to the colony cats and the cost of euthanasia, wages, and trapping equipment in the model. Due to a lack of data on predation rates and disease transmission by feral cats the only benefits incorporated into the analyses were reduced predation on Wedge-tailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). When no additional domestic cats were abandoned by owners and the trap and euthanize program removed 30,000 cats in the first year, the colony was extirpated in at least 75% of model simulations within the second year. It took 30 years for trap-neuter-release to extirpate the colony. When the cat population was supplemented with 10% of the initial population size per year, the colony returned to carrying capacity within 6 years and the trap and euthanize program had to be repeated, whereas trap-neuter-release never reduced the number of cats to near zero within the 30-year time frame of the model. The abandonment of domestic cats reduced the cost effectiveness of both trap-neuter-release and trap and euthanize. Trap-neuter-release was approximately twice as expensive to implement as a trap and euthanize program. Results of sensitivity analyses suggested trap-neuter-release programs that employ volunteers are still less cost-effective than trap and euthanize programs that employ paid professionals and that trap-neuter-release was only effective when the total number of colony cats in an area was below 1000. Reducing the rate of abandonment of domestic cats appears to be a more effective solution for reducing the abundance of feral cats., (©2012 Society for Conservation Biology.)

In the 1970s, concern about coercive sterilization of low-income and minority women in the United States led the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to create strict regulations for federally funded sterilization procedures. Although these policies were instituted to secure informed consent and protect women from involuntary sterilization, there are significant data indicating that these policies may not, in fact, ensure that consent is truly informed and, further, may prevent many low-income women from getting a desired sterilization procedure. Given the alarmingly high rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, especially among low-income populations, we feel that restrictive federal sterilization policies should be reexamined and modified to simultaneously ensure informed decision-making and honor women's reproductive choices.

A hybrid body of regulations is recommended containing both mandatory spay/neuter and low-cost spay/neuter provisions that will reduce accidental litters, impulse buying, and other irresponsible pet practices. The majority of pet owners are well-meaning but often lack the financial, intellectual, or other resources to properly control the breeding behaviors of their animals. Full compliance with spay/neuter regulations is the most desirable solution to the pet overpopulation problem. A comprehensive rule structure will facilitate spaying and neutering in some circumstances and require it on others.

Background: Female sterilisation is the most widely used method of contraception worldwide. However, only a small proportion of contraceptors are reported to rely on female sterilisation in Nigeria. Continuous reviews of trends in its use are necessary to develop policies that will improve uptake in the country., Objective: To determine the volume and trends in the use of female sterilisation through minilaparotomy as a method of contraception in a Nigerian university teaching hospital., Methods: The records of women who had sterilisation through minilaparotomy over a ten year period were reviewed for socialdemographic characteristics, reasons for undergoing sterilisation, timing of the procedure, surgical method used and complications recorded. This is too sketchy, Results: Female sterilisation through minilaparotomy accounted for 95 (0.8%) of the 12,035 total contraceptive use during the period. The rate decreased from 1.5% of total contraceptive use in 1995 to 0.22% in 2003. Eighty two (86.4%) of the female sterilisation acceptors were aged 35 years and above, 46 (48.4%) had no or only primary education and 42 (44.2%) were petty traders. Sixty six (69.5%) of the women were grandmultiparae and 70 (73.7%) had more children than they desired. Seventy three (76.8%) had used other contraceptive methods before sterilisation. The average cost of female sterilisation through minilaparotomy in our hospital was USD25 and this was significantly more than the cost of other contraceptives, and more than hospital charges for normal vaginal delivery., Conclusion: The proportion of contraceptive acceptors who rely on female sterilisation is low in our environment and has steadily declined over the years. The higher cost of the procedure as compared to other contraceptives appears to be the main barrier. Reduction or outright elimination of cost will probably act as incentive for women to choose female sterilisation as a method of contraception.

Female sterilisation is a safe and effective form of permanent birth control. In the United States (US), it is still the second most commonly used form of contraception overall and is the most frequently used method among married women and among women over 30 years of age. Although several European countries have noted a sharp decline in the number of women electing tubal sterilisation in recent years, such trends have not been as obvious in the US. While female sterilisation remains popular, there are considerable system-level barriers to getting the procedure for certain segments of the population as well as emerging concerns about appropriate utilisation of this contraceptive method in light of newer, reversible options and the knowledge that regret after permanent contraception is high. Given the complexity of this decision-making process, it is critical that providers ensure at the very least that women are aware of the potential disadvantages of tubal occlusion and are knowledgeable of other highly effective contraceptive methods that are available but vastly underutilised in the US, namely, vasectomy, intrauterine contraceptives, and implants.

Background: January 1, 2002, copayment for outpatient female sterilization in Norwegian public hospitals increased from 33 euro to 750 euro after a revision of the health care system. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the new copayment system on female sterilization epidemiology., Methods: We retrieved data on all female sterilizations 1999-2005 (N = 23 1333) from the Norwegian Patient Register, an administrative register to which it is mandatory for all hospitals to report. Sterilizations with diagnostic codes indicative of vaginal delivery, caesarean section, spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and termination of pregnancy were analyzed separately. All other sterilizations were defined as "interval sterilization"., Results: An abrupt fall in female sterilization was observed after the raise in copayment. Age-adjusted incidence rates dropped from 6.3-6.8 per 1000 women in 1999-2001 to 2.2-2.3 per 1000 women during 2002-2005. Interval sterilizations dropped to 25% of the previous level after the rise in copayment while sterilizations in conjunction with caesarean section and postpartum sterilization remained constant., Conclusion: For many Norwegian women seeking contraception, sterilization is no longer an available alternative.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish and evaluate a direct access service for laparoscopic sterilization., Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was carried out on a total of 232 women referred to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for sterilization between 1 June 1996 and 31 March 1997, from 57 general practices around Aberdeen, Scotland, comprising 75 from general practices that had received criteria for direct access, and 157 from control practices. The main outcome measures were: patients' waiting times to appointments and operation, satisfaction, short-term regret, operative complications and costs; conjoint analysis of patient preferences; GPs' adherence to referral criteria; GP and gynaecologist satisfaction; and NHS costs., Results: Analysis was by intention to treat. There were no inappropriate direct referrals. Waiting time was lower in the intervention group, but there were more visits post-operatively to the GP. Patient and doctor satisfaction was equally high in both groups. There was no difference in operative complication rate, nor in total cost to patients or to the NHS. GPs and gynaecologists strongly supported direct access, but women preferred to meet both a gynaecologist and a GP before sterilization (routine referral). Other attributes of care important to patients included written information, although waiting time was not important. Of all women referred for sterilization during the study period, only 31% were suitable for direct referral., Conclusions: Patients preferred routine referral, and there were no differences in patient costs or satisfaction. There was, however, strong medical support for direct referral. Restrictive direct referral criteria may limit the uptake. These findings are important for future planning of direct referral services. Important methodological lessons were also learnt about the conduct of trials involving the primary-secondary care interface.

This paper examines some problems involved in the provision of female sterilization procedures in Brazil, mainly those concerned with the ways in which this operation is offered. Female sterilization provision is analysed by reference to the broader institutional context and from the client's perspectives. These themes are discussed in the light of some recent survey findings. A survey was carried out between March and July, 1992 in two selected poor areas of São Paulo Metropolitan Region. 3149 women were asked about contraceptive use including 407 sterilized women under 40 years old who were also interviewed about their adaptation to sterilization. Further information was also obtained through in-depth interviews with 15 sterilized women who regretted the operation. The findings highlight a complex network of interests and misunderstandings which shape the nature of choice of female sterilization by Brazilian low income women.

The difficulties in providing readily accessible sterilization services for women in rural settings in developing countries are described; they include: problems with personnel; problems with training; anesthesia difficulties; and cost. For a new method of sterilization to be useful in such situations several criteria concerned with overcoming the perceived problems must be met. Any new procedure should be simple, easily learned, capable of being completed with a single visit, and should require only local anesthesia.

The objective of this analysis was to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of eight contraceptive methods: condoms, diaphragms, oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, medroxyprogesterone acetate suspension, levonorgestrel subdermal implants, tubal ligation and vasectomy. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature and various additional data sources, this analysis identified, measured and compared direct costs of the methods, physician visits, treatment of adverse effects and cost of failure (i.e., mean cost for all types of deliveries or first-trimester abortion). Medical benefits (if any) resulting from each contraceptive method were calculated and considered in the analysis as cost savings. The cost of method failure proved to be the greatest influence on cost-effectiveness. Sterilization was identified as the most cost-effective method overall. Of the reversible methods, the intrauterine device was found to be the most cost-effective, followed by levonorgestrel implants.

In 1992, the federal and state governments spent $645 million to provide contraceptive services. According to the results of a survey of health, social service and Medicaid agencies conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Medicaid accounted for 50% of all public spending on family planning services. State governments, which spent a total of $155 million of their own revenues for contraceptives services, accounted for 24% of public funding, Title X for 17%, and the social services and maternal and child health block-grant programs for nearly 10%. Medicaid expenditures for contraceptive services increased dramatically between 1990 and 1992, and were responsible for a 28% rise in total expenditures for contraceptive services during that period. However, when inflation is taken into account, total public expenditures for contraceptive services have decreased by 27% since 1980, and Medicaid has replaced Title X as the primary source of funding for such services. The federal and state governments together spent $138 million to subsidize sterilization services in 1992, an increase of 46% from 1990. The federal and state governments also spent $80 million to provide 202,622 abortions to poor women; less than 1% was contributed by the federal government. These estimates of expenditures are approximations that, because of methodologic problems and changes over time, may overstate public expenditures for contraceptive services.

The Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception retrospectively examined the impact of funding decreases on access to sterilization services at 20 nongovernmental family planning clinics in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Brazil. Clinic staff were asked questions about client fees, caseloads, availability of comparable low-cost or free services nearby, cost-recovery activities, and the socioeconomic profile of clients before, during the time, and after subsidies were lowered or eliminated. Funding reductions were followed by decreased caseloads at 14 of the 20 sites studied. Of the six others, four experienced an increase in caseloads, one saw no perceptible change, and one experienced a decrease only as a result of management policy to cut the caseload to improve quality. The most common response to the decrease in funding (shared by 17 sites) was an increase in client fees. In all but three of the 17 clinics, the increase in fees was met with a decline in caseloads. Moreover, at nine of these 17 sites, the fee increase effected a change in client mix; anecdotal evidence suggests that more middle-income and fewer lower-income clients were using sterilization services. Four lessons can be drawn from this study: Donors need to plan funding phase-outs carefully, in conjunction with grantees; grantees need to assess the costs of the procedure realistically, and assign fees accordingly; management needs to seek alternative funding sources in lieu of, or in addition to, increasing fees; and caseloads can be increased and costs recovered by diversifying services.

In FY 1990, the federal and state governments spent $504 million to provide contraceptive services and supplies, according to results of a survey of state health, social services and Medicaid agencies conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Medicaid accounted for 38 percent of all public funds spent on contraceptive services, Title X provided 22 percent, and two federal block-grant programs--Social Services and Maternal and Child Health--together were responsible for 12 percent of public expenditures. State governments accounted for the remaining 28 percent of public funding. Although public expenditures for contraceptive services have risen by $154 million over the past decade, when inflation is taken into account, expenditures have actually fallen by one-third. Since 1980, the proportion of public contraceptive expenditures contributed by Title X has been cut virtually in half, while the proportion contributed by state governments has nearly doubled. When inflation is taken into account, Title X expenditures for contraceptive services have fallen by almost two-thirds since 1980. The federal and state governments together spent $95 million to subsidize sterilization services in 1990, and $65 million to provide abortion services. The federal government was the major source of funding for sterilization services but provided less than one percent of the cost of abortion services. Because of changes over time in survey methodology and the difficulties some states had in separating out expenditures by type of care, these data are approximations.

The government of Bangladesh and the World Bank commissioned a Compensation Payments Study, carried out in 1987, to assess the merits and demerits of payments for sterilizations to clients, medical personnel, and intermediaries who motivate and refer clients. The study conclusively shows that the decision of Bangladeshi men and women to undergo sterilization is a considered and voluntary act, taken in knowledge of the nature and implications of the procedure, and in knowledge of alternative methods of regulating fertility. There is a high degree of client satisfaction among those who have been sterilized, although among clients who had fewer than three children, 25 percent expressed regret that they had been sterilized. Money may be a contributing factor to the decision to become sterilized in a large majority of cases, but a dominant motive for only a very small minority. Payments to referrers have fostered a large number of unofficial, self-employed agents--particularly men who recruit vasectomy cases. These agents provide information about the procedures for being sterilized, particularly to the poor. They also concentrate on sterilizations to the exclusion of other methods, and are prone to minimize the disadvantages and exaggerate the attractions of sterilization.

In FY 1987, the federal and state governments spent +386 million to provide family planning services. Medicaid was the leading source of public funding, accounting for 36 percent of all public monies spent on family planning. Title X of the Public Health Service Act provided 34 percent of total public funds, and two block-grant programs--Social Services and Maternal and Child Health--together were responsible for 17 percent of public support in this area. State governments, which spent a total of +50 million of their own revenues for family planning services, accounted for the remaining 13 percent of public funding. The federal and state governments together spent +65 million to subsidize contraceptive sterilization services in FY 1987. The federal government provided 97 percent of the funding, 88 percent through the Medicaid program. In addition, the federal and state governments spent +64 million to provide 189,000 abortions to poor women; less than one percent of these funds were contributed by the federal government. These data come from a survey of state health, welfare and Medicaid agencies carried out by The Alan Guttmacher Institute and should be viewed as approximations rather than as precise figures.

All women hospitalized for delivery over a ten-week period at the largest maternity hospital in Campinas in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, were questioned about their interest in and plans for sterilization. Results from a categorical data analysis indicate that among the study variables, cesarean delivery was the necessary condition for postpartum sterilization and was significantly associated with the patient's ability to pay for services. Further, the variability in the proportion of women sterilized postpartum was almost perfectly explained by a linear model with main effects for parity and for the patient's ability to pay for services.