ShareThis Page
Trump’s health care threats led to a boom in long-term birth control |

Trump’s health care threats led to a boom in long-term birth control

President Trump adjusts his eyebrows before speaking during an event on human trafficking in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Friday, Feb. 1, 2019, in Washington.

Did the election of Donald Trump lead to a stampede of women getting IUDs?

Well, maybe not a stampede. But there was a measurable uptick in women getting long-acting contraceptives, namely intrauterine devices and hormonal implants, according to a new analysis published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Trump’s vow to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act unnerved women who feared losing an important ACA benefit — access to all forms of birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. Days after the election, social media lit up with exhortations to get an IUD. That high-cost option works for five to 12 years, potentially enough to outlast Trump’s presidency.

For the new analysis, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Vanderbilt University used data from commercial health plans covering about 3.4 million women ages 17 to 45.

They compared IUD and implant insertions in the month before and after Trump’s election on Nov. 8, 2016. Sure enough, the daily rate of insertions rose from about to 13 to 16 per 100,000 women — about a 22 percent increase. To bolster the theory that it was the Trump effect, the researchers checked the same period a year earlier; it had no such surge in women getting long-acting contraception.

Extrapolating the findings to the 33 million U.S. women of childbearing age would mean 700 more insertions per day, wrote the researchers, led by physician Lydia E. Pace.

The finding is in line with an analysis of Athena Research electronic health records that found IUD prescriptions and procedures increased 19 percent between October and December 2017.

Of course, Trump has not managed to get rid of Obamacare (although he hasn’t given up).

But his administration has been hostile to family planning, to the dismay of experts in women’s health and health policy.

For example, the Department of Health and Human Services issued rules that would vastly expand the number of employers who could claim moral objections in order to opt out of providing no-cost contraception. (A federal judge in Pennsylvania issued an injunction on Jan. 14, the day the rules were to take effect.)

“The ACA’s contraceptive coverage mandate is an important strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies,” Pace and her co-authors wrote. “The Trump Administration has weakened this mandate.”

An opinion piece in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine by experts from Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey went further, decrying the administration’s “attacks on reproductive rights.”

“Eroding the ACA’s contraceptive mandate is just one of several attacks the Trump administration is waging on family planning,” wrote Cynthia H. Chuang and Carol S. Weisman.

Another one, they said, is the administration’s new rules for the Title X family planning program. Besides denying money to family planning providers like Planned Parenthood that also offer abortion services, the rules would shift money to faith-based organizations that promote fertility awareness and abstinence as contraception.

The final rules are expected to be issued any day now.

Categories: News | Health Now
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.