The Effect of Pharmacist Refusal Clauses on Contraception, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Birthrates

Justine Mallatt
{"title":"The Effect of Pharmacist Refusal Clauses on Contraception, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Birthrates","authors":"Justine Mallatt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3182680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emergency contraceptive drugs like Plan B are controversial, and there have been cases within at least 25 states of pharmacists refusing to provide the drug to patients. In response to pressure from activist groups on both sides of the debate, some states passed \"Patients' Rights Laws\" and other states passed \"Pharmacist Rights Laws\" dictating pharmacists' legal ability to refuse to fill emergency contraceptive prescriptions. Patients Rights Laws expand access to emergency contraception and protect patients' rights to receive prescribed drugs regardless of pharmacists' personal beliefs. Pharmacist Rights Laws restrict access to emergency contraception and favor pharmacists' rights of refusal. This paper studies substitution behavior among contraception spurred by both policies. I find that both types of laws cause a 7-18\\% increase in the prescribing rate of regular birth control pills, and both laws cause decreases in purchases of condoms as well as over-the-counter Plan B. There is not evidence that the policies have effects on rates of sexually transmitted diseases or birthrates on aggregate, however the states that pass the Pharmacist Rights Laws may experience decreases in birthrates for some groups. I find that policies that would be thought to either increase or decrease access to emergency contraception both cause substitution onto the birth control pill, which suggests that the policies may work through an information channel rather than by directly impacting rates of pharmacist refusal.","PeriodicalId":396916,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Evaluation Methods eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Evaluation Methods eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3182680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Emergency contraceptive drugs like Plan B are controversial, and there have been cases within at least 25 states of pharmacists refusing to provide the drug to patients. In response to pressure from activist groups on both sides of the debate, some states passed "Patients' Rights Laws" and other states passed "Pharmacist Rights Laws" dictating pharmacists' legal ability to refuse to fill emergency contraceptive prescriptions. Patients Rights Laws expand access to emergency contraception and protect patients' rights to receive prescribed drugs regardless of pharmacists' personal beliefs. Pharmacist Rights Laws restrict access to emergency contraception and favor pharmacists' rights of refusal. This paper studies substitution behavior among contraception spurred by both policies. I find that both types of laws cause a 7-18\% increase in the prescribing rate of regular birth control pills, and both laws cause decreases in purchases of condoms as well as over-the-counter Plan B. There is not evidence that the policies have effects on rates of sexually transmitted diseases or birthrates on aggregate, however the states that pass the Pharmacist Rights Laws may experience decreases in birthrates for some groups. I find that policies that would be thought to either increase or decrease access to emergency contraception both cause substitution onto the birth control pill, which suggests that the policies may work through an information channel rather than by directly impacting rates of pharmacist refusal.
药剂师拒绝条款对避孕、性传播疾病和出生率的影响
像B计划这样的紧急避孕药物是有争议的,至少在25个州有药剂师拒绝向患者提供药物的案例。为了应对辩论双方激进组织的压力,一些州通过了《病人权利法》,另一些州通过了《药剂师权利法》,规定药剂师有权拒绝开具紧急避孕药处方。《患者权利法》扩大了获得紧急避孕药具的机会,并保护患者不论药剂师的个人信仰如何都能获得处方药的权利。药剂师权利法律限制获得紧急避孕药具,并支持药剂师的拒绝权利。本文研究了两种政策刺激下的避孕替代行为。我发现这两种法律都导致常规避孕药的处方率增加了7- 18%,而且这两种法律都导致避孕套和非处方b计划的购买量减少。没有证据表明这些政策对性传播疾病的发病率或总体出生率有影响,然而,通过药剂师权利法的州可能会经历某些群体出生率的下降。我发现,那些被认为会增加或减少获得紧急避孕药具的政策,都导致了对避孕药的替代,这表明这些政策可能是通过信息渠道起作用的,而不是直接影响药剂师拒绝服用的比率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信