Ekwutosi M Okoroh, Charlan D Kroelinger, Olivia R Sappenfield, Julia F Howland, Lisa M Romero, Keriann Uesugi, Shanna Cox
{"title":"Review of Publicly Available State Reimbursement Policies for Removal and Reinsertion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.","authors":"Ekwutosi M Okoroh, Charlan D Kroelinger, Olivia R Sappenfield, Julia F Howland, Lisa M Romero, Keriann Uesugi, Shanna Cox","doi":"10.2147/OAJC.S479397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We examined reimbursement policies for the removal and reinsertion of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a standardized, web-based review of publicly available state policies for language on reimbursement of LARC removal and reinsertion. We also summarized policy language on barriers to reimbursement for LARC removal and reinsertion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six (52%) of the 50 states had publicly available policies that addressed reimbursement for LARC removal. Of these 26 states, 14 (28%) included language on reimbursement for LARC reinsertion. Eleven (42%) of 26 states included language on additional requirements for reimbursement for removal and/or reinsertion: five state policies included language with other requirements for removal only, three policies included language with additional requirements for reinsertion only, and three included language with additional requirements for both. Three state policies specified no restrictions be placed on reimbursement for removal and one specified no restrictions be placed on reimbursement for reinsertion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Half of the states in the US do not have publicly available policies on reimbursement for the removal and reinsertion of LARC devices. Inclusion of unrestricted access to these services is important for contraceptive choice and reproductive autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":74348,"journal":{"name":"Open access journal of contraception","volume":"15 ","pages":"107-118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open access journal of contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S479397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: We examined reimbursement policies for the removal and reinsertion of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC).
Patients and methods: We conducted a standardized, web-based review of publicly available state policies for language on reimbursement of LARC removal and reinsertion. We also summarized policy language on barriers to reimbursement for LARC removal and reinsertion.
Results: Twenty-six (52%) of the 50 states had publicly available policies that addressed reimbursement for LARC removal. Of these 26 states, 14 (28%) included language on reimbursement for LARC reinsertion. Eleven (42%) of 26 states included language on additional requirements for reimbursement for removal and/or reinsertion: five state policies included language with other requirements for removal only, three policies included language with additional requirements for reinsertion only, and three included language with additional requirements for both. Three state policies specified no restrictions be placed on reimbursement for removal and one specified no restrictions be placed on reimbursement for reinsertion.
Conclusion: Half of the states in the US do not have publicly available policies on reimbursement for the removal and reinsertion of LARC devices. Inclusion of unrestricted access to these services is important for contraceptive choice and reproductive autonomy.