Mifepristone label laws and trends in use: recent experiences in four US states

Medication abortion use among low-income and rural Texans before and during state-imposed restrictions and after FDA-updated labeling

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Texas legislature passed House Bill 2, restricting use of medication abortion to comply with Food and Drug Administration labeling from 2000. The Food and Drug Administration updated its labeling for medication abortion in 2016, alleviating some of the burdens imposed by House Bill 2.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to identify the impact of House Bill 2 on medication abortion use by patient travel distance to an open clinic and income status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we collected patient zip code, county of residence, type of abortion, family size, and income data on all patients who received an abortion (medication or aspiration) from 7 Texas abortion clinics in 3 time periods: pre-House Bill 2 (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013), during House Bill 2 (April 1, 2015-March 30, 2016), and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update (April 1, 2016-March 30, 2017). Patient driving distance to the clinic where care was obtained was categorized as 1-24, 25-49, 50-99, or 100+ miles. Patient county of residence was categorized by availability of a clinic during House Bill 2 (open clinic), county with a House Bill 2-related clinic closure (closed clinic), or no clinic any time period. Patient income was categorized as ≤110% federal poverty level (low-income) and >110% federal poverty level. Change in medication abortion use in the 3 time periods by patient driving distance, residence in a county with an open clinic, and income status were evaluated using χ² tests and logistic regression. We used geospatial mapping to depict the spatial distribution of patients who obtained a medication abortion in each time period.

RESULTS

Among 70,578 abortion procedures, medication abortion comprised 26%, 7%, and 29% of cases pre-House Bill 2, during House Bill 2, and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, respectively. During House Bill 2, patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1- 24 miles were less likely to use medication abortion (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.15, 0.30), as were low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.85), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.08, 0.25). Similarly, post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, rebound in medication abortion use was less pronounced for patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1-24 miles (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.74, 0.91), low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.72, 0.81), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.94). Post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, patients residing in counties with House Bill 2-related clinic closures were less likely to receive medication abortion as driving distance increased (52% traveling 25-49 miles, 41% traveling 50-99 miles, and 26% traveling 100+ miles, P < .05). Geospatial mapping demonstrated that patients traveled from all over the state to receive medication abortion pre-House Bill 2 and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, whereas during House Bill 2, only those living in or near a county with an open clinic obtained medication abortion.

CONCLUSION

Texas state law drastically restricted access to medication abortion and had a disproportionate impact on low-income patients and those living farther from an open clinic. After the Food and Drug Administration labeling update, medication abortion use rebounded, but disparities in use remained.

Rebound of medication abortion in Texas following updated mifepristone label

BACKGROUND

In 2013, Texas House Bill 2 (HB 2) placed restrictions on the use of medication abortion, which later were nullified with the 2016 FDA-approved mifepristone label.

METHODS

Using data collected directly from Texas abortion facilities, we evaluated changes in the provision and use of medication abortion during three 6-month time periods corresponding to the policy changes: before HB 2, after HB 2 and after the label change.

RESULTS

Medication abortion constituted 28% of all abortions before HB 2, 10% after implementation of the restrictions and 33% after the label change.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of medication abortion in Texas rebounded after the FDA label change.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Women Able to Obtain Medication Abortion Before and After Ohio's Law Requiring Use of the Food and Drug Administration Protocol

Purpose: In 2011, a law went into effect in Ohio that regulates how abortion care providers can offer medication abortion to their patients. We sought to evaluate changes in sociodemographic characteristics of Ohio medication abortion patients before and after the implementation of this law. Methods: We used a retrospective cohort design, comparing characteristics of women obtaining a medication abortion at four abortion facilities before and after the law. We used chart data from January 2010 to January 2011 and February 2011 to October 2014. For any significant changes in sociodemographics found before and after the law, we used stratified cross-tabulations to disentangle whether they were likely related to the restricted gestational limit imposed by the law (lowered from 9 to 7 weeks gestation), or whether they were likely related to other burdens brought on by the law, such as increased costs and visits. Results: Women obtaining a medication abortion after the law were more likely to be older (p=0.01), have higher levels of education (p<0.001), be of white race (p<0.001), have private insurance (p=0.001), have no children (p=0.002), and reside in a higher income zip code (p=0.03). Both the reduced gestational limit and the increased costs and visits likely contributed to declines among black women and women with lower levels of education. The reduced gestational limit for medication abortion likely contributed to a decline among younger women and Medicaid recipient groups. The increased costs and visits imposed by the law likely contributed to the decline in medication abortion among women with no insurance and women with children. Conclusion: The lower gestational limit, higher cost, and time and travel burdens exacted by Ohio's medication abortion law were associated with disproportionate reductions in medication abortion among the most disadvantaged groups. The law was associated with reduced access among women who were younger, of black race, less educated, and in lower socioeconomic groups.

Women's Experience Obtaining Abortion Care in Texas after Implementation of Restrictive Abortion Laws: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

In November 2013, Texas implemented three abortion restrictions included in House Bill 2 (HB 2). Within six months, the number of facilities providing abortion decreased by almost half, and the remaining facilities were concentrated in large urban centers. The number of medication abortions decreased by 70% compared to the same period one year prior due to restrictions on this method imposed by HB 2. The purpose of this study was to explore qualitatively the experiences of women who were most affected by the law: those who had to travel farther to reach a facility and those desiring medication abortion.

METHODS

In August and September 2014, we conducted 20 in-depth interviews with women recruited from ten abortion clinics across Texas. The purposive sample included women who obtained or strongly preferred medication abortion or traveled ≥50 miles one way to the clinic. The interview guide focused on women's experiences with obtaining services following implementation of HB 2, and a thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Women faced informational, cost and logistical barriers seeking abortion services, and these obstacles were often compounded by poverty. Two women found the process of finding or getting to a clinic so onerous that they considered not having the procedure, although they ultimately had an abortion; another woman decided to continue her pregnancy, in part because of challenges in getting to the clinic. For two women, arranging travel required disclosure to more people than desired. Women who strongly preferred medication abortion were frustrated by the difficulty or inability to obtain their desired method, especially among those who were near or just beyond the gestational age limit. The restricted eligibility criteria for medication abortion and difficulty finding clinics offering the method created substantial access barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication abortion restrictions and clinic closures following HB 2 created substantial barriers for women seeking abortion in Texas.

Comparison of Outcomes before and after Ohio's Law Mandating Use of the FDA-Approved Protocol for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In February 2011, an Ohio law took effect mandating use of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved protocol for mifepristone, which is used with misoprostol for medication abortion. Other state legislatures have passed or enacted similar laws requiring use of the FDA-approved protocol for medication abortion. The objective of this study is to examine the association of this legal change with medication abortion outcomes and utilization.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a retrospective cohort design, comparing outcomes of medication abortion patients in the prelaw period to those in the postlaw period. Sociodemographic and clinical chart data were abstracted from all medication abortion patients from 1 y prior to the law's implementation (January 2010-January 2011) to 3 y post implementation (February 2011-October 2014) at four abortion-providing health care facilities in Ohio. Outcome data were analyzed for all women undergoing abortion at ≤49 d gestation during the study period. The main outcomes were as follows: need for additional intervention following medication abortion (such as aspiration, repeat misoprostol, and blood transfusion), frequency of continuing pregnancy, reports of side effects, and the proportion of abortions that were medication abortions (versus other abortion procedures). Among the 2,783 medication abortions ≤49 d gestation, 4.9% (95% CI: 3.7%-6.2%) in the prelaw and 14.3% (95% CI: 12.6%-16.0%) in the postlaw period required one or more additional interventions. Women obtaining a medication abortion in the postlaw period had three times the odds of requiring an additional intervention as women in the prelaw period (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.11, 95% CI: 2.27-4.27). In a mixed effects multivariable model that uses facility-months as the unit of analysis to account for lack of independence by site, we found that the law change was associated with a 9.4% (95% CI: 4.0%-18.4%) absolute increase in the rate of requiring an additional intervention. The most common subsequent intervention in both periods was an additional misoprostol dose and was most commonly administered to treat incomplete abortion. The percentage of women requiring two or more follow-up visits increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.0%-5.3%) in the prelaw period to 6.2% (95% CI: 5.5%-8.0%) in the postlaw period (p = 0.003). Continuing pregnancy was rare (0.3%). Overall, 12.6% of women reported at least one side effect during their medication abortion: 8.4% (95% CI: 6.8%-10.0%) in the prelaw period and 15.6% (95% CI: 13.8%-17.3%) in the postlaw period (p < 0.001). Medication abortions fell from 22% (95% CI: 20.8%-22.3%) of all abortions the year before the law went into effect (2010) to 5% (95% CI: 4.8%-5.6%) 3 y after (2014) (p < 0.001). The average patient charge increased from US$426 in 2010 to US$551 in 2014, representing a 16% increase after adjusting for inflation in medical prices. The primary limitation to the study is that it was a pre/post-observational study with no control group that was not exposed to the law.

CONCLUSIONS

Ohio law required use of a medication abortion protocol that is associated with a greater need for additional intervention, more visits, more side effects, and higher costs for women relative to the evidence-based protocol. There is no evidence that the change in law led to improved abortion outcomes. Indeed, our findings suggest the opposite. In March 2016, the FDA-protocol was updated, so Ohio providers may now legally provide current evidence-based protocols. However, this law is still in place and bans physicians from using mifepristone based on any new developments in clinical research as best practices continue to be updated.