ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; FEBRUARY 2016)
In his recent Editorial Dr. Barbieri asked for ideas to improve contraception counseling for women with medical problems that put them at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. His idea of “contraception status as a vital sign” is applied in our very large group practice in Northern California using the electronic health record (EHR).
Over 10 years ago, I attempted to put a hard stop in the EHR to require documentation that women of reproductive age be evaluated for contraception. This scheme seemed to be too cumbersome and was rejected at the time.
The idea was not abandoned, however. Medical assistants must now document a means of contraception for each woman of reproductive age. This does not guarantee that a physician will look at the information, but it is a step in the right direction.
My hope is that someday we will have automatic contraception as a vital sign documentation for all reproductive-age women, including “children” who are documented as menstruating. In the meantime, thank you for highlighting this critical issue.
Tia Will, MD
Sacramento, California
When I read Dr. Barbieri’s Editorial, I was surprised that he avoided the elephant in the room: the current political climate of denying contraception to women, including the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to deny contraceptive coverage for religious issues.
Although I am not currently involved in women’s health, I do work under the auspices of a large Catholic health care system in the United States. Here, all employees are prohibited from providing contraceptive procedures, prescriptions, or even counseling unless it is a Natural Family Planning/ Fertility Awareness Method. These employees also are not provided individual contraceptive health coverage by their employer; this coverage is provided by the federal government thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
Contraception is part of the standard of care for women. However, many women are denied this standard of care due to “religious” reasons, which I suspect may be partially financial and/or political in nature.
This issue must therefore be addressed by political and financial means. My recommendation is for legislation that mandates lower reimbursement rates for health care systems and providers that refuse to offer full contraceptive options to women. If they do not provide full care, they do not get full payment for services. The money saved by reduced reimbursements could then fund federal women’s health clinics in areas dominated by “religious” health care systems that would guarantee full reproductive health options to all.
Name and practice location withheld
An issue not addressed in Dr. Barbieri’s Editorial is that of women who, after appropriate and extensive counseling by a physician and with a full understanding of the reproductive implications and the possible adverse effect of additional pregnancies on their health and life, decide for permanent contraception. A woman’s opportunity to obtain postpartum or interval contraceptive procedure varies by her insurance coverage, which is indirectly associated with her ethnicity or race.
In 1979, Medicaid Title XIX imposed a 30-day interval between the signing of the sterilization informed consent by the patient and the performance of the procedure. These regulations are still in effect today. What was instituted to protect vulnerable populations from coerced methods in the 1970s represents an anachronistic and archaic approach in the 21st Century. This regulation discriminates against low-income and minority women whose health care is covered by public insurance yet who are frequently at highest risk for unintended and possible risky pregnancy or abortion. In simple words, this imposition violates the standards of justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence as it treats publicly insured women differently from privately insured women.
The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists1 state that this regulation must be revised and charged practitioners to develop policies and procedures to ensure all women who desire postpartum sterilization can receive it. It is incumbent upon all women’s health care physicians to see that this barrier is removed.
Federico G. Mariona, MD, MHSA
Dearborn, Michigan
Reference
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 530: access to postpartum sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):212–215.
It always strikes me how little emphasis is placed on including the sexual partners of women with serious medical problems in the dialogue about responsibility for at-risk pregnancy. As advocates for women’s health, we should educate the couple about vasectomy and liberally provide referrals. Community outreach to help men understand how they can protect their partner from potentially dangerous unwanted pregnancy is extremely important and not stressed enough. Vasectomy is a quick, safe procedure performed in a physician’s office under local anesthesia. Why should any woman who has already risked her life carrying and delivering a baby be required to bear the contraceptive burden when there is a safe and convenient alternative?
