Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
In 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the medication mifepristone, an antiprogesterone oral medication used with misoprostol to induce abortion. Before mifepristone, most abortions that occurred within the medical system in the US were done using either procedural abortion or medication abortion that used methotrexate or misoprostol only, 1 both of which can have higher adverse event profiles and lower efficacy rates than the mifepristonemisoprostol combined regimen. Mifepristone's approval advanced treatment options for patients needing abortion care and those undergoing miscarriage management, improved the efficacy and availability of medication abortion, and increased the power of patients to manage their own abortions in the place and time of their choosing.Since its initial approval, research on medication abortion using the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen has demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of this regimen mirrors procedural abortion. 2 Patients who choose medication abortion often do so because of a desire to avoid a procedural intervention or due to a feeling that medication abortion is more natural. 3 Currently, the majority of abortion care in the US is done via medication abortion. In 2023, medication abortion accounted for 63% of all abortions occurring in the health care system in the US. 4 However, barriers interfering with patient access to medication abortion remain. Anti-abortion groups have questioned the safety of mifepristone, for example through the recent legal case challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone (Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA). In this context, the study by Ralph and colleagues 5 provides crucial evidence.Prior to the COVID-19 epidemic, the FDA required inperson dispensing of mifepristone-misoprostol by a clinician. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA eliminated the requirement for in-person dispensing, enabling medications to be mailed to patients and distributed by certified pharmacies. 6 This change also promoted the use of telemedicine to provide abortion care and medications, thus eliminating multiple barriers to timely care. However, in many states, the requirement for pre-abortion ultrasonography imaging and physical examination remained in place, requiring in-person visits and limiting access.Ralph and colleagues 5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of 2 approaches to medication abortion that do not require inperson visits: (1) a history-based assessment for abortion eligibility with no testing using telehealth and mailing of abortion medications and (2) a history-based assessment (either inperson or using telehealth) with pickup of medications at a pharmacy. Patients receiving in-person assessment with ultrasonog-Opinion EDITORIAL
In 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the medication mifepristone, an antiprogesterone oral medication used with misoprostol to induce abortion. Before mifepristone, most abortions that occurred within the medical system in the US were done using either procedural abortion or medication abortion that used methotrexate or misoprostol only, 1 both of which can have higher adverse event profiles and lower efficacy rates than the mifepristonemisoprostol combined regimen. Mifepristone's approval advanced treatment options for patients needing abortion care and those undergoing miscarriage management, improved the efficacy and availability of medication abortion, and increased the power of patients to manage their own abortions in the place and time of their choosing.Since its initial approval, research on medication abortion using the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen has demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of this regimen mirrors procedural abortion. 2 Patients who choose medication abortion often do so because of a desire to avoid a procedural intervention or due to a feeling that medication abortion is more natural. 3 Currently, the majority of abortion care in the US is done via medication abortion. In 2023, medication abortion accounted for 63% of all abortions occurring in the health care system in the US. 4 However, barriers interfering with patient access to medication abortion remain. Anti-abortion groups have questioned the safety of mifepristone, for example through the recent legal case challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone (Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA). In this context, the study by Ralph and colleagues 5 provides crucial evidence.Prior to the COVID-19 epidemic, the FDA required inperson dispensing of mifepristone-misoprostol by a clinician. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA eliminated the requirement for in-person dispensing, enabling medications to be mailed to patients and distributed by certified pharmacies. 6 This change also promoted the use of telemedicine to provide abortion care and medications, thus eliminating multiple barriers to timely care. However, in many states, the requirement for pre-abortion ultrasonography imaging and physical examination remained in place, requiring in-person visits and limiting access.Ralph and colleagues 5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of 2 approaches to medication abortion that do not require inperson visits: (1) a history-based assessment for abortion eligibility with no testing using telehealth and mailing of abortion medications and (2) a history-based assessment (either inperson or using telehealth) with pickup of medications at a pharmacy. Patients receiving in-person assessment with ultrasonog-Opinion EDITORIAL
IntroductionThe 2022 Massachusetts Shield Law protects telemedicine providers who care for abortion seekers in other states from criminal, civil, and licensure penalties. In this article we explore the characteristics of patients of The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project (The MAP).MethodsThe MAP is an asynchronous telemedicine service that offers mifepristone/misoprostol to abortion seekers in all 50 states who are at or under 11 weeks pregnancy gestation on initial intake. The MAP charges USD250 using a pay‐what‐you‐can model. We analyzed medical questionnaires and payments submitted by patients who received care from The MAP during its first 6 months of operations using descriptive statistics and for content and themes.ResultsFrom October 1, 2023–March 31, 2024, 1994 patients accessed care through The MAP. Almost all (n = 1973, 99%) identified as women/girls and about half (n = 984, 49%) were aged 20–29. The MAP cared for patients in 45 states; 84% (n = 1672) of these patients received pills in abortion ban or restricted southern states. Patients paid USD134.50 on average; 29% (n = 577) paid USD25 or less. Nearly two‐thirds (n = 1293, 65%) received subsidized care; financial hardship featured prominently in patient comments.DiscussionConsiderable demand exists for medication abortion care from Shield Law providers. The MAP demonstrates that providers can trust women and other pregnancy capable people to decide for themselves whether to obtain medication abortion pills by mail and to pay what they can afford without being required to justify their need. Identifying ways to support Shield Law provision and further subsidize abortion care are needed.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.