Prepare a summary of the article:”Putting the Man in Contraceptive Mandate”
(the article on the 2nd
page). Discuss why both the individual and society should be
concerned about current and future implications of this issue. Address
each of the suggestions for change. Your opinion is valued in this
summary.
** Two pages, APA Style, 3rd page is references
ARHP Commentary ― Thinking (Re)Productively
Putting the man in contraceptive mandate☆
Brian T. Nguyena,⁎, Grace Shihb, David K. Turokc aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Sciences University, 3181 Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road, Box L466,
Portland, OR 97239, USA bDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
cDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA
Received 20 August 2013; revised 28 September 2013; accepted 1 October 2013
Announced on January 20, 2012, and made effective August 1, 2012, the “contraceptive mandate” is an extension of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that sanctioned the provision of contraceptives and sterilization services to women at no cost. While the mandate is a landmark for women’s health care, it has not yet directly addressed a role for men. Male involvement is often either absent or a late addition to reproductive policies, as seen with past developments in sexual health such as emergency contraception [1], the human papillomavirus vaccine [2] and expedited partner therapy for sexually transmitted infections [3]. As written currently, the ACA does not direct insurance carriers to reimburse for vasectomy nor prospective male contraceptives or counseling [4].
Sterilization rates in the USA have remained fairly constant over the last 40 years. The National Survey of Family Growth (2006–2010) reported that 27% of women rely on female sterilization for birth control; only 10% rely on their partners’ vasectomies [5,6]. The exclusion of coverage for vasectomy may widen this disparity by comparatively increasing cost barriers and decreasing social expectations for
men. In comparison to female sterilization methods, vasectomy has benefits with respect to efficacy, cost and safety [7]; the ACA’s exclusion of vasectomy is neither ethical nor evidence based and warrants re-examination.
Based on the data from the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization, the cumulative probability of failure for female sterilization at 5 years postprocedure was 13.1/1000 pro- cedures (95% confidence interval: 10.8–15.4), compared to vasectomy at 11.3 (2.3, 20.3) [8,9]. Other sources cite higher annual failure rates for tubal ligation, 0.13–0.17%, compared to vasectomy at 0.01–0.04% [10,11].
Female sterilization also carries greater risk of complication than does vasectomy. Abdominal access for tubal ligation carries 20 times the risk of major complications compared to vasectomy, which is performed in the office under local anesthesia ideally with a single b10-mm scrotal incision [12]. Postoperative complications, such as bleeding and infection, are alsomore common among tubal ligations than vasectomies (1.2% vs. 0.043%) [13]. Costs of these complications each year are also estimated to be US$ 62.52 vs. US$ 0.06 for tubal ligation and vasectomy per procedure, respectively. Pregnancy complications related to sterilization failure are also more common and costly for tubal ligation.A failed vasectomy leads to intrauterine pregnancy that can be terminated for US$ 403 [14] or carried to term and delivered for US$ 9318 [15]. Alternatively, failed tubal ligation carries a 33% risk of ectopic pregnancy, with significant risk of morbidity and mortality [16], costs quoted at US$ 10,613 [17].
Contraception 89 (2014) 3–5
☆ Disclaimer: The views expressed in this editorial are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals or its representatives.
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: brian.trung.nguyen@gmail.com (B.T. Nguyen).
This monthly commentary is contributed by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals to provide expert analysis on pressing issues in sexual and reproductive health. Learn more at www.arhp.org.
0010-7824/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.001
In addition to being more effective and safer than female sterilizationmethods, vasectomy is less expensive.A 2012 cost index cites the average cost of vasectomy as approximately US $ 708, compared to the average cost of tubal ligationmethods at US$ 2912 [18]. Tubal ligations performed in the operating room incur anesthesia fees, leading to procedures costing up to US$ 3449. Even office-based transcervical methods, US$ 1374, are still more expensive than vasectomy [19].
Despite the comparatively low cost of vasectomy, a quarter of insurance carriers do not cover the procedure [20]. Even if insurers paid for 70% of the procedure, the cost to the patient would still be significant (e.g., a 30% patient portion of the US$ 708 vasectomy fee is US$ 212) [18]. Men with insurance may not even see any benefit as they may still be responsible for the full cost of their deductibles, which, at an average of US$ 1097, is already greater than the cost of a vasectomy [21]. Some insurance carriers may independently elect to provide vasectomies without cost sharing; however, a national policy mandating coverage of this highly effective and cost-effective procedure would aid efforts to increase widespread uptake.
Even the least costly, most commonly performed and effective method of female sterilization, postpartum partial salpingectomy, can only be performed within 48 h of delivery. Furthermore, only half of women desiring the procedure ultimately receive it [22,23]. Considered an elective procedure, postpartum tubal ligations are subject to routine delays on labor and delivery, as well as the religious affiliations at approximately 12% of hospitals that prohibit provision [24]. Regret may also be more common in the postpartum rather than interval setting [25], especially for low-income, minority women who may feel pressured to accept their only perceived opportunity for a Medicaid- funded sterilization [26]. As patients may not seek sterilization outside the postpartum context or receive less effective procedures at a later date, the availability of no-cost vasectomy is especially important [27].
Though health care providers should prioritize the care of women, the lack of male involvement in reproductive health care contributes to the excessive burdens of reproduction and contraception that these women experience. Without guaran- teed reimbursement for the care of male patients, reproductive health clinics will lack the financial incentive to broaden care to include male-specific services and outreach. The margin- alization of men in family planning clinics has the untoward effect of deterring men who, despite their need for help, consider these environments too embarrassing or exclusive to use [28]. Some states already attribute rising rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia to the inability of low-resource clinics to reach men [29]. Low rates of male attendance at reproductive health clinics may mislead funding sources into believing that men are not interested in these resources, when in fact more funding is needed to improve the visibility of vasectomy, train more providers and correct widespread misconceptions that prevent its uptake [30]. As novel male contraceptives are currently under study, their subsidy and support from the government and pharmaceutical manufac-
turers depends on perceived demand as well, which may decrease due to the ACA’s emphasis on the sufficiency of reproductive care for women alone [31].
The US government has recognized the importance of family planning by approving the contraceptive mandate; however, its exclusion of vasectomy and provisions for prospective male contraceptives reflect the nation’s current view of family planning as a “woman’s issue.”An amendment to the contraceptive mandate would help to establish family planning as a “human issue,” for which the involvement of men will increase safety and overall savings, as well as ethically balance the weight of the reproductive burden.
1. Call to action
The Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) recognizes the unique health needs of women and extended their health care coverage under the ACA to include several preventive services, including the provision of contraceptive counseling, contraceptive methods and sterilization. How- ever, the current federal interpretation of this legislation excludes family planning services for men despite the fact that women benefit from male reproductive awareness and use of contraceptives.
There are still multiple avenues for change:
1. The DHHS can directly amend the ACA’s contracep- tive mandate to specifically include cost-free coverage of male contraceptives, sterilization and counseling.
2. The US Preventive Services Task Force can formally evaluate the benefits of providing not only counseling but also contraceptive and sterilization services to both men andwomen. Should these services receive at least a Grade B recommendation, all new insurance plans would be required to cover contraception and sterilization.
3. States have the ability to extend coverage to men when composing the Essential Health Benefits expected to be covered by all insurance providers and respective state Medicaid plans in 2014.
4. In 2016, the federal government will revisit how Essential Health Benefits are defined and at that point can explicitly include male and female reproductive care among the categories of essential health services.
The National Health Law Program, a public interest law firm serving underserved and underinsured Americans, has already begun asking theDHHS to extend critical reproductive services to men. Their efforts will be bolstered by the written contribution of physicians and health care providers to state and federal representatives. Government representatives may otherwise be unaware of the efficacy, safety and cost savings of vasectomy compared to tubal ligation, as well as the patient experiences of health care inequality that provide the emotional impact needed to invoke change. Petitions can further help representatives understand the demand for gender
4 ARHP Commentary ― Thinking (Re)Productively / Contraception 89 (2014) 3–5
equality in reproductive decision making. Awareness cam- paigns and social media need to be used to informmore people about the significant benefits of male contraception and sterilization, as well as their underuse compared to female methods. Support of more research on male methods, their safety and their impact on reproductive health outcomes will better inform clinical practice recommendations that will impact future amendments to the ACA.
References
[1] EC: questions and answers. US Food and Drug Administration. 14 Dec 2006. Accessed 18 Jan 2013 http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ ucm109783.htm.
[2] Burgess S. FDAapproves new indication for gardasil to prevent genital warts in men and boys. FDA News Release. Accessed 18 Jan 2013. http://www. fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm187003.htm.
[3] Legal Status of Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT). Sexually Transmit- ted Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24/7: Saving Lives, Protecting People. Website. Accessed 18 Jan 2013 http://www. cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/default.htm.
[4] Department of Health and Human Services. Coverage of certain preventive services under the Affordable Care Act. Federal Register, Proposed Rules. 6 Feb 2013; 78(25): 8456-8458.
[5] NCHS Fact Sheet, National Survey of Family Growth. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24/7: Saving Lives, Protecting People. Website. Accessed 24 Jun 2013 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/factsheets/factsheet_nsfg.htm.
[6] Jones J, Mosher W, Daniels K, et al. Current contraception use in the United States 2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995. National Health Statistics Reports. 18 Oct 2012; 60.
[7] Shih G, Turok DK, Parker WJ. Vasectomy: the other (better) form of sterilization. Contraception 2011;83:310-5.
[8] Peterson HB, Xia Z, Huges JM, et al. The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the US Collaborative Review of Steriliza- tion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174(4):1161-8.
[9] Jamieson DJ, Costello C, Trussell J, et al. The risk of pregnancy after vasectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103(5 Pt 1):848-50.
[10] Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health 1995;85(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615115/ pdf/amjph00442-0032.pdf.
[11] Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, et al. Contraceptive technology (20th revised edition). New York: Ardent Media; 2011.
[12] Adams CE, Wald M. Risks and complications of vasectomy. Urol Clin N Am Aug 2009;36(3):331-6.
[13] Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health 1995;85:494-503.
[14] Dilation and Curettage. Healthcare Blue Book. Website. Accessed 24 Jun 2013. http://www.healthcarebluebook.com/page_Results.aspx? id=282&dataset=MD&g=Dilation%20and%20Curettag.
[15] March ofDimes. The healthcare costs of having a baby.Website. Accessed June 2008 http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/14817_25927.asp.
[16] Peterson HB, Xia JM, Huges JS, et al. The risk of ectopic pregnancy after tubal sterilization. N Engl J Med 1997;336:762-7.
[17] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Website. Accessed June 2008 http:// hcupnet.ahrq.gov/.
[18] Trussell J. Update on and correction to the cost-effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception Jun 2012;85(6):611.
[19] Levie MD, Chudnoff SG. Office hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: a critical cost analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol Jul-Aug 2005;12(4):318-22.
[20] Kurth A, Bielinski L, Graap K, et al. Reproductive and sexual health benefits in private health insurance plans in Washington State. Fam Plan Perspect 2001;33(4).
[21] Rae M, Panchal N, Claxton G. Snapshots: The Prevalence and Cost of Deductibles in Employer Sponsored Insurance. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. Website. Written Nov 2012. Accessed Sep 2013 http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-the-prevalence-and- cost-of-deductibles-in-employer-sponsored-insurance/.
[22] Boardman LA, Desimone M, Allen RH. Barriers to completion of desired postpartum sterilization. R I Med J 2013;96(2):32-4.
[23] Zite N, Wuellner S, Gilliam M. Failure to obtain desired postpartum sterilization: risk and predictors. Obstet Gynecol April 2005;105(4):794-9.
[24] The facts about Catholic healthcare. Catholics for a free choice. Sep 2005. Accessed 11 July 2013. http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/ topics/healthcare/documents/2005factsaboutcatholichealthcare.pdf.
[25] Wilcox LS, ZXeger SL, Chu SY, et al. Risk factors for regret after tubal sterilization: 5 years of follow-up in a prospective study. Fertil Steril 1991;55:927-33.
[26] Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, et al. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889-95.
[27] Access to postpartum sterilization. Committee Opinion No. 530. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:212-5http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/ Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Health%20Care% 20for%20Underserved%20Women/Access%20to%20Postpartum% 20Sterilization.aspx.
[28] Lindberg C, Lewis-Spruill C, Crownover R. Barriers to sexual and reproductive health care: urban male adolescents speak out. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs 2006;29(2):73-88.
[29] Dailard C. Family Planning Clinics And STD Services. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. Aug 2002; 5(3). Accessed 30 Jun 2013 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/3/gr050308.html.
[30] Shih G, Dube K, Sheinbein M, et al. He’s a real man: a qualitative study of the social context of couples’ vasectomy decisions among a racially diverse population. Am J Mens Health May 2013;7(3):206-13.
[31] Dorman E, Bishai D. Demand for male contraception. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2012;12(5):605-13.
This content was developed by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Since 1963, ARHP has served as the leading source for evidence-based educational resources for providers and their patients. Learn more at www.arhp.org.
5ARHP Commentary ― Thinking (Re)Productively / Contraception 89 (2014) 3–5
