Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
Ten great public health achievements—United States,
1900–1999, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1999,
48(12):241–243.
2. Reporting on a thousand years, The Economist, Dec.
23, 1999, <http://www.economist.com/diversions/
millennium/index.cfm>, accessed Oct. 31, 2008.
3. The liberator, The Economist, Dec. 23, 1999,
<http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/
displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=347484>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
4. Goldin C and Katz LF, The power of the pill: oral contraceptives
and women’s career and marriage decisions,
Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110(4):730–770.
5. Chandra A et al., Fertility, family planning and reproductive
health of U.S. women: data from the 2002
National Survey of Family Growth, Vital Health Statistics,
2005, Series 23, No. 25.
6. Boonstra H et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New
York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.
7. Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Disparities in rates of
unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and
2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
2006, 38(2):90–96.
8. Jones R et al., Repeat abortion in the United States,
Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher Institute,
2006, No. 29.
9. Kost K et al., Estimates of contraceptive failure from
the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth,
Contraception, 2008, 77(1):10–21.
10. Trussell J, Contraceptive efficacy, in: Hatcher RA et
al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 19th rev. ed., New
Next Steps for America’s Family Planning Program Guttmacher Institute
References
37
Guttmacher Abortion Provider Census.
21. National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United
States, 2007, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of
Americans, 2007, <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
hus/hus07.pdf>, accessed Oct. 30, 2008.
22. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National
Healthcare Disparities Report 2007, 2008, <http://
www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr07/nhdr07.pdf&gt;, accessed Oct.
30, 2008.
23. James C et al., Key Facts: Race, Ethnicity and
Medical Care, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,
2007, <http://www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/
6069-02.pdf>, accessed Oct.30, 2008.
24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Healthy People 2010, second ed. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2000.
25. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., remarks on accepting
the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret
Sanger Award, May 5, 1966.
26. Campbell AA, The role of family planning in the
reduction of poverty, Journal of Marriage and the Family,
1968, 30(2):236–245.
27. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), 11 Million
Teenagers: What Can Be Done About the Epidemic of
Adolescent Pregnancies in the United States, New York:
AGI, 1976.
28. AGI, Sex and America’s Teenagers, New York: AGI,
1994.
29. Brown SS and Eisenberg L, eds., The Best Intentions:
Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and
Families, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 1995.
30. Ryder N and Westoff C, Reproduction in the United
States 1965, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1971.
31. AGI, Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S.
Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
32. P.L. 91-572, Dec. 24, 1970.
33. Congressional Record, July 14, 1970, Vol. 116, No.
118.
34. Congressional Record, Nov. 16, 1970, Vol. 116, No.
182.
35. P.L. 92-603, Oct. 30, 1972.
36. 42 USC 254(c).
37. Lindberg L et al., The provision and funding of contraceptive
services at publicly funded family planning
agencies: 1995–2003, Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(1):37–45.
38. Fowler CI, Gable J and Wang J, Family Planning
Annual Report: 2006 National Summary, Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2008.
39. 42 CFR 59.11.
40. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Population Affairs, Program Guidelines for
Project Grants for Family Planning Services, 2001, Part II,
sec. 8.0,<http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/
toolsdocs/2001_ofp_guidelines.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
41. 42 CFR 59.5(b).
42. 42 CFR 59.5(a).
43. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Population Affairs, Program Guidelines for
Project Grants for Family Planning Services, 2001, Part II,
sec. 8.6,<http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/
toolsdocs/2001_ofp_guidelines.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
44. Federal Register, 65(128):41281, 2000.
45. Special tabulations of data on use of services from
the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
46. Frost JJ, Frohwirth L and Purcell A, The availability
and use of publicly funded family planning clinics: U.S.
trends, 1994–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(5):206–215.
47. Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and
reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American
Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
48. Frost JJ, Finer LB and Tapales A, The impact of
publicly funded family planning clinic services on unintended
pregnancies and government cost savings,
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,
2008, 19(3):777–795.
49. Frost J, U.S. women’s reliance on publicly funded
family planning clinics as their usual source of medical
care, paper presented at the 2008 Research Conference
on the National Survey of Family Growth, Hyattsville,
MD, Oct. 16 and 17, 2008.
50. Special tabulations of data for 2006, based on applying
the methodology and formula derived from reference
48 to new data on clients served for 2006 from reference
15.
51. Henshaw SK and Kost K, Trends in the
Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions, 1974 to
2004, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2008.
52. Johnson K et al., Recommendations to improve
preconception health and health care—United States:
a report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work
Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care,
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Recommendations
and Reports, 2006, 55(6):1–23.
53. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), Income eligibility
levels for pregnant women under Medicaid or SCHIP by
annual income and as a percent of federal poverty level
(FPL), 2008, <http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
comparetable.jsp?ind=206&cat=4>, accessed June 13,
2008.
Guttmacher Institute Next Steps for America’s Family Planning Program
38
66. Gold RB, Singh S and Frost J, The Medicaid eligibility
expansions for pregnant women: evaluating the
strength of state implementation efforts, Family Planning
Perspectives, 1993, 25(5):196–207.
67. AGI, Blessed Events and the Bottom Line: Financing
Maternity Care in the United States, New York: AGI, 1987.
68. KFF, Births financed by Medicaid as a percent of
total births, 2002, <http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
comparemaptable.jsp?ind=223&cat=4>, accessed Apr.
18, 2008.
69. Gold RB, Stronger together: Medicaid, Title X bring
different strengths to family planning effort, Guttmacher
Policy Review, 2007, 10(2):13–18.
70. Sonfield A et al., Cost Pressures on Title X Family
Planning Grantees, FY 2001–2004, 2006, <http://www.
guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/01/CPTX.pdf>, accessed
Aug. 1, 2008.
71. Huley R, Felland L and Lauer J, Community health
centers tackle rising demands and expectations, Issue
Brief, 2007, No. 116, <http://www.hschange.org/
CONTENT/958/> accessed Oct. 30, 2008.
72. Rosenblatt RA et al., Shortages of medical personnel
at community health centers implications for planned
expansion, Journal of the American Medical Association,
2006, 295(9):1042–1047.
73. Gold RB, An enduring role: the continuing need for a
robust family planning clinic system, Guttmacher Policy
Review, 2008, 11(1):6–10.
74. Sonfield A, Alrich C and Gold RB, State
Government Innovation in the Design and Implementation
of Medicaid Family Planning Expansions, Guttmacher
Institute, 2008, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/
2008/03/28/StateMFPEpractices.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
75. Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and
Policy, University of California San Francisco, Family
PACT Program Report FY 05/06, 2007, <http://www.
familypact.org/Files/FamPACT_AnnualReport_2005-
06.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31, 2008.
76. Cunningham PJ and May JH, Medicaid Patients
Increasingly Concentrated Among Physicians, Center for
Studying Health System Change, 2006, <http://www.
hschange.com/CONTENT/866/866.pdf>, accessed Nov.
3, 2008.
77. Sugerman S et al., Family planning clinic patients:
their usual health care providers, insurance status, and
implications for managed care, Journal of Adolescent
Health, 2000, 27(1):25–33.
78. Special tabulations of data from the 1988 and 2002
National Surveys of Family Growth.
79. Frost JJ and Darroch JE, Factors associated with
contraceptive choice and inconsistent method use,
United States, 2004, Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(2):94–104.
54. KFF, Income eligibility for parents applying for
Medicaid by annual income as a percent of federal poverty
level (FPL), 2008,<http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
comparetable.jsp?ind=205&cat=4>, accessed June 13,
2008.
55. Special tabulations of data from the Guttmacher
Institute’s 2006 State Estimates of Women in Need of
Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services and Supplies.
56. Special tabulations of data from the Guttmacher
Institute’s 2006 State Estimates of Women in Need of
Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services and Supplies,
and from the Guttmacher Institute’s FY 2006 Survey of
State Expenditures on Reproductive Health.
57. Foster DG et al., Estimates of pregnancies averted
through California’s family planning waiver program in
2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
2006, 38(3):126–131.
58. Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and
Policy, University of California, San Francisco, Decline in
Unintended Pregnancies in California: California
Congressional Districts, no date, <http://www.
familypact.org/Files/RFS_UnintendedPregCongressional
DistrictsJune07_11x17_6-25-2008.pdf>, accessed Sept.
25, 2008.
59. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family
Services, Office of Policy Initiatives and Budget, Policy
and Research Section, The Wisconsin Family Planning
Waiver: Final Evaluation Report for 2003–2007, Wisconsin
Department of Health and Family Services: Madison, WI,
2008.
60. Special tabulations of data from the Guttmacher
Institute’s 1994/2006 Census of Publicly Funded Family
Planning Clinics, and from the Guttmacher Institute’s
2006 State Estimates of Women in Need of Publicly
Funded Contraceptive Services and Supplies.
61. Edwards J, Bronstein J and Adams K, Evaluation of
Medicaid Family Planning Demonstrations, The CNA
Corporation: Alexandria, VA, 2003.
62. Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University
of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Evaluation of
the Women’s Health Waiver, UAMS: Little Rock, AR,
2007.
63. Center for Health Services and Policy Research,
Arnold School of Public Health, University of South
Carolina (USC), Interim Evaluation of Project No. 11-W-
0057/4 SC Family Planning Waiver: Expansion of
Medicaid Benefits for Women Below 185% Federal Poverty
Level (FPL), USC: Columbia, SC,2007.
64. Oregon Department of Human Services, Family
Planning Expansion Project, Project Evaluation Report,
Oregon Department of Human Services: Salem, OR,
2006.
65. Gold RB, Lessons for family planning providers from
transitions in maternal and child health funding,
Guttmacher Policy Review, 2007, 10(1):2–6.
Next Steps for America’s Family Planning Program Guttmacher Institute
39
80. Frost JJ, Darroch JE and Remez L, Improving contraceptive
use in the United States, In Brief, New York:
Guttmacher Institute, 2008, No. 1.
81. Weisman CS et al., Contraceptive counseling in managed
care: preventing unintended pregnancy in adults,
Women’s Health Issues, 2002, 12(2):79–95.
82. Sonenstein FL, Porter L and Livingston G, Missed
Opportunities: Family Planning in the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1997.
83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Minority Health, National Standards for
Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in
Health Care, Executive Summary, 2001,<http://
www.omhrc.gov/assets/pdf/checked/executive.pdf&gt;,
accessed Oct. 31, 2008.
84. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Population Affairs, Program Guidelines for
Project Grants for Family Planning Services, 2001, Part II,
sec. 8.1,<http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/
toolsdocs/2001_ofp_guidelines.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
85. Donovan P, Testing Positive: Sexually Transmitted
Disease and the Public Health Response, New York: AGI,
1993.
86. American Social Health Association, Overview Fact
Sheet on Sexually Transmitted Diseases, no date,
<http://www. ashastd.org/pdfs/STDOverview_factsheet.
pdf>, accessed Nov. 3, 2008.
87. Weinstock H, Berman S and Cates W, Jr., Sexually
transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence
and prevalence estimates, 2000, Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(1):6–10.
88. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Screening for
chlamydial infection: recommendations and rationale,
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001, 20(3S):
90–94.
89. CDC, New CDC treatment guidelines critical to preventing
health consequences of sexually transmitted diseases,
news release, May 9, 2002, <http://www.cdc.gov/
od/oc/media/pressrel/fs020509.htm>, accessed Oct. 30,
2008.
90. CDC, Revised recommendations for HIV testing of
adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care
settings, MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 2006,
55(14):1–17,<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/PDF/rr/
rr5514. pdf>, accessed Nov. 3, 2008.
91. Lindberg LD et al., Provision of contraceptive and
related services by publicly funded family planning clinics,
2003, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive
Health, 2006, 38(3):139–147.
92. Gold RB, Challenges and opportunities for U.S.
family planning clinics in providing the HPV vaccine,
Guttmacher Policy Review, 2007, 10(3):8–14
93. Gold RB, Nowhere but up: rising costs for Title X
clinics, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2002,
5(5):6–9.
94. Special tabulations of data from the Guttmacher
Institute’s 2003 Survey of Publicly Funded Contraceptive
Service Providers.
95. Sonfield A, Summer price spike: a case study about
publicly funded clinics and the cost of contraceptive supplies,
Guttmacher Policy Review, 2006, 9(4):2–5
96. Special tabulations of data from 2007 Oregon
Department of Human Services Family Planning
Program.
97. Bureau of Health Professions, National Center for
Health Workforce Analysis, What Is Behind HRSA’s
Projected Supply, Demand, and Shortage of Nurses?,
2004, <ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/bhpr/workforce/
behindshortage.pdf>, accessed Oct. 30, 2008.
98. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, National Compensation Survey tablemaker,
<http://data.bls. gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=nc>,
accessed May 28, 2008.
99. Sonfield A et al., U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptives
and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates,
2002, Perspectives in Sexual and Reproductive
Health, 2004, 36(2):72–79.
100. Frost JJ, Sonfield A and Gold RB, Estimating the
impact of expanding Medicaid eligibility for family planning
services, Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher
Institute, 2006, No. 28.
101. Sonfield A, The impact of anti-immigrant policy on
publicly subsidized reproductive health care, Guttmacher
Policy Review, 2007, 10(1):7–11.
CHAPTER 1 Box: Terms Used in this Report
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines, Federal
Register, 2008, 73(15):3971–3972.
CHAPTER 2 Box: Meeting Men’s Reproductive
Health Needs
1. Kalmuss D and Tatum C, Patterns of men’s use of
sexual and reproductive health services, Perspectives on
Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2007, 39(2):74–81.
2. Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and
reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American
Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
3. Finer LB, Darroch JE and Frost JJ, Services for men
at publicly funded family planning agencies, 1998–1999,
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003,
35(5):202–207.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Family Planning, Title X male involvement prevention
services, <http://www.hhs.gov/opa/
Guttmacher Institute Next Steps for America’s Family Planning Program
40
familyplanning/grantees/ maleinvolvement/index.html>,
accessed Sept. 29, 2008.
5. Lindberg LD et al., Provision of contraceptive and
related services by publicly funded family planning
clinics, 2003, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive
Health, 2006, 38(3):139–147.
6. Guttmacher Institute, State Medicaid family planning
eligibility expansions, State Policies in Brief, 2009,
<http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/
spib_SMFPE.pdf>, accessed Jan. 8, 2009.
7. AGI, In Their Own Right: Addressing the Sexual and
Reproductive Health Needs of American Men, New York:
AGI, 2002.
8. Fowler CI, Gable J and Wang J, Family Planning
Annual Report: 2006 National Summary, Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2008.
CHAPTER 4 Box: Models for Expediting Clients’
Contraceptive Care
1. Barot S, Making the case for a ‘contraceptive convenience’
agenda, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2008, 11(4):
11–16.
2. Landry DJ, Wei J and Frost JJ, Public and private
providers’ involvement in improving their patients’ contraceptive
use, Contraception, 2008, 78(1):42–51.
3. Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Program Guidelines for Project
Grants for Family Planning Services, 2001, Part II, sec.
8.3, <http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/
toolsdocs/2001_ofp_guidelines.pdf>, accessed Oct. 31,
2008.
4. Lindberg L et al., The provision and funding of contraceptive
services at publicly funded family planning agencies:
1995–2003, Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(1):37–45.
5. Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, Online
health center, 2008,<http://www.plannedparenthood.
org/westernwashington/online-health-center-22020.
htm>, accessed Sept. 27, 2008