State and federal abortion restrictions increase risk of COVID-19 exposure by mandating unnecessary clinic visits

Abstract

ObjectiveTo quantify the number of medically unnecessary clinical visits and in-clinic contacts monthly caused by US abortion regulations. Study DesignWe estimated the number of clinical visits and clinical contacts (any worker a patient may come into physical contact with during their visit) under the current policy landscape, compared to the number of visits and contacts if the following regulations were repealed: (1) State mandatory in-person counseling visit laws that necessitate two visits for abortion, (2) State mandatory-ultrasound laws, (3) State mandates requiring the prescribing clinician be present during mifepristone administration, (4) Federal Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone. If these laws were repealed, “no-test” telemedicine abortion would be possible for some patients. We modeled the number of visits averted if a minimum of 15 percent or a maximum of 70 percent of medication abortion patients had a “no-test” telemedicine abortion. ResultsWe estimate that 12,742 in-person clinic visits (50,978 clinical contacts) would be averted each month if counseling visit laws alone were repealed, and 31,132 visits (142,910 clinical contacts) would be averted if all four policies were repealed and 70 percent of medication abortion patients received no-test telemedicine abortions. Over 2 million clinical contacts could be averted over the projected 18-month COVID-19 pandemic. ConclusionMedically unnecessary abortion regulations result in a large number of excess clinical visits and contacts. Policy ImplicationsRepeal of medically unnecessary state and federal abortion restrictions in the United States would allow for evidence-based telemedicine abortion care, thereby lowering risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.