Trends in nonresident abortion rates in New York City from 2005 to 2015: a time series analysis

Abstract

ObjectivesTo examine trends and utilization patterns of NYC abortion services by nonresidents since growing abortion restrictions across many states could drive women to seek care in less restrictive jurisdictions including NYC. Study designWe used data from Induced Termination of Pregnancy certificates filed with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in 2005–2015. An autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was fit to the monthly nonresident abortion rate time series. Pearson's χ2 tests determined associations between women's residence and other variables. ResultsDuring 2005–2015, 885,816 abortions were reported in NYC, with 76,990 (8.7%) among nonresidents; 50,211 (65.2%) nonresidents lived in other New York State counties. The NYC abortion rate declined from 49.4 per 1000 women 15–44 in 2005 to 32.7 in 2015, while the nonresident rate showed minimal change from 0.12 per 1000 US women 15–44 in 2005 to 0.10 in 2015. ARIMA(0,1,1)(0,0,1) [12] fit the time series indicating minimal monthly changes in nonresident rates reflecting seasonal patterns and shorter-term dependencies between successive observations. Nonresidents differed from residents in all investigated variables including terminating at 20+ weeks (9.0% vs. 2.5%, p<.001) and having procedural methods (87.2% vs. 82.2%, p<.001). ConclusionsNonresidents constituted few abortion patients in NYC with minimal change in nonresident rates in 2005–2015. Nonresidents more often sought later-term abortions and more complicated procedures posing greater associated costs/risks. Monitoring nonresident abortion trends and utilization patterns is valuable for planning local service delivery particularly in jurisdictions committed to providing comprehensive women's healthcare where nonresidents may increasingly seek abortions. ImplicationsWhile we found limited change in nonresident abortion rates in NYC in 2005–2015, other jurisdictions bordering more restrictive states could show different results and should consider conducting similar research. Such analyses are important in jurisdictions committed to providing comprehensive women's healthcare where nonresidents may increasingly seek abortions in the future.