Contraceptive Provision and Quality Care Measures for Insured Individuals in Massachusetts Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Issue 3 (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wu, Justine P.; Zhang, Jianying; McKee, Michael; Akobirshoev, Ilhom; McKee, Kimberly S.; Mitra, Monika
• Is Part Of: Obstetrics and gynecology. Volume 138:Issue 3(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618
• DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004505
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0029-7844

Abstract

Abstract : OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contraceptive provision and contraceptive care quality measures for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and compare these outcomes to those individuals who are not. METHODS: We conducted a claims analysis with data from the 2014 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database. Among premenopausal enrollees aged 15–44, we determined provision of any contraception (yes or no) and provision by contraception type: prescription contraception (pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm), long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) devices, and permanent contraception (tubal sterilization). We compared these outcomes by deaf or hard-of-hearing status (yes or no). The odds of contraceptive provision were calculated with regression models adjusted for age, Medicaid insurance, a preventive health visit, and deaf or hard-of-hearing status. We calculated contraceptive care quality measures, per the U.S. Office of Population Health, as the percentage of enrollees who used: 1) LARC methods or 2) most effective or moderately effective methods (tubal sterilization, pills, patch, ring, injectables, or diaphragm). RESULTS: We identified 1, 171, 838 enrollees at risk for pregnancy; 13, 400 (1.1%) were deaf or hard of hearing. Among individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing, 31.4% were provided contraception (23.5% prescription contraception, 5.4% LARC, 0.7% tubal sterilization). Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.96) than individuals who were not deaf or hard of hearing. The percentage of individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing who received most effective or moderately effective methods was less than that for individuals who were not (24.2% vs 26.3%, P <.001). There were no differences in provision of LARC or permanent contraception by deaf and hard-of-hearing status. CONCLUSION: Individuals who were deaf or hard of hearing were less likely to receive prescription contraception than individuals who were not; factors underlying this pattern need to be examined. Provision of LARC or permanent contraception did not differ by deaf or hard-of-hearing status. These findings should be monitored and compared with data from states with different requirements for contraceptive coverage. Abstract : Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are less likely to be provided prescription contraceptives (pill, patch, ring, shot, diaphragm).