One Simple Fix Could Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies and Save Millions of Dollars

A new study finds that providing yearlong oral contraceptive supplies would solve a lot of problems.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A new study finds that providing women with a yearlong supply of oral contraceptive birth control—rather than the typical three-month supply—could be the key to millions of dollars in health care savings and fewer unintended pregnancies.

Researchers at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the University of Pittsburgh found that supplying women in the VA with a yearlong supply of oral contraceptive pills would prevent an estimated 583 unintended pregnancies annually. The change would also save the government $2 million a year by reducing spending on pregnancy-related care, such as prenatal and newborn care, which would otherwise be covered by the VA health insurance. 

The researchers used mathematical modeling based on existing data from the VA healthcare system, not clinical trials, to come to their conclusions, since the VA does not currently provide yearlong supplies. They found that gaps between oral contraceptives refills caused by shorter supply windows are a major factor in the prevalence of unintended pregnancies.

“Missing only a couple days of pills can lead to an unintended pregnancy,” says Colleen Judge-Golden, a co-author of the study. “When you just give a year’s supply of contraception up front to women, those women actually have a reduction in the amount of gap in their medication coverage.”

Like the VA, most health insurers currently cap the number of pills that women can pick up at one time without being charged, typically at 30, 60, or 90 days of coverage. Ostensibly, this is to prevent potential pill wastage: Insurers are concerned women may switch contraceptives during the year or stop taking them, which would leave the insurers paying for unused medication. However, Judge-Golden believes this particular concern misses the costs of unintended pregnancies.

“This is not a completely irrational thing to be worried about, but what our analysis and other studies have actually found is that those concerns are really overshadowed by the prevention of pregnancy,” she says. “Pregnancies cost a lot more than pills.”

Another concern voiced by insurers is that yearlong contraceptive supplies discourage patients from getting regular check-ups. However, study co-author Dr. Sonya Borrero, the associate director of the VA’s Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, point outs that most doctors prescribe birth control on a yearly basis.

“Those are unjustified, ungrounded critiques of this,” Borrero says. She notes that doctors typically write prescriptions for a full year, even if patients can only pick them up a few months at a time. She also feels that restricting birth control access in order to force women to receive other types of health care services is problematic. 

“We don’t want to create a situation in which we hold one type of service hostage to sort of force people to come receive care,” Borrero says. “I think we really want to elevate women’s reproductive autonomy here, so it’s really important to uncouple access to birth control from other medical services.”

While this study has implications for oral contraceptive pills more broadly, Borrero believe that as women have become a larger part of the VA health care system, it’s important to pay attention to the unique needs of female veterans.

“I think it’s really important to recognize that women veterans who use the VA for their health care are a particularly medically vulnerable population,” she says. “They really have a high burden of medical and mental illness, a lot of which were incurred during their military service, and they also have a really high prevalence of sexual trauma history. So all of these things can exacerbate the negative impact of an unwanted pregnancy and can make pregnancy more risky for these women.”

In addition, she notes, the VA does not provide coverage for abortion services, even when the mother’s health is at risk. “So I think the high prevalence of chronic medical and mental conditions, coupled with no abortion coverage, really makes it critical that we really support these women’s use of contraception,” she says.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate