ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Little is known about the proportion of oral contraceptive pill (OCP) users that use progestin-only pills (POPs), factors associated with POP use, and whether out-of-pocket expenditures and dispensing patterns are similar to combined oral contraceptives (COCs). STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort using 1996-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys. RESULTS: Among all OCP users, 4% used POPs and changed little between 1996 and 2008. Women were more likely to use POPs if they received postpartum care (p<.001), had a diagnosis of hypertension (p<.001) or resided in the West (p<.01). POP users, compared to COC users, were more likely to pay $15 and more (p<.01) and less likely to obtain more than one pack per purchase (p<.001), controlling for age, race/ethnicity and insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: POP use is very low in the United States. POP users obtained fewer packs per purchase compared with COC users, suggesting that POP may be used as transitional OCPs, particularly during the postpartum period.
Contraception 07/2012; · 2.72 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Little is known about the out-of-pocket expenditures and dispensing patterns for oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), factors associated with these outcomes and whether they change over time.
Observational cohort using 1996-2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.
Women spent $16 out-of-pocket per pack, on average (median=$10.41). Of the OCP users, 38% paid $15 or more per pack and 44% obtained one pack per purchase. Over time, fewer women paid $15 or more (52% in 1996-1998 vs. 34% in 1999-2006, p<.001) and fewer obtained one pack per purchase (76% in 1996-1998 vs. 35% in 1999-2006, p<.001). Age and insurance were associated with out-of-pocket expenditures and dispensing patterns.
Women paid a substantial amount out-of-pocket for OCPs and dispensing limits remained, although these improved over time. Better insurance coverage of contraception and policies targeting younger women and the uninsured in particular would help overcome barriers to OCP access.
Contraception 06/2011; 83(6):528-36. · 2.72 Impact Factor
Contraception 08/2010; 82(2):129-30. · 2.72 Impact Factor