MDedge ObGyn

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study ties the odds of conception to the advantages of the neighborhood a woman lives in.

In a cohort of more than 6,000 women who were trying to get pregnant without fertility treatments, the probability of conception was reduced 21%-23% per menstrual cycle when comparing the most disadvantaged neighborhoods with the least disadvantaged.

“When disadvantaged neighborhood status was categorized within each state (as opposed to nationally), the results were slightly larger in magnitude,” wrote authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Among 6,356 participants, 3,725 pregnancies were observed for 27,427 menstrual cycles of follow-up. Average age was 30, and most participants were non-Hispanic White (5,297 [83.3%]) and had not previously given birth (4,179 [65.7%]).

When the researchers compared the top and bottom deciles of disadvantaged neighborhood status, adjusted fecundability ratios (the per-cycle probability of conception) were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.96) for national-level area deprivation index (ADI) rankings and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92) for within-state ADI rankings. ADI score includes population indicators related to educational attainment, housing, employment, and poverty.

“These findings suggest that investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods may yield positive cobenefits for fertility,” the authors wrote.

The researchers used the Pregnancy Study Online, for which baseline data were collected from women in the United States from June 19, 2013, through April 12, 2019.

In the United States, 10%-15% of reproductive-aged couples experience infertility, defined as the inability to conceive after a year of unprotected intercourse.
 

Reason behind the numbers unclear

Mark Hornstein, MD, director in the reproductive endocrinology division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study gives the “what” but the “why” is harder to pinpoint.

What is not known, he said, is what kind of access the women had to fertility counseling or treatment.

The association between fertility and neighborhood advantage status is very plausible given the well-established links between disadvantaged regions and poorer health outcomes, he said, adding that the authors make a good case for their conclusions in the paper.

The authors ruled out many potential confounders, such as age of the women, reproductive history, multivitamin use, education level, household income, and frequency of intercourse, and still there was a difference between disadvantaged and advantaged neighborhoods, he noted.

Dr. Hornstein said his own research team has found that lack of knowledge about insurance coverage regarding infertility services may keep women from seeking the services.

“One of the things I worry about it access,” he said. “[The study authors] didn’t really look at that. They just looked at what the chances were that they got pregnant. But they didn’t say how many of those women had a workup, an evaluation, for why they were having difficulty, if they were, or had treatment. So I don’t know if some or all or none of that difference that they saw from the highest neighborhood health score to the most disadvantaged – if that was from inherent problems in the area, access to the best health care, or some combination.”
 

Discussions have focused on changing personal behaviors

Discussions on improving fertility often center on changing personal behaviors, the authors noted. “However, structural, political, and environmental factors may also play a substantial role,” they wrote.

The findings are in line with previous research on the effect of stress on in vitro outcomes, they pointed out. “Perceived stress has been associated with poorer in vitro fertilization outcomes and reduced fecundability among couples attempting spontaneous conception,” the authors noted.

Studies also have shown that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is linked with comorbidities during pregnancy, such as increased risks of gestational hypertension (risk ratio for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14-1.35]) and poor gestational weight gain (relative risk for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]).

In addition, policies such as those that support civil rights, protect the environment, and invest in underresourced communities have been shown to improve health markers such as life expectancy.

Policy decisions can also perpetuate a cycle of stress, they wrote. Disadvantaged communities may have more air pollution, which has been shown to have negative effects on fertility. Unemployment has been linked with decreased population-level fertility rates. Lack of green space may result in fewer areas to reduce stress.

A study coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, Labcorp, Kindara.com, and FertilityFriend.com; and consulting for AbbVie outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Hornstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

A new study ties the odds of conception to the advantages of the neighborhood a woman lives in.

In a cohort of more than 6,000 women who were trying to get pregnant without fertility treatments, the probability of conception was reduced 21%-23% per menstrual cycle when comparing the most disadvantaged neighborhoods with the least disadvantaged.

“When disadvantaged neighborhood status was categorized within each state (as opposed to nationally), the results were slightly larger in magnitude,” wrote authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Among 6,356 participants, 3,725 pregnancies were observed for 27,427 menstrual cycles of follow-up. Average age was 30, and most participants were non-Hispanic White (5,297 [83.3%]) and had not previously given birth (4,179 [65.7%]).

When the researchers compared the top and bottom deciles of disadvantaged neighborhood status, adjusted fecundability ratios (the per-cycle probability of conception) were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.96) for national-level area deprivation index (ADI) rankings and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92) for within-state ADI rankings. ADI score includes population indicators related to educational attainment, housing, employment, and poverty.

“These findings suggest that investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods may yield positive cobenefits for fertility,” the authors wrote.

The researchers used the Pregnancy Study Online, for which baseline data were collected from women in the United States from June 19, 2013, through April 12, 2019.

In the United States, 10%-15% of reproductive-aged couples experience infertility, defined as the inability to conceive after a year of unprotected intercourse.
 

Reason behind the numbers unclear

Mark Hornstein, MD, director in the reproductive endocrinology division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study gives the “what” but the “why” is harder to pinpoint.

What is not known, he said, is what kind of access the women had to fertility counseling or treatment.

The association between fertility and neighborhood advantage status is very plausible given the well-established links between disadvantaged regions and poorer health outcomes, he said, adding that the authors make a good case for their conclusions in the paper.

The authors ruled out many potential confounders, such as age of the women, reproductive history, multivitamin use, education level, household income, and frequency of intercourse, and still there was a difference between disadvantaged and advantaged neighborhoods, he noted.

Dr. Hornstein said his own research team has found that lack of knowledge about insurance coverage regarding infertility services may keep women from seeking the services.

“One of the things I worry about it access,” he said. “[The study authors] didn’t really look at that. They just looked at what the chances were that they got pregnant. But they didn’t say how many of those women had a workup, an evaluation, for why they were having difficulty, if they were, or had treatment. So I don’t know if some or all or none of that difference that they saw from the highest neighborhood health score to the most disadvantaged – if that was from inherent problems in the area, access to the best health care, or some combination.”
 

Discussions have focused on changing personal behaviors

Discussions on improving fertility often center on changing personal behaviors, the authors noted. “However, structural, political, and environmental factors may also play a substantial role,” they wrote.

The findings are in line with previous research on the effect of stress on in vitro outcomes, they pointed out. “Perceived stress has been associated with poorer in vitro fertilization outcomes and reduced fecundability among couples attempting spontaneous conception,” the authors noted.

Studies also have shown that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is linked with comorbidities during pregnancy, such as increased risks of gestational hypertension (risk ratio for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14-1.35]) and poor gestational weight gain (relative risk for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]).

In addition, policies such as those that support civil rights, protect the environment, and invest in underresourced communities have been shown to improve health markers such as life expectancy.

Policy decisions can also perpetuate a cycle of stress, they wrote. Disadvantaged communities may have more air pollution, which has been shown to have negative effects on fertility. Unemployment has been linked with decreased population-level fertility rates. Lack of green space may result in fewer areas to reduce stress.

A study coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, Labcorp, Kindara.com, and FertilityFriend.com; and consulting for AbbVie outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Hornstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

A new study ties the odds of conception to the advantages of the neighborhood a woman lives in.

In a cohort of more than 6,000 women who were trying to get pregnant without fertility treatments, the probability of conception was reduced 21%-23% per menstrual cycle when comparing the most disadvantaged neighborhoods with the least disadvantaged.

“When disadvantaged neighborhood status was categorized within each state (as opposed to nationally), the results were slightly larger in magnitude,” wrote authors of the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Among 6,356 participants, 3,725 pregnancies were observed for 27,427 menstrual cycles of follow-up. Average age was 30, and most participants were non-Hispanic White (5,297 [83.3%]) and had not previously given birth (4,179 [65.7%]).

When the researchers compared the top and bottom deciles of disadvantaged neighborhood status, adjusted fecundability ratios (the per-cycle probability of conception) were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.96) for national-level area deprivation index (ADI) rankings and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65-0.92) for within-state ADI rankings. ADI score includes population indicators related to educational attainment, housing, employment, and poverty.

“These findings suggest that investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods may yield positive cobenefits for fertility,” the authors wrote.

The researchers used the Pregnancy Study Online, for which baseline data were collected from women in the United States from June 19, 2013, through April 12, 2019.

In the United States, 10%-15% of reproductive-aged couples experience infertility, defined as the inability to conceive after a year of unprotected intercourse.
 

Reason behind the numbers unclear

Mark Hornstein, MD, director in the reproductive endocrinology division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study gives the “what” but the “why” is harder to pinpoint.

What is not known, he said, is what kind of access the women had to fertility counseling or treatment.

The association between fertility and neighborhood advantage status is very plausible given the well-established links between disadvantaged regions and poorer health outcomes, he said, adding that the authors make a good case for their conclusions in the paper.

The authors ruled out many potential confounders, such as age of the women, reproductive history, multivitamin use, education level, household income, and frequency of intercourse, and still there was a difference between disadvantaged and advantaged neighborhoods, he noted.

Dr. Hornstein said his own research team has found that lack of knowledge about insurance coverage regarding infertility services may keep women from seeking the services.

“One of the things I worry about it access,” he said. “[The study authors] didn’t really look at that. They just looked at what the chances were that they got pregnant. But they didn’t say how many of those women had a workup, an evaluation, for why they were having difficulty, if they were, or had treatment. So I don’t know if some or all or none of that difference that they saw from the highest neighborhood health score to the most disadvantaged – if that was from inherent problems in the area, access to the best health care, or some combination.”
 

Discussions have focused on changing personal behaviors

Discussions on improving fertility often center on changing personal behaviors, the authors noted. “However, structural, political, and environmental factors may also play a substantial role,” they wrote.

The findings are in line with previous research on the effect of stress on in vitro outcomes, they pointed out. “Perceived stress has been associated with poorer in vitro fertilization outcomes and reduced fecundability among couples attempting spontaneous conception,” the authors noted.

Studies also have shown that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is linked with comorbidities during pregnancy, such as increased risks of gestational hypertension (risk ratio for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14-1.35]) and poor gestational weight gain (relative risk for lowest vs. highest quartile: 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]).

In addition, policies such as those that support civil rights, protect the environment, and invest in underresourced communities have been shown to improve health markers such as life expectancy.

Policy decisions can also perpetuate a cycle of stress, they wrote. Disadvantaged communities may have more air pollution, which has been shown to have negative effects on fertility. Unemployment has been linked with decreased population-level fertility rates. Lack of green space may result in fewer areas to reduce stress.

A study coauthor reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, Labcorp, Kindara.com, and FertilityFriend.com; and consulting for AbbVie outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Hornstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Alabama urged a federal court on June 28 to drop its block on the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the high court ruled that abortion isn’t protected under the 14th Amendment because it’s not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, which he noted could be said about access to gender-affirming care as well, according to Axios.

“No one – adult or child – has a right to transitioning treatments that is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” he wrote in a court document.

“The State can thus regulate or prohibit those interventions for children, even if an adult wants the drugs for his child,” he wrote.

In May, a federal judge blocked part of Alabama’s Senate Bill 184, which makes it a felony for someone to “engage in or cause” certain types of medical care for transgender youths. The law, which was put in place in April, allows for criminal prosecution against doctors, parents, guardians, and anyone else who provides care to a minor. The penalties could result in up to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke issued an injunction to stop Alabama from enforcing the law and allow challenges, including one filed by the Department of Justice. Mr. Burke said the state provided “no credible evidence to show that transitioning medications are ‘experimental.’ ”

“While Defendants offer some evidence that transitioning medications pose certain risks, the uncontradicted record evidence is that at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors,” he wrote in the ruling.

Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association have urged governors to oppose legislation this year that would restrict gender-affirming medical care, saying that such laws could have negative effects on the mental health of transgender youths.

But on June 28, Mr. Marshall focused on the Constitution and what he believes the recent overturn of Roe implies.

“Just as the parental relationship does not unlock a Due Process right allowing parents to obtain medical marijuana or abortions for their children, neither does it unlock a right to transitioning treatments,” he wrote.

“The Constitution reserves to the State – not courts or medical interest groups – the authority to determine that these sterilizing interventions are too dangerous for minors,” he said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, people have expressed concerns that lawsuits could now target several rights that are protected under the 14th Amendment, including same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and access to contraceptives.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion to the majority decision, said the Supreme Court, “in future cases” should reconsider “substantive due process precedents” under previous landmark cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also wrote a concurring opinion, said the decision to overturn Roe was only focused on abortion, saying it “does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Facebook and Instagram have begun removing posts and temporarily banning users that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

After the decision was overturned on June 24, social media posts exploded across platforms during the weekend, explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail. Some offered to mail the prescriptions to women in states that now ban the procedure.

General posts about abortion pills, as well as ones that mentioned specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, spiked on Friday morning across Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. By Sunday, more than 250,000 mentions had been posted, the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs told The Associated Press.

But Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, began removing some of these posts almost right away, the AP reported. Journalists at news outlets saved screenshots of posts that offered pills and were removed minutes later. Users were notified that they were banned, according to Vice.

On June 24, a Vice reporter posted the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed” on Facebook, which was flagged within seconds for violating the platform’s community rules against buying, selling, or trading medical or nonmedical drugs. The reporter was given the option to “agree” or “disagree” with the decision, and after they chose to “disagree,” the post was removed.

On June 27, the post that Vice “disagreed” had violated the standards was reinstated, the news outlet reported. The reporter wrote a new post with the phrase “abortion pills can be mailed,” which was flagged instantly for removal. After the reporter “agreed” with the decision, the account was suspended for 24 hours.

Similarly on June 27, a reporter for the AP wrote a post on Facebook that said, “If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills.” The post was removed within 1 minute, and the account was put on a “warning” status for the post. Other posts that offered “a gun” or “weed” were not flagged or removed, the AP reported.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law and can’t be sent through the mail, the AP reported. But abortion pills can be obtained through the mail legally.

Meta won’t allow people to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform but will allow posts that share information about accessing pills, Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, wrote in a Twitter comment in response to the Vice article on June 27.

“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals is not allowed,” he wrote. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication is allowed. We’ve discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on June 24 that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of mifepristone for medication abortion up to 10 weeks. In 2021, the FDA also made it possible and legal to send abortion pills via mail.

“States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy,” he said in a statement.

At the same time, some Republican lawmakers have tried to stop residents from getting abortion pills through the mail, the AP reported. States such as Tennessee and West Virginia have prohibited providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultations, and Texas has made it illegal to send abortion pills through the mail.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling in 1973 establishing a constitutional right to abortion, has spurred abortion rights supporters and opponents into action, speeding up their efforts to protect or remove access to abortion.

For now, the fight moves to the states, where so-called trigger laws have already banned nearly all abortions in a handful of states. More will likely take effect soon.

“Half of [the states] are going to have quite restrictive abortion laws, and about half will pretty much maintain the status quo,” said Ron Allen, JD, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Northwestern University, Chicago. “My guess is, the largest population will be in those states that maintain the status quo, [though] that’s not terribly consoling to somebody in Arkansas, [which has a trigger law.]”

Federal and state officials spoke out quickly about what protections are still in place for access to abortion, and some governors have taken new actions to expand that protection.

While abortion rights advocates called on Congress to pass legislation legalizing abortion access nationwide, others, including former Vice President Mike Pence, said a national ban on abortions should be the next step.
 

Federal, state protections

President Joe Biden quickly addressed the issue of women needing to travel out of state to access abortion. In his statement on June 24, he said: “So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. It does not prevent a doctor in that state from treating her.”

In a statement also issued June 24, Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed strong disagreement with the court’s decision and also pointed out it does not mean that states can’t keep abortion legal within their borders. Nor can states ban reproductive services provided to their residents outside their own borders.

Women living in states banning access to abortion, “must be free to seek care in states where it is legal.” Others are free to inform and counsel each other about reproductive care available in other states, he said, citing the First Amendment.

Doctors who provide abortion services in states where the services remain legal, as well as patients who receive the services, will be protected under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Mr. Garland said in a statement from the Department of Justice.

States reiterated protection for health care providers. For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law June 24 protecting California abortion providers from civil liability when they provide care for women traveling from states where abortion is banned or access to it is narrowed.

Officials from other states with abortion access began publicizing their status as “safe havens.” New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted: “While other states strip away the fundamental right to choose, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion.”

Gov. Newsom, too, among other state officials, has promised his state would be a sanctuary for women in need.

After the ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and the New York State Department of Health launched a new website and campaign, Abortion Access Always, providing a single destination for information about rights, providers, support, and other details.
 

Abortion pill

Mr. Garland and President Biden strongly warned states not to try to interfere with access to the so-called abortion pill. Approved 20 years ago by the FDA to safely end early pregnancies, the medication, mifepristone (formerly called RU-486) is taken along with misoprostol, a drug also used to prevent stomach ulcers. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

In his statement, Mr. Garland noted that the “FDA has approved the use of the medication mifepristone. States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

Plan C, an information campaign for abortion services, has a state-by-state directory of ways to find the pills, even in states restricting access to abortion, said Elisa Wells, Plan C’s cofounder and codirector.
 

Calls for national access

On June 24, President Biden called on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law. “No executive action from the president can do that,” he said. If Congress lacks the vote to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard, he said.

“The Supreme Court is but one of many government bodies that can protect the right to abortion,” Nancy Northup, JD, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, said June 24. “We will be looking to the Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act. Congress can solve this as a national problem. We’ll be looking to the Biden administration to use the extent of its powers.”

The Women’s Health Protection Act would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortion services.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted: “Democrats must now end the filibuster in the Senate, codify Roe v. Wade, and once again make abortion legal and safe.”

“The federal government can do a lot of things,” said Mr. Allen. “It’s interesting that we focus on the administrative agencies. The fight over Roe is a fight in large measure over who should be deciding and whether these are issues that should be decided by agencies or a court or legislators.”

Anger, he said, “should be directed at legislators, and that’s who should be acting here, and that means people have to get out and vote.”
 

Calls for a national ban

Former Vice President Pence told far-right publication Breitbart News that the court’s decision should lead to a national ban on abortion.

He also took to Twitter. Among other posts, he said: “Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land!”
 

Organizations’ actions

Organizations on both sides of the issue have mobilization and expansion plans.

NRLC: The National Right to Life Committee will now focus on state legislatures, said Laura Echevarria, the group’s communications director.

“We will continue to work on these [antiabortion] laws in the states we can get these passed,” she said. There’s no one size fits all. “New York is not going to pass a law that Alabama is going to pass. Every state is going to be doing something different.”

“The next big thing is to build that safety net” for women who decide to avoid abortion, she said. More than 2,700 “pregnancy help” centers operate in the United States. “We don’t run them, they are independent.” But the NRLC supports them. The centers provide pregnancy support and financial help, “two big reasons why women get abortions.”

She added: “The prolife movement often gets a bad rap, like we don’t care about women, and we do.” In an open letter issued May 12 to state lawmakers, the NRLC said: “We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”

ACLU: Anthony D. Romero, JD, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued a statement on Jun 24 that read in part: “Second-class status for women has once again become the law because of today’s decisions.”

As the fight plays out in the court, the ACLU urges voters to head to the polls, noting that state constitutional amendments to preserve reproductive freedom are on the ballot in Kansas in August and in Vermont and Kentucky in November.
 

Planned Parenthood

“A majority of justices ruled to throw away nearly 50 years of precedent and take away the right to control our bodies and personal health care decisions,” the Planned Parenthood site posted.

On June 25, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed suit in Utah state court, planning to request a temporary restraining order against the state’s ban on abortion at any point in pregnancy. The law took effect June 24.
 

Abortion rights offers of help

As legislators and public officials focused on what the next steps should be, social media lit up over the weekend with offers of help for women in states without access to abortion.

One meme posted on social media focused on “camping.” Reportedly created by a woman who needed abortions before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, it reads: “If you are a person who suddenly finds yourself with a need to go camping in another state friendly towards camping, just know that I will happily drive you, support you, and not talk about the camping trip to anyone ever.”

While the camping code word quickly picked up steam, one Twitter user who favored the court’s decision called the trend of using camping as a code word to help people access abortions “horrible.”

TikTok users also offered their homes and help to women from other states who might need either. And one Airbnb host posted this invitation on Facebook: “My Airbnb is free for any American woman coming to Los Angeles for an abortion. Hugs and cute kittens, too.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling in 1973 establishing a constitutional right to abortion, has spurred abortion rights supporters and opponents into action, speeding up their efforts to protect or remove access to abortion.

For now, the fight moves to the states, where so-called trigger laws have already banned nearly all abortions in a handful of states. More will likely take effect soon.

“Half of [the states] are going to have quite restrictive abortion laws, and about half will pretty much maintain the status quo,” said Ron Allen, JD, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Northwestern University, Chicago. “My guess is, the largest population will be in those states that maintain the status quo, [though] that’s not terribly consoling to somebody in Arkansas, [which has a trigger law.]”

Federal and state officials spoke out quickly about what protections are still in place for access to abortion, and some governors have taken new actions to expand that protection.

While abortion rights advocates called on Congress to pass legislation legalizing abortion access nationwide, others, including former Vice President Mike Pence, said a national ban on abortions should be the next step.
 

Federal, state protections

President Joe Biden quickly addressed the issue of women needing to travel out of state to access abortion. In his statement on June 24, he said: “So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. It does not prevent a doctor in that state from treating her.”

In a statement also issued June 24, Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed strong disagreement with the court’s decision and also pointed out it does not mean that states can’t keep abortion legal within their borders. Nor can states ban reproductive services provided to their residents outside their own borders.

Women living in states banning access to abortion, “must be free to seek care in states where it is legal.” Others are free to inform and counsel each other about reproductive care available in other states, he said, citing the First Amendment.

Doctors who provide abortion services in states where the services remain legal, as well as patients who receive the services, will be protected under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Mr. Garland said in a statement from the Department of Justice.

States reiterated protection for health care providers. For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law June 24 protecting California abortion providers from civil liability when they provide care for women traveling from states where abortion is banned or access to it is narrowed.

Officials from other states with abortion access began publicizing their status as “safe havens.” New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted: “While other states strip away the fundamental right to choose, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion.”

Gov. Newsom, too, among other state officials, has promised his state would be a sanctuary for women in need.

After the ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and the New York State Department of Health launched a new website and campaign, Abortion Access Always, providing a single destination for information about rights, providers, support, and other details.
 

Abortion pill

Mr. Garland and President Biden strongly warned states not to try to interfere with access to the so-called abortion pill. Approved 20 years ago by the FDA to safely end early pregnancies, the medication, mifepristone (formerly called RU-486) is taken along with misoprostol, a drug also used to prevent stomach ulcers. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

In his statement, Mr. Garland noted that the “FDA has approved the use of the medication mifepristone. States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

Plan C, an information campaign for abortion services, has a state-by-state directory of ways to find the pills, even in states restricting access to abortion, said Elisa Wells, Plan C’s cofounder and codirector.
 

Calls for national access

On June 24, President Biden called on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law. “No executive action from the president can do that,” he said. If Congress lacks the vote to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard, he said.

“The Supreme Court is but one of many government bodies that can protect the right to abortion,” Nancy Northup, JD, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, said June 24. “We will be looking to the Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act. Congress can solve this as a national problem. We’ll be looking to the Biden administration to use the extent of its powers.”

The Women’s Health Protection Act would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortion services.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted: “Democrats must now end the filibuster in the Senate, codify Roe v. Wade, and once again make abortion legal and safe.”

“The federal government can do a lot of things,” said Mr. Allen. “It’s interesting that we focus on the administrative agencies. The fight over Roe is a fight in large measure over who should be deciding and whether these are issues that should be decided by agencies or a court or legislators.”

Anger, he said, “should be directed at legislators, and that’s who should be acting here, and that means people have to get out and vote.”
 

Calls for a national ban

Former Vice President Pence told far-right publication Breitbart News that the court’s decision should lead to a national ban on abortion.

He also took to Twitter. Among other posts, he said: “Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land!”
 

Organizations’ actions

Organizations on both sides of the issue have mobilization and expansion plans.

NRLC: The National Right to Life Committee will now focus on state legislatures, said Laura Echevarria, the group’s communications director.

“We will continue to work on these [antiabortion] laws in the states we can get these passed,” she said. There’s no one size fits all. “New York is not going to pass a law that Alabama is going to pass. Every state is going to be doing something different.”

“The next big thing is to build that safety net” for women who decide to avoid abortion, she said. More than 2,700 “pregnancy help” centers operate in the United States. “We don’t run them, they are independent.” But the NRLC supports them. The centers provide pregnancy support and financial help, “two big reasons why women get abortions.”

She added: “The prolife movement often gets a bad rap, like we don’t care about women, and we do.” In an open letter issued May 12 to state lawmakers, the NRLC said: “We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”

ACLU: Anthony D. Romero, JD, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued a statement on Jun 24 that read in part: “Second-class status for women has once again become the law because of today’s decisions.”

As the fight plays out in the court, the ACLU urges voters to head to the polls, noting that state constitutional amendments to preserve reproductive freedom are on the ballot in Kansas in August and in Vermont and Kentucky in November.
 

Planned Parenthood

“A majority of justices ruled to throw away nearly 50 years of precedent and take away the right to control our bodies and personal health care decisions,” the Planned Parenthood site posted.

On June 25, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed suit in Utah state court, planning to request a temporary restraining order against the state’s ban on abortion at any point in pregnancy. The law took effect June 24.
 

Abortion rights offers of help

As legislators and public officials focused on what the next steps should be, social media lit up over the weekend with offers of help for women in states without access to abortion.

One meme posted on social media focused on “camping.” Reportedly created by a woman who needed abortions before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, it reads: “If you are a person who suddenly finds yourself with a need to go camping in another state friendly towards camping, just know that I will happily drive you, support you, and not talk about the camping trip to anyone ever.”

While the camping code word quickly picked up steam, one Twitter user who favored the court’s decision called the trend of using camping as a code word to help people access abortions “horrible.”

TikTok users also offered their homes and help to women from other states who might need either. And one Airbnb host posted this invitation on Facebook: “My Airbnb is free for any American woman coming to Los Angeles for an abortion. Hugs and cute kittens, too.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling in 1973 establishing a constitutional right to abortion, has spurred abortion rights supporters and opponents into action, speeding up their efforts to protect or remove access to abortion.

For now, the fight moves to the states, where so-called trigger laws have already banned nearly all abortions in a handful of states. More will likely take effect soon.

“Half of [the states] are going to have quite restrictive abortion laws, and about half will pretty much maintain the status quo,” said Ron Allen, JD, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Northwestern University, Chicago. “My guess is, the largest population will be in those states that maintain the status quo, [though] that’s not terribly consoling to somebody in Arkansas, [which has a trigger law.]”

Federal and state officials spoke out quickly about what protections are still in place for access to abortion, and some governors have taken new actions to expand that protection.

While abortion rights advocates called on Congress to pass legislation legalizing abortion access nationwide, others, including former Vice President Mike Pence, said a national ban on abortions should be the next step.
 

Federal, state protections

President Joe Biden quickly addressed the issue of women needing to travel out of state to access abortion. In his statement on June 24, he said: “So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. It does not prevent a doctor in that state from treating her.”

In a statement also issued June 24, Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed strong disagreement with the court’s decision and also pointed out it does not mean that states can’t keep abortion legal within their borders. Nor can states ban reproductive services provided to their residents outside their own borders.

Women living in states banning access to abortion, “must be free to seek care in states where it is legal.” Others are free to inform and counsel each other about reproductive care available in other states, he said, citing the First Amendment.

Doctors who provide abortion services in states where the services remain legal, as well as patients who receive the services, will be protected under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Mr. Garland said in a statement from the Department of Justice.

States reiterated protection for health care providers. For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law June 24 protecting California abortion providers from civil liability when they provide care for women traveling from states where abortion is banned or access to it is narrowed.

Officials from other states with abortion access began publicizing their status as “safe havens.” New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted: “While other states strip away the fundamental right to choose, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion.”

Gov. Newsom, too, among other state officials, has promised his state would be a sanctuary for women in need.

After the ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and the New York State Department of Health launched a new website and campaign, Abortion Access Always, providing a single destination for information about rights, providers, support, and other details.
 

Abortion pill

Mr. Garland and President Biden strongly warned states not to try to interfere with access to the so-called abortion pill. Approved 20 years ago by the FDA to safely end early pregnancies, the medication, mifepristone (formerly called RU-486) is taken along with misoprostol, a drug also used to prevent stomach ulcers. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

In his statement, Mr. Garland noted that the “FDA has approved the use of the medication mifepristone. States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

Plan C, an information campaign for abortion services, has a state-by-state directory of ways to find the pills, even in states restricting access to abortion, said Elisa Wells, Plan C’s cofounder and codirector.
 

Calls for national access

On June 24, President Biden called on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law. “No executive action from the president can do that,” he said. If Congress lacks the vote to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard, he said.

“The Supreme Court is but one of many government bodies that can protect the right to abortion,” Nancy Northup, JD, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, said June 24. “We will be looking to the Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act. Congress can solve this as a national problem. We’ll be looking to the Biden administration to use the extent of its powers.”

The Women’s Health Protection Act would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortion services.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted: “Democrats must now end the filibuster in the Senate, codify Roe v. Wade, and once again make abortion legal and safe.”

“The federal government can do a lot of things,” said Mr. Allen. “It’s interesting that we focus on the administrative agencies. The fight over Roe is a fight in large measure over who should be deciding and whether these are issues that should be decided by agencies or a court or legislators.”

Anger, he said, “should be directed at legislators, and that’s who should be acting here, and that means people have to get out and vote.”
 

Calls for a national ban

Former Vice President Pence told far-right publication Breitbart News that the court’s decision should lead to a national ban on abortion.

He also took to Twitter. Among other posts, he said: “Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land!”
 

Organizations’ actions

Organizations on both sides of the issue have mobilization and expansion plans.

NRLC: The National Right to Life Committee will now focus on state legislatures, said Laura Echevarria, the group’s communications director.

“We will continue to work on these [antiabortion] laws in the states we can get these passed,” she said. There’s no one size fits all. “New York is not going to pass a law that Alabama is going to pass. Every state is going to be doing something different.”

“The next big thing is to build that safety net” for women who decide to avoid abortion, she said. More than 2,700 “pregnancy help” centers operate in the United States. “We don’t run them, they are independent.” But the NRLC supports them. The centers provide pregnancy support and financial help, “two big reasons why women get abortions.”

She added: “The prolife movement often gets a bad rap, like we don’t care about women, and we do.” In an open letter issued May 12 to state lawmakers, the NRLC said: “We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”

ACLU: Anthony D. Romero, JD, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued a statement on Jun 24 that read in part: “Second-class status for women has once again become the law because of today’s decisions.”

As the fight plays out in the court, the ACLU urges voters to head to the polls, noting that state constitutional amendments to preserve reproductive freedom are on the ballot in Kansas in August and in Vermont and Kentucky in November.
 

Planned Parenthood

“A majority of justices ruled to throw away nearly 50 years of precedent and take away the right to control our bodies and personal health care decisions,” the Planned Parenthood site posted.

On June 25, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed suit in Utah state court, planning to request a temporary restraining order against the state’s ban on abortion at any point in pregnancy. The law took effect June 24.
 

Abortion rights offers of help

As legislators and public officials focused on what the next steps should be, social media lit up over the weekend with offers of help for women in states without access to abortion.

One meme posted on social media focused on “camping.” Reportedly created by a woman who needed abortions before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, it reads: “If you are a person who suddenly finds yourself with a need to go camping in another state friendly towards camping, just know that I will happily drive you, support you, and not talk about the camping trip to anyone ever.”

While the camping code word quickly picked up steam, one Twitter user who favored the court’s decision called the trend of using camping as a code word to help people access abortions “horrible.”

TikTok users also offered their homes and help to women from other states who might need either. And one Airbnb host posted this invitation on Facebook: “My Airbnb is free for any American woman coming to Los Angeles for an abortion. Hugs and cute kittens, too.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.