Declines in HIV Testing and Diagnoses: A Policy Analysis of the 2019 Title X Federal Regulations on Family Planning Clinics
Sherwood, J.; Roberson, N.; Stenoien, D.; Lankiewicz, E.; Honermann, B.; Millett, G.
Show abstract
In 2019 the Trump administration instituted a federal regulation (hereinafter the Policy) requiring that Title X family planning clinics have financial and physical separation of abortion services from other health services and prohibited abortion referrals. In response, 32% (1,280) of Title X funded sites left the program nationally. Our analysis connects public data from Title X Family Planning Reports (2016-2021) and CDC surveillance reports (2016-2021), to examine the Policys impact on: 1) HIV testing at Title X clinics by region, and 2) the proportion of a regions total HIV diagnoses at Title X clinics. We use mixed multivariable linear regression modeling to examine interactions between high regional-level Policy exposure (defined as >25% Policy-related clinic withdrawal from the program) and pre- and post-Policy implementation for HIV outcomes. Interaction models showed that the Policy resulted in 69,626 fewer HIV tests (95% CI -108,893 to -30,359 P<.001) and a 4% reduction (95% CI -7% to -0%; P =.052) in overall regional HIV diagnoses at Title X clinics in high exposed regions compared to low exposed regions from pre- to post-Policy. Results show notable declines in HIV testing and the proportion of HIV cases diagnosed at Title X sites as a result of Policy implementation. Policies that endanger the Title X family planning network also weaken the U.S. HIV response. Future policies governing the Title X family planning program should consider the full consequences for sexual and reproductive health outcomes, including HIV, in the U.S. before implementation. PLAIN LANUGAGE SUMMARYThe Title X Family Planning Program is a key provider of sexual and reproductive health services in the United States (U.S.), especially for low-income women. It is important to examine any policies governing this safety net program to ensure that we continue to provide these populations with the best care. In 2019 the Trump administration passed a federal rule (hereinafter the Policy) which required that any clinics which receive Title X funding must have "financial and physical separation" of abortion services from other health services and prohibited clinics from making abortion referrals for their patients. About a third (32%) of clinics in the Title X program across the U.S. refused to comply with these restrictions and gave up federal Title X funding. Given the important role of Title X clinics for HIV testing services, we examined what the impact of this mass clinic withdrawal had on HIV testing services and HIV diagnoses in the Title X program. We found that there were significant reductions in both HIV testing and diagnoses in the Title X program related to the Policy. Our results show how policies that reduce providers in the Title X family planning network also weaken the U.S. HIV response. Sound health policy that advances efforts to end the U.S. HIV epidemic will support reproductive health clinics, such as those in the Title X program, as key providers of HIV services.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving HIV Outcomes in Miami’s Black populations with clinic-based community health workers protocol: The integrated navigation and support for treatment adherence, counseling, and research (INSTACARE) randomized controlled trial 93%
- The effect of migration, location in mining or borderland areas on HIV incidence among people who use drugs attending a harm reduction programme in Myanmar, 2014-2021: a retrospective cohort study 93%
- Couple-Centered HIV Prevention and Care: Endorsement, Practice and Uncertainty among US Healthcare Providers in Western-Central Upstate New York 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Public Preferences for Social Distancing Behaviors to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19: A Discrete Choice Experiment 91%
- Trends in Homeschooling Rates Following Elimination of Nonmedical Exemptions to Childhood Immunizations, 2012-2020 91%
- Stay-at-Home Orders, African American Population, Poverty and State-level Covid-19 Infections: Are there associations? 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Stimulant Use Interventions May Strengthen ‘Getting to Zero’ Initiatives in Illinois: Insights from a Modeling Study 93%
- There Goes the Neighborhood? The Public Safety Enhancing Effects of a Mobile Harm Reduction Intervention 91%
- The role of prison-based interventions for hepatitis C virus (HCV) micro-elimination among people who inject drugs in Montreal, Canada 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The SENTINEL study of differentiated service delivery models for HIV treatment in Malawi, South Africa, and Zambia: research protocol for a prospective cohort study 92%
- A community-based participatory research approach to the development, refinement, and distribution of Test-to-PrEP: A peer-to-peer distributed at-home HIV self-test and prevention information kit in Miami-Dade, Florida 92%
- Reduction in initiations of HIV treatment in South Africa during the COVID pandemic 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The early-stage comprehensive costs of routine PrEP implementation and scale-up in Zambia 92%
- Improving patient-centred counselling skills among lay healthcare workers in South Africa using the Thusa-Thuso motivational interviewing training and support program 92%
- Who does tracing work for? Characteristics of clients successfully re-engaged in ART care in sub-Saharan Africa after a tracing intervention: a systematic review 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.