IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/cheawb/2014may.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Family Planning Funding Cuts on Preventive Care

Author

Listed:
  • David Slusky

    (Princeton University)

  • Yao Lu

    (University of Chicago Booth School of Business)

Abstract

Many women rely on family planning and women’s health organizations as their only recent source of care, including preventive care. Recently, several states have cut public funding for women’s health organizations that are associated with abortion services. This paper is the first to quantify the impact of these funding cuts and resulting clinic closures on the incidence of preventive care, focusing on Texas and Wisconsin during the 2007–2012 period. Using quarterly data on health center street addresses from a national network of women’s health centers and confidential respondent ZIP codes from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we calculate changes in distance to the nearest clinic over time. From a within-ZIP-code analysis, we conclude that an increase of 100 miles to the nearest clinic would result in a decrease in the annual utilization rate of a clinical breast exam by 6 percentage points (pp), a mammogram by 2 pp, and a Pap test by 9 pp. These estimates are generally larger for low-education women: 14 pp, 6 pp, and 8 pp respectively. Future analysis will incorporate 2014 survey data to cover a more recent round of cuts.

Suggested Citation

  • David Slusky & Yao Lu, 2014. "The Impact of Family Planning Funding Cuts on Preventive Care," Working Papers 2014may, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing..
  • Handle: RePEc:pri:cheawb:2014may
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwjFN4HbBrDBaWctVlE4c0RsQTA/view?pref=2&pli=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Women's health care; preventive health care; clinic closure; access to care; public finance; abortion; cancer screening;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H75 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Government: Health, Education, and Welfare
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pri:cheawb:2014may. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.