Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40920379›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

State-Level Variation in and Barriers to Medicaid Abortion Coverage.

Jasmine W Jiang, Sarah J Ho, Sakinah C Suttiratana, Carlisle E W Topping, Arjun K Venkatesh, Rieham Owda, Priscilla J Smith, Dalia Owda, Hazar Khidir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jasmine W JiangYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sarah J HoYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sakinah C SuttiratanaGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Carlisle E W ToppingYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Arjun K VenkateshDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Rieham OwdaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Priscilla J SmithYale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut.
Dalia OwdaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Hazar KhidirYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Approximately 35% of individuals seeking abortion care use Medicaid for health insurance. Although the Hyde Amendment restricts use of federal funds for most abortions, states can supplement coverage using state funds. Understanding the scope of abortion coverage across states and potential barriers to access may help address health care inequities and inform interventions. Objective: To characterize state Medicaid abortion policies by conducting a qualitative analysis of publicly available state documents on Medicaid policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study analyzed Medicaid abortion policies across all 50 states and the District of Columbia (hereinafter, states). Data were systematically collected from publicly available Medicaid documents and state websites from May 2023 to February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were key themes and descriptive statistics reporting on the scope of Medicaid abortion coverage and requirements for coverage across states, including documentation and procedures required of patients and physicians. Thematic analysis was performed to extract key themes found in abortion coverage policies, and descriptive statistics were used to show prevalence of identified themes across states. Results: The analysis of 94 documents revealed 3 key themes. First, the scope of coverage across states was heterogeneous. Eighteen states aligned with the current wording of the Hyde Amendment, 10 states described life endangerment without use of current Hyde Amendment wording, 17 states outlined additional coverage for other specified conditions for abortions, 6 states covered all abortions, and 1 state's policy did not mention required federal coverage for rape or incest exceptions. Second, states imposed various patient restrictions and requirements with regard to abortion care coverage, with 22 states mandating reporting requirements for abortions due to rape or incest, along with other administrative hurdles for patients seeking care. Third, physicians were tasked with many responsibilities, such as determining eligibility for Medicaid abortion coverage and complying with documentation and administrative requirements. Thirty-eight states explicitly required physician certification and justification for clinical conditions warranting coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study of state Medicaid abortion policies suggest that there is substantial heterogeneity among states regarding the scope of Medicaid abortion coverage and that there are numerous obstacles for patients and physicians in accessing this coverage. This heterogeneity and burden may impose an additional layer of complexity to abortion access. Measures and policies that improve transparency, clarity, and efficiency may enhance access to essential abortion care for vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedHealth Services AccessibilityInsurance CoverageMedicaidFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchState GovernmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40920379
PMCPMC12418122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.