Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
January 24, 2011

Major Gains Seen for States that Take Up New Authority to Expand Medicaid Family Planning Services

State-by-State Analysis Projects Significant Improvements in Reproductive Health Outcomes, Major Savings for State Medicaid Programs

A groundbreaking provision included in the March 2010 health care reform law greatly simplifies the process by which a state may expand eligibility for family planning services under its Medicaid program. Using this new authority, individual states could avert thousands of unintended pregnancies, births and abortions, and realize millions of dollars in net savings, according to a new Guttmacher Institute report.

Up to now, Medicaid family planning expansions have been technically considered temporary experiments. The first such "demonstration" programs were approved in the 1990s, and over the years, a large body of evaluation research has shown that they expand low-income women’s access to contraceptive services. By doing so, the programs help more women to avoid pregnancies they do not want and boost maternal and child health by permitting women to better space their births.

"Medicaid family planning expansions are tremendously successful," says Adam Sonfield, the report’s lead author. "That’s why 22 states—including ones as regionally and politically diverse as Texas, California, Pennsylvania and South Carolina—have undergone the cumbersome and time-consuming process that has been required to institute one. Now that the effectiveness of these programs has been demonstrated and the process has been streamlined, other states should follow suit as soon as possible."

The report’s state-by-state analysis includes a table for each state and the District of Columbia, detailing the impact of expanding Medicaid eligibility under the new authority. While the impact would obviously be greatest in the states that currently do not have an expansion in place, even states that already have a temporary program would benefit from using the new authority, because they could cover more women and men than was previously the case.

The impact in the majority of the states would be significant.

  • Among the 28 states that do not have an income-based family planning expansion in place:
  • Among the 22 states that already have a family planning expansion in place:
    • Nineteen states could each serve at least 10,000 more individuals, avert at least 1,500 more unintended pregnancies and save at least $2.3 million more in state funds annually, beyond what they do today under their Medicaid programs.
    • Nine of these 19 states could each serve at least 50,000 more individuals, avert at least 7,500 more unintended pregnancies and save at least $17.4 million more.
    • Eleven could each serve at least 10,000 more individuals, avert at least 1,300 more unintended pregnancies and save at least $1.7 million more in state funds in a single year, beyond what their expansions achieve today.

The report emphasizes that the ultimate impact of an expansion would depend greatly on state-level decisions and factors, including the range of services covered, the quality of care provided and the capacity of the provider network in the state.

"It makes eminent sense for states to make use of this new authority, from both a public health and a fiscal perspective," says Sonfield. "A strong body of research demonstrates the significant impact of these programs in enabling women to avoid unintended pregnancies and the abortions and births that follow. Likewise, the net cost savings should be most welcome at a time when many states face fiscal crises."

Click here for Estimating the Impact of Expanding Medicaid Eligibility for Family Planning Services: 2011 Update, by Adam Sonfield, Jennifer J. Frost and Rachel Benson Gold.

Printer-friendly version

Share

Media Contact

  • Joerg Dreweke

    Guttmacher Institute
    202 650 5230
    media@guttmacher.org
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.