State Facts About Unintended Pregnancy: the District of Columbia
National Background and Context
Unintended pregnancy can have significant, negative consequences for individual women, their families and society as a whole. An extensive body of research links births resulting from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies to adverse maternal and child health outcomes and myriad social and economic challenges.(1,2) In 2008, the last year for which national-level data are available, 51% of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended including eight in 10 teen pregnancies; the U.S. unintended pregnancy rate was 54 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, a level significantly higher than that in many other developed countries.(3,4) If current trends continue, more than half of all women in the United States will experience an unintended pregnancy by the time they reach age 45. And economically disadvantaged women are disproportionately affected by unintended pregnancy and its consequences: In 2008, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes lower than the federal poverty level, at 137 per 1,000, was more than five times as high as the rate among women with incomes greater than 200% of poverty (26 per 1,000)
In any given year, the two-thirds of women in the United States at risk of unintended pregnancy who use contraceptives consistently throughout the year account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies; fully 95% of unintended pregnancies are attributable to the one-third of women who do not use contraceptives or who use them inconsistently.(5) Public programs—notably Medicaid and the Title X national family planning program—are central to women's access to affordable contraceptive services and supplies and their ability to use contraceptives effectively. In 2010, 8.9 million women received publicly funded family planning services; these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in approximately 1.1 million unplanned births and 760,000 abortions (the remainder would have resulted in miscarriages).(7) Absent publicly funded family planning services, the numbers of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would be two-thirds higher than they currently are. (2012 data on events averted are available only for services provided at publicly funded family planning centers; these data are not available for Medicaid enrollees served by private providers). (7)
Unintended pregnancies are also costly to the federal and state governments, resulting in $21.0 billion in public expenditures in 2010.(8) Yet, these costs could have been considerably higher: By helping women avoid unintended pregnancies, publicly funded family planning services saved taxpayers $13.6 billion in 2010, or $7.09 for every $1 spent.(9)
Incidence and Outcomes of Unintended Pregnancy in the District of Columbia
• In 2010, 62% of all pregnancies (10,000) in the District of Columbia were unintended.(10)
• The District of Columbia’s unintended pregnancy rate in 2010 was 58 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. This was higher than the rate in any state, which ranged from a low of 32 per 1,000 in New Hampshire to a high of 62 per 1,000 in Delaware.(10)
• The teen pregnancy rate in the District of Columbia was 90 per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2010. The national teen pregnancy rate was 57 per 1,000, ranging from 28 per 1,000 in New Hampshire to 80 per 1,000 in New Mexico.(11)
• In 2010, 45% of unintended pregnancies in the District of Columbia resulted in births and 40% in abortions; the remainder resulted in miscarriages.(10)
Public Cost of Unintended Pregnancy in the District of Columbia
• In 2010, 3,700 or 84.6% of unplanned births in the District of Columbia were publicly funded, compared with 68% nationally.(8)
• In the District of Columbia in 2010, the federal and state governments spent $64.1 million on unintended pregnancies; of this, $50.9 million was paid by the federal government and $13.3 million was paid by the state.(8)
• The total public costs for unintended pregnancies in 2010 was $393 per woman aged 15–44 in the District of Columbia, compared with $201 per woman nationally.(8)
Preventing Unintended Pregnancy in the District of Columbia
• In 2012, 42,920 the District of Columbia women aged 13–44 were in need of publicly funded family planning services.(6)
• Publicly supported family planning centers in the District of Columbia served 37,810 female contraceptive clients in 2012. Those centers met 88% of the District of Columbia women’s need for contraceptive services and supplies, compared with 31% met by family planning centers nationally.(6)
• In 2010, the reported public expenditures for family planning client services in the District of Columbia totaled $5.4 million; this includes $4.6 million through Medicaid and $742,000 through Title X. (12)
• The publicly funded family planning services provided by safety-net health centers in the District of Columbia helped avert 9,300 unintended pregnancies in 2012, which would likely have resulted in 4,600 unplanned births and 3,200 abortions.(6)
• By averting unintended pregnancies and other negative reproductive health outcomes, publicly funded family planning services provided by safety-net health centers in the District of Columbia helped save the federal and state governments $24.7 million in 2010.(9)
1. Guttmacher Institute, Testimony of Guttmacher Institute, Submitted to the Committee on Preventive Services for Women, Institute of Medicine, 2011, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW- testimony.pdf>, accessed Oct. 23, 2012.
2. Sonfield A et al., The Social and Economic Benefits of Women’s Ability to Determine Whether and When to Have Children, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ social-economic-benefits.pdf> accessed July 26, 2013.
3 Finer LB and Zolna MR, Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008, American Journal of Public Health, 2014, 104(S1): S44-S48.
4. Singh S, Sedgh G and Hussain R, Unintended pregnancy: worldwide levels, trends, and outcomes, Studies in Family Planning, 2010, 41(4):241–250.
5. Sonfield A, Hasstedt K and Gold RB, Moving Forward, Family Planning in the Era of Health Reform, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/family-planning-and-health-reform.pdf> New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2014.
6. Guttmacher Institute, Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2012, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2014, <http://www.guttmacher.org/ pubs/win/contraceptive-needs-2012.pdf>, accessed August 12, 2014.
7. Guttmacher Institute, Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/contraceptive-needs-2010.pdf>, accessed July 15, 2013.
8. Sonfield A and Kost K, Public Costs from Unintended Pregnancies and the Role of Public Insurance Programs in Paying for Pregnancy-Related Care: National and State Estimates for 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2015, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/public-costs-of-UP-2010.pdf>, accessed February 23, 2015.
9. Frost JJ, Sonfield A, Zolna MR and Finer LB, Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US publicly funded family planning program, The Milbank Quarterly, 2014, doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12080, <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.12080/, accessed Oct. 15, 2014.
10. Kost K, Unintended Pregnancy Rates at the State Level: Estimates for 2010 and Trends Since 2002 New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2015, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/StateUP08.pdf >, accessed January 20, 2015.
11. Guttmacher Institute, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2014, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends10.pdf>
12. Sonfield A and Gold RB, Public Funding for Family Planning Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2012, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ Public-Funding-FP-2010.pdf>.