Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

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

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

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

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • 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
  • Impact Report 2025

Awards & Scholarships

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

Highlights

  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

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

Tools

  • Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe
  • Family Planning Investment Impact Calculator
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study Dashboard
  • State legislation tracker
  • Public-use data sets

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • 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
  • Impact Report 2025

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Reproductive Health Impact Study

The Reproductive Health Impact Study (RHIS) is a multiyear comprehensive research initiative that analyzed the effects of federal and state policy changes on US publicly funded family planning care from 2017 to 2024. The Guttmacher Institute worked with research and policy partners in four states—Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey and Wisconsin—to document the impact of these policies on family planning service delivery and the patients who rely on this care.

The RHIS was conceived in the aftermath of the 2016 election, in anticipation of federal and state efforts to change funding streams and service delivery for publicly funded family planning. As the study progressed, the RHIS team adapted ongoing study activities to document several relevant events—notably, the 2019 changes to the federal Title X regulations (the Trump-Pence administration’s “domestic gag rule”), the COVID-19 pandemic and the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 overturning Roe v. Wade.

How Do Policy Changes Affect US Publicly Funded Family Planning Care?

The RHIS demonstrates that restrictions on sexual and reproductive health care and rights undermine people’s reproductive autonomy through negative outcomes at the patient, provider and system levels. Additional and unexpected disruptions to the landscape during the study period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Dobbs decision, exacerbated the harms of restrictive policies.

The impacts of policies that restrict abortion care and access ripple out to all aspects of sexual and reproductive health care.

Primary Takeaway 

  • All types of sexual and reproductive health care are inextricably linked, and restrictions on sexual and reproductive health care have broader implications.

Additional Key Takeaways 

  • Programs and policies that support person-centered care and focus on sexual and reproductive health equity are key to ensuring reproductive autonomy for all patients.
  • Cost is a significant barrier to patients’ ability to access care and achieve reproductive autonomy.
  • Person-centered contraceptive care is essential because contraceptive preferences vary.
  • Publicly funded family planning programs, including Title X, are critical to making contraceptive services affordable.
  • Policy restrictions on sexual and reproductive health care compound existing inequities, particularly for Black people and other people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and people with low incomes.

The Guttmacher Institute has published numerous research articles, reports and policy analyses using RHIS data. A complete list of RHIS-related publications is available. Overall RHIS findings and their implications for policy are documented in a summary analysis.

Implications

The RHIS findings indicate that policy restrictions on sexual and reproductive health care impede access to care and compound existing inequities in health care access. Federal, state and local policies should promote meaningful access to sexual and reproductive health care, provision of person-centered care and support reproductive autonomy. Policymakers should take the following steps to build sexual and reproductive health equity:

  • Fully fund and strengthen the Title X national family planning program
  • Ensure that sexual and reproductive health care programs provide person-centered care
  • Remove restrictions that silo abortion care
  • Require all health insurance plans and programs to provide comprehensive coverage for all contraceptive options
  • Ensure that patients have multiple options for accessing reproductive health care

Study Design

RHIS Activities Flow Chart
  • The RHIS used original in-depth quantitative and qualitative research, including longitudinal studies, and a wide range of secondary data sources to create a robust set of scientifically innovative, policy-relevant findings. The project objective was to illuminate the effects of policy change on publicly funded family planning from several different angles:
  • Overall landscape: Identify how delivery networks changed in composition and capacity as funding streams and programmatic guidance shifted
  • Clinics: Quantify changes to the number and types of safety-net health centers available to women and to the number of women who visited these sites for contraceptive services
  • Clinic staff: Describe the perspectives and experiences of clinic staff as they navigated the changing policy landscape while providing high-quality services to patients in their communities
  • Patients: Highlight the perspectives and experiences of family planning patients as they navigated barriers to access within a changing family planning service delivery system
  • Reproductive health indicators: Monitor shifts in key reproductive health indicators at the state level

State Fact Sheets

Choose a state:

Choose Arizona
Choose Iowa
Choose New Jersey
Choose Wisconsin
 

Published Research Studies and Policy Analyses

  • April 2023 Research Article

    Where Do Reproductive-Aged Women Want to Get Contraception?

    This study finds that 73% of women aged 18–44 in three US states prefer multiple options for how and where to get contraception, including in-person from a health care provider, via telemedicine, via telehealth, at a pharmacy, and through innovative strategies such as drones or bike messengers. People who had not previously received contraceptive care that focused on their needs and preferences and those who mistrusted the health care system were more likely than others to prefer telehealth or innovative sources of care. Efforts to expand options for how people can obtain contraception should not prioritize one delivery source over others and should ensure that high-quality care is maintained across all options. 

  • November 2022 News Release

    Pandemic-Related Changes to Sexual and Reproductive Health Services in the United States Offer Lessons for Innovation

    This news release provides key findings from “Disruptions and opportunities in sexual and reproductive health care,” a research paper that highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted family planning clinics and providers.  

  • November 2022 Research Article

    Disruptions and opportunities in sexual and reproductive health care: How COVID-19 impacted service provision in three US states

    This study describes the shifts family planning providers in Arizona, Iowa and Wisconsin made to continue providing sexual and reproductive health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinics implemented COVID-19 safety protocols, shifted service delivery methods and staffing to meet patient needs, and expanded telehealth services. These innovations could increase access to sexual and reproductive health care for many patients, but standards must be established to ensure that the focus remains on patients’ needs and preferences. 

  • September 2022 News Release

    Restrictions on Contraceptive Services Interfere with People’s Ability to Get Care and Use Their Preferred Contraceptive Method

    This news release highlights key findings from “A Prospective Cohort Study of Changes in Access to Contraceptive Care and Use Two Years After Iowa Medicaid Coverage Restrictions at Abortion-Providing Facilities Went into Effect,” a study that examines the impact of Iowa’s 2017 decision to leave the federal Medicaid family planning program on publicly funded family planning patients. 

  • September 2022 Research Article

    A Prospective Cohort Study of Changes in Access to Contraceptive Care and Use Two Years after Iowa Medicaid Coverage Restrictions at Abortion-Providing Facilities Went into Effect

    This study examines the impact of Iowa’s 2017 decision to leave the federal Medicaid family planning program on publicly funded family planning patients. This policy change led to serious disruptions in access to affordable contraceptive care. Overall, the share of patients who had not recently received contraceptive care increased from 32% to 62% during the two-year study period, and the share of patients not using any contraceptive method increased from 9% to 15%.

  • August 2022 Research Article

    Access to Preferred Contraceptive Strategies in Iowa: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Effects of Shifts in Policy and Healthcare Contexts

    This study examines publicly funded family planning patients’ experiences navigating disruptions to contraceptive care following Iowa’s 2017 decision to leave the federal Medicaid family planning program. Patients experienced pervasive cost-, access- and quality-related barriers to contraceptive care and devoted significant effort to overcome these barriers. When they could not do so, they switched to contraceptive methods that were not ideal for them or used no method at all. 

Pagination

  • First page First
  • Previous page Prev.
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Current page 4
  • Page 5
  • Next page Next
  • Last page Last

Study States and Partners

RHIS researchers and policy experts worked in close collaboration with stakeholders in each study state.

We are grateful for the expertise shared by the following colleagues:

  • Affirm
  • Planned Parenthood of Arizona
  • Planned Parenthood North Central States
  • Family Planning Council of Iowa
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison Collaborative for Reproductive Equity (UW CORE)
  • New Jersey Family Planning League
  • Other key stakeholders in each state

Key Guttmacher Institute Staff

Research:

  • Jennifer Frost
  • Megan Kavanaugh
  • Alicia VandeVusse

Policy:

  • Amy Friedrich-Karnik

Communications:

  • Emma Stoskopf-Ehrlich

Acknowledgments

The Reproductive Health Impact Study was funded in part through a generous grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions and policies of the donor.

Media Contacts

[email protected]

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.