In 2011, Texas legislators slashed the state’s family planning budget by 67 percent. The justification? To reduce abortions by defunding clinics associated with an abortion provider (read: Planned Parenthood). Now, it turns out Texas legislators actually accomplished the opposite: narrowing access to family planning services only led to more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.
To the surprise of literally no one, President Trump’s 2018 budget proposed stripping all federal funds, including Medicaid dollars, from Planned Parenthood. Proponents of this argue that if Planned Parenthood clinics end up shuttered, women can simply access care elsewhere. But growing research shows that’s the opposite of what actually happens.
Thousands of public health practitioners are now at the APHA Annual Meeting in Denver, taking in new research on every public health topic imaginable.
While health policy hasn’t been at the forefront of this year’s presidential election, the next person to sit in the White House could have a transformative effect on health care access, affordability and inequity. Of course, with so many variables in play, it’s hard to predict what either candidate could realistically accomplish on the health care front. However, a new report might provide some insightful clues.
Recent stories address prescribing by doctors paid by drug companies; excessive lead levels in nearly 2,000 US water systems; how to understand candidates' claims about health insurance reforms; and more.
Recent pieces address the idea of shifting funds from Planned Parenthood to community health centers; the effectiveness of Washington, DC's needle exchange; the spread of tickborne diseases; and pieces by and about neurologist and author Oliver Sacks.