Do Health Insurance and Residence Pattern the Likelihood of Tubal Sterilization among American Women?
- 127 Downloads
American women have increasingly opted for tubal sterilization or tubal ligation surgery in recent decades. While research has begun to examine the unequal access to health care in the United States, little research has considered how this may impact whether women opt for a tubal ligation surgery. We first profile women with and without tubal ligations using bivariate analysis of the most recent data available, a nationally representative sample of 7,643 women from the National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6 (NSFG, Public use data file, 2002). We then use logistic regression models to examine the relationship between having tubal ligation and two focal variables: (1) type of health insurance (Medicaid compared with private, government or military, and no health insurance), and (2) rural or urban place of residence. We find that women on Medicaid are nearly twice as likely to have had a tubal sterilization compared with women who have private health insurance coverage. Also, women on Medicaid are substantially more likely to have a tubal sterilization than women with government or military insurance and women with no health insurance (26% and 36%, respectively). Further, we find that women living in rural areas are nearly twice as likely to have a tubal sterilization, compared with women in urban or suburban areas, all else being equal.
KeywordsU.S. Tubal ligation Insurance Rural residence Health disparity
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [David Hartley]. (2004). National healthcare disparities report: Summary. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr03/nhdrsum03.htm (February).
- Aneshensel, C. S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Blank, R. (2004). How poverty and policy are shaped by place. Perspectives on Poverty, Policy and Place. Rural Poverty Research Center, 4(3), 3–4.Google Scholar
- Borrero, S., Schwarz, E. B., Reeves, M. F., Bost, J. E., Creinin, M. D., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2007). Race, insurance status, and tubal sterilization. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 109, 94–100.Google Scholar
- Cotter, D. A. (2003). Addressing person and place to alleviate rural poverty. Perspectives on Poverty, Policy and Place. Rural Poverty Research Center, 1(2), 9–10.Google Scholar
- Freeman, V., Slifkin, R., Skinner, A., & Schwartz, R. (2005). Rural and urban parents report on access to health care for their children with Medicaid managed care. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Rural Health Research and Policy Analysis Center, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
- Godecker, A., Thomson, E., & Bumpass, L. (2001). Union status, marital history and female contraceptive sterilization in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 35–41, 49.Google Scholar
- King, J., Geiger, L., Silberman, P., & Slifkin, R. (2007). State profiles of medicaid and SCHIP in rural and urban areas (Final Report No. 91). Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- National Survey of Family Growth Cycle 6 (NSFG). (2002). Public use data file (Released for public use, 2004). Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Sered, S. S., & Fernandopulle, R. (2005). Uninsured in America: Life and death in the land of opportunity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- United States Census Bureau. (2005). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2004. Current population reports (pp. 60–229). Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.Google Scholar
- United States Department of Health Human Services. (2004). Public use data file documentation: National Survey of Family Growth Cycle 6: 2002. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
- Warehime, M. N., Bass, L. E., & Pedulla, D. (2007). Effects of tubal ligations among American women. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 52(4), 263–272.Google Scholar