Postpartum Patient Perspectives on the US Medicaid Waiting Period for Permanent Contraception

The Medicaid Consent to Sterilization policy is a known barrier to permanent contraception (PC) fulfillment and is associated with disparities in fulfillment. While physician perspectives regarding the policy are well described, knowledge of how patients with Medicaid seeking PC perceive this waiting period is limited.

We interviewed 81 participants with a documented desire for PC at discharge from their hospital-based delivery at four medical centers across the United States. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using rapid qualitative methodologies and thematic content analysis.

Of the 81 participants interviewed, the 56 participants subject to the mandatory waiting period through insurance status or state residency were included in this analysis. Key positive themes included the role of the waiting period in facilitating minimization of regret, independent decision making, and protection against coercion and bias. Key negative themes included interference with reproductive autonomy, harm to the patient-clinician relationship, and introduction of unwanted doubt into contraceptive decisions. In addition, participants expressed both indifference and nuance when discussing the waiting period, and misinformation about the waiting period was prevalent during interviews. Participants with favorable opinions commonly changed their mind regarding PC, while participants with negative opinions were steadfast in their desires for PC and often experienced PC non-fulfillment.

Postpartum patients hold diverse views on the current Medicaid Consent to Sterilization policy's mandated waiting period. Patient engagement is fundamental when reevaluating and revising this policy to balance supporting autonomous decision-making about PC while protecting against reproductive coercion and regret.

In policy revision discussions, it is important to consider whether a mandated waiting period is the best way to minimize regret and promote autonomy. Revision that accounts for the complexity of patient desires and needs is imperative to achieving the dual goals of minimizing coercion and ensuring autonomously-desired provision.