Bill Overview
Title: Expanding Access to Family Planning Act
Description: This bill provides, subject to specified conditions, funding through FY2032 for federally funded family planning services and clinics. In particular, the funds must be used for (1) grants and contracts that support the provision of family planning services, and (2) clinic infrastructure (e.g., construction and renovation of clinics). Clinics that receive funding to provide family planning services must offer each patient with a positive pregnancy test the opportunity for nondirective counseling on (1) prenatal care and delivery; (2) infant care, foster care, and adoption; and (3) pregnancy termination. This counseling must include referrals if requested by a patient. Additionally, if a funding recipient makes subawards for the provision of family planning services, the recipient may not prohibit an entity from participating in a subaward program for reasons other than the entity's inability to provide family planning services.
Sponsors: Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]
Target Audience
Population: People of reproductive age seeking family planning services
Estimated Size: 83000000
- The bill is focused on family planning services, which primarily impact individuals in their reproductive age who may seek family planning advice and services.
- Reproductive-age individuals, typically aged 15-49, are the primary users of family planning services.
- Globally, there are over 4 billion people in the reproductive age range who might be impacted by expanded access to family planning services.
- The bill affects individuals who are or may become sexually active and are seeking family planning advice and services, as well as those needing counseling on pregnancy options.
Reasoning
- This policy targets individuals of reproductive age (15-49 years), aiming to improve access to family planning services across the U.S. The budget constraints suggest a focus on enhancing existing services rather than widespread new clinic construction.
- Considering the population distribution, a considerable portion of the target audience is underserved, particularly in rural and low-income urban areas where access to family planning resources is limited.
- Individuals seeking these services include those planning families, individuals needing contraceptives, and those seeking counsel on pregnancy options, which may include low-income and minority groups disproportionately. The effect will vary based on the existing access to such services.
- The impact on self-reported wellbeing will be assessed through Cantril Wellbeing ladder scores, reflecting general life satisfaction anticipated to improve with enhanced access to desired services.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (Rural Alabama)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I currently struggle to find reliable contraceptive methods due to costs and distance.
- The policy could mean less travel to access these services, potentially improving my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe having more information and readily accessible services could ease family planning pressures.
- This would help manage our family size better according to our financial plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My partner and I are confused about where to access affordable contraceptives and advice.
- Policies like these could provide the clarity we need, reducing stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Corporate executive (New York City, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have access to high-quality healthcare but welcome policies that expand access to others.
- Societal improvements in healthcare access can lead to overall better community wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Freelance artist (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more affordable options close to home would mean fewer worries.
- I currently spend a lot on contraceptives which strains my budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Health professional (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I advocate for expanded healthcare access so this policy is encouraging.
- It can improve preventive health measures in community demographics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
IT consultant (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded services can help us make informed decisions about when to expand our family.
- Financial and logistical planning are crucial for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Non-profit worker (San Francisco, California)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inclusive policies are essential, and this seems like a step in the right direction for family planning.
- Ensuring access for all genders to these services is vital for equality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
High school student (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing access to educational resources about family planning would ease my worries.
- It's hard to know where to start with these things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Small business owner (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving family planning access could prevent unintended pregnancies, reducing overall healthcare costs.
- It's a sound investment for public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy aims at reducing unintended pregnancies, which could lead to longer-term savings in healthcare and social services.
- Construction and renovation of clinics may face regional regulatory hurdles or delays affecting cost estimates.
- Achieving successful subawards requires oversight to ensure proper use of federal funds.
- Variable state-level implementation might result in uneven access to the services provided.