Bill Overview
Title: EQUIP Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide eligible health organizations with demonstration program grants to implement routine screenings about people's pregnancy intentions in order to provide better contraceptive and prepregnancy care.
Sponsors: Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals capable of becoming pregnant
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill focuses on pregnancy intentions, targeting individuals who are or could become pregnant.
- Contraceptive care is relevant for those currently avoiding pregnancy.
- Prepregnancy care concerns those planning to become pregnant.
- Globally, the bill concerns individuals of reproductive age, who are capable of becoming pregnant.
Reasoning
- The EQUIP Act targets individuals who are or could become pregnant, addressing their intentions regarding pregnancy.
- Approximately 60 million individuals in the US fall into the reproductive age bracket and could potentially be impacted by the policy.
- The policy's budget allows for targeted screening interventions, which may not cover the entire pregnant-capable population. Evaluating varying levels of 'impact' and 'commonness' helps simulate the range of potential experiences.
- Self-reported wellbeing is influenced by access to contraceptive and prepregnancy care, which can reduce anxiety and improve life satisfaction by supporting individuals' reproductive choices.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate having regular access to information on contraceptive options.
- The screenings could help ensure I'm making informed choices for my health.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to prepregnancy care can help manage my health concerns if I decide to have another child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Marketing Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Routine screenings are useful, but I feel well-informed about my reproductive health already.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm anxious about not having clear contraceptive guidance. Screenings could alleviate these worries.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Project Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly impacted, but I see the value for younger individuals in my workplace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retail Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more information on pregnancy prevention will ease my and my partner's worries.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelancer (Denver, CO)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Screenings could help manage my PCOS and assess pregnancy risks.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Agricultural Worker (Rural Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to routine screenings could bridge the gap in health services here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Restaurant Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regular assessments feel somewhat intrusive but could benefit those with different needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Research Scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The screenings would add valuable data to use in our family planning discussions.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $39000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Target population for screenings are individuals of reproductive age, predominantly women in the US.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the primary implementing body.
- Health outcomes from effective implementation could lead to reduced government expenditure on maternity-related health issues.