Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9657

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Life from Chemical Abortions Act

Description: This bill prohibits certain changes made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to dispensing requirements for mifepristone. (Mifepristone is a drug that is approved to end pregnancies through 10 weeks gestation when used in conjunction with the drug misoprostol. The procedure is often referred to as medication abortion or the abortion pill.) The FDA regulates the use of mifepristone through the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program. The program requires health care providers to comply with certain requirements in order to prescribe or dispense mifepristone to end a pregnancy; the program previously included an in-person dispensing requirement that required mifepristone to be directly dispensed to patients in clinics, medical offices, or hospitals. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA temporarily stopped enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement, which allowed mail-order pharmacies to fill and dispense mifepristone prescriptions. The bill prohibits the FDA from (1) exercising any enforcement discretion with respect to program requirements, or (2) reducing program protections until every state submits certain data regarding abortions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The bill also generally prohibits the declaration of a public health emergency with respect to abortions.

Sponsors: Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals potentially undergoing medical abortions

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

College Student (Rural Alabama)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I prefer the privacy and convenience of obtaining mifepristone through mail-order pharmacies.
  • Reverting to in-person requirements would make it very difficult for me if I needed the service.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Human Resource Manager (New York City)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I have healthcare access, but I'm worried about women in less accessible areas.
  • This policy seems regressive and could hurt those with fewer resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

General Practitioner (Dallas, Texas)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If in-person is required again, we'll likely see more patients coming through our doors.
  • This could increase our workload but also potentially improve patient interaction.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Software Developer (San Francisco, California)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's backwards to remove the mail-order option. Technology should aid accessibility, not restrict it.
  • This seems like a political decision rather than a health decision.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Retired Nurse (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Limiting access once again reinforces barriers many fought hard to break.
  • While I'm retired, this impacts my sense of justice and fairness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

High School Student (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Age: 18 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about what this means for my future and having choices.
  • Everyone should have access to the full spectrum of health services.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Pharmacist (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We had adapted to mail-order services for many medications. It felt more efficient.
  • This rollback might lead to operational bulk at pharmacies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Freelance Graphic Designer (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm an independent contractor and I value the ability to manage my health privately.
  • The rollback restricts choice and autonomy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 7 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Barista (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The option of mail order was a relief to many my age, it felt like freedom.
  • I hope this isn't the start of more rollbacks to progressive health solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Community Health Advocate (Miami, Florida)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy mainly affects women's access in poorer areas, a primary concern for my work.
  • It's restrictive and not in line with public health goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Key Considerations