Bill Overview
Title: Women's Health Patient Navigator Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides funding for patient navigator grants to assist individuals in accessing abortion services. The Department of Health and Human Services must award the grants to state, tribal, or local governments; nonprofits; or community organizations that offer unbiased and medically accurate programs, services, or activities to connect individuals with abortion services. Grant-funded activities include, among others, coordinating the scheduling, financing, and other logistics of abortion services. Further, the bill prohibits individuals, entities, and states from preventing or otherwise disadvantaging an entity that is eligible to receive a grant from carrying out activities to assist individuals with accessing abortion services, including in any state in which those services are not lawful. Such activities include providing (or assisting in the provision of) abortion care and other reproductive health services that are either (1) lawful in the state where the services are provided, or (2) provided to an individual who does not reside in the state where the services are provided. The bill allows for enforcement of this prohibition through private lawsuits.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People who may seek or facilitate abortion services.
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill aims to assist individuals in accessing abortion services, which primarily affects women of reproductive age.
- The legislation may also indirectly affect families and partners of individuals seeking these services.
- Health care providers who may be involved in providing or supporting abortion services would be impacted.
- Organizations eligible for grants, such as nonprofits and community organizations, will receive support to facilitate these services.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets women of reproductive age who may be seeking abortion services, particularly in states with restrictive laws.
- The program budget allows for funding targeted at organizations aiding these women, but the funds are limited relative to the entire population in need.
- Impact will vary greatly depending on state laws and individual circumstances; some may experience high impacts if they are in restrictive states.
- The policy may also have indirect effects on partners, families, and healthcare providers involved in such services.
- Due to the controversial nature of abortion services, the policy might elicit strong opinions both for and against, influencing reported well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Waitress (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is long overdue. It's so difficult to navigate and access these services in my state.
- Having a navigator would take away a huge amount of stress, which would help my wellbeing.
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 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tech entrepreneur (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy probably won't affect me personally, as I already have access to services, but it's a necessary change for women in less supportive states.
- It might help some friends or colleagues who find themselves in restrictive environments.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College student (Illinois)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes me feel more secure; knowing help is more organized even if laws in my state change.
- I'm glad there are enforcement measures against states that try to limit access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Nonprofit Director (Georgia)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding would mean we can do more to support women who need help accessing services where they are legal.
- Our operations would improve significantly with better resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Family counselor (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't agree with this policy as it seems to encourage abortion services, which I oppose based on my beliefs.
- However, I understand this is about facilitating access where services are legal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will be a major positive step in reproductive health rights and access.
- It's reassuring to see states can't prevent access easily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Missouri)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see women struggle with access every day; this policy provides them with the support they urgently need.
- It would ease my job burden significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Stay-at-home parent (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having these navigators could mean accessing services wouldn't be such a hurdle, even for someone like me without great insurance.
- It's a positive policy change for women in precarious situations.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Lawyer (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with efforts to broaden access, aligning with equity in healthcare.
- It provides legal support context we've been advocating for.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software developer (Ohio)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we had more structured support for women in restrictive regions.
- The policy could be enhanced with more consistent national healthcare support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $230000000)
Key Considerations
- The political and legal landscape regarding abortion services could influence the program's implementation and cost efficacy.
- Variation in state laws and healthcare infrastructure will affect grant distribution and utilization.
- The policy aims at reducing disparities in healthcare access, especially in states with restrictive abortion laws.