Bill Overview
Title: Improving Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women Act 2.0
Description: This bill makes permanent a grant program that supports the provision of substance use disorder treatment to pregnant and postpartum women.
Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: Pregnant and postpartum women with substance use disorders
Estimated Size: 500000
- Pregnant and postpartum women are specifically mentioned as the direct beneficiaries of this bill.
- Substance use disorders affect a significant number of pregnant and postpartum women globally.
- It is estimated that a considerable percentage of women globally face substance use disorders during these periods, and access to treatment varies widely.
- The grants are aimed at enhancing treatment infrastructure and services which could also affect healthcare providers.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to benefit pregnant and postpartum women dealing with substance use disorder, a population with significant health and social needs.
- The budget allows for substantial expansion of treatment programs, which should directly improve the wellbeing of impacted individuals.
- Though aimed specifically at these women, there may be indirect effects on family members, healthcare providers, and communities.
- Not all women in this group will access or need these services if they have other support or do not desire treatment.
- It's likely there will be variations in how well different regions are served based on existing infrastructure and support systems.
Simulated Interviews
unemployed (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I struggle a lot with my addiction especially now when I have my baby to care for.
- If I had access to proper treatment, I believe I could improve my life for myself and my child.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I desperately want more resources to properly treat my patients who are pregnant and have substance issues.
- With this policy, I think we'll all breathe a sigh of relief.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
waitress (Houston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting additional support would help me maintain sobriety and handle new parenthood.
- I'm trying, but the existing programs have waiting lists and I'm scared.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
community health advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We struggle to connect these women to comprehensive care due to limited resources.
- This boost in funding can fortify our programs significantly.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
homemaker (Rural Tennessee)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have to travel far to get the help I need, and it's more than I can manage sometimes.
- If services came to my area, it could change everything.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
physician (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need policies like this to provide the targeted care necessary for these women.
- I hope it also includes training and support for providers.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
social worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to treatment can empower these women beyond just recovery.
- It's critical not only for them but for their children and the community.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I know I need help, but it's hard to find support that's affordable and accessible.
- This policy could be what I need to finally turn things around.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
program coordinator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more funding, we'll finally have the reach and resources to make tangible improvements.
- I'm hopeful for the difference this will make in our community.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a logical step towards addressing stigma and improving outcomes.
- It will be important to measure its effectiveness and continue expanding successful programs.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- Funding adequacy for sustained support and expansion.
- Impact on local healthcare systems and distribution of services.
- Potential administrative burdens of grant management at federal and state levels.