Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Article CommentaryCommentary

Family Physicians’ Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Payal Patel, Sumathi Narayana, Zoey Thill, Marji Gold and Allison Paul
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine February 2021, 34 (Supplement) S33-S36; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200208
Payal Patel
From the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and RHEDI-Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine, New York, NY.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sumathi Narayana
From the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and RHEDI-Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine, New York, NY.
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zoey Thill
From the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and RHEDI-Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine, New York, NY.
MD, MPP, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marji Gold
From the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and RHEDI-Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine, New York, NY.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allison Paul
From the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and RHEDI-Mainstreaming Abortion in Family Medicine, New York, NY.
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Despite first trimester abortion being common and safe, there are numerousrestrictions that lead to barriers to seeking abortion care. The COVID-19 pandemic hasonly exacerbated these barriers, as many state legislators push to limit abortion accesseven further. During this pandemic, family physicians across the country haveincorporated telemedicine into their practices to continue to meet patient needs.Medication abortion can be offered to patients by telemedicine in most states, andmultiple studies have shown that labs, imaging, and physical exam may not beessential in all cases. Family physicians are well-poised to incorporate medicationabortion into their practices using approaches that limit the spread of the coronavirus,ultimately increasing access to abortion in these unprecedented times.

  • Abortion Applicants
  • COVID-19
  • Family Physicians
  • Induced Abortion
  • Pandemics
  • Pregnancy
  • First Trimester
  • Telemedicine

Introduction

First-trimester abortion is one of the most common outpatient medical procedures in the United States. It is extremely safe and represents more than 90% of all abortions that occur in the United States.1,2 Medication abortion, which involves taking the pills mifepristone and misoprostol to end a pregnancy, entails minimal interaction between patients and clinicians. It is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use up to 10 weeks’ gestation. Since mifepristone’s introduction to the US market in 2000, medication abortion has become increasingly common and represents 39% of all abortions that occur in the United States annually.3 Complications are rare, and completion rates are between 97% and 98%.4

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, patients seeking abortion care have faced decades of onerous legal barriers, institutional restrictions, and an inadequate distribution of abortion providers throughout the United States. The most recent data on regional distribution of abortion facilities were published by the Guttmacher Institute and shows that 89% of US counties did not have a clinical facility that provides abortion in 2017. Furthermore, 38% of reproductive-aged women between the ages of 15 and 44 years lived in counties without any abortion-providing facility in 2017.1 Many states’ governors use executive powers to limit abortion. With workforce demands shifting outpatient clinicians into the hospital, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated many of the oppressive barriers to abortion access that have existed for decades.

The consequences of the inability to access abortion have been well demonstrated. Pregnant people who are unable to obtain a wanted abortion are 4 times more likely than people who are able to obtain their abortion to live below the federal poverty level, are 3 times more likely to be unemployed, and are more likely to stay in contact with violent partners. They also experience more serious health problems.5,6

Practice models are evolving rapidly to accommodate essential and time-sensitive health care services in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. First-trimester abortion services are no exception. Abortion services have fundamentally changed in many clinical contexts in an effort to accommodate patients coping with quarantines, mandatory stay-at-home orders, limited transportation options, and changing work and family obligations. The goal of these changes is to safely limit the contact between patients and staff and ultimately limit the spread of the novel coronavirus “No-test” protocols provide recommendations for patient eligibility,7 evaluation of gestational age without clinical contact (eg, omitting sonogram and pelvic examination),8⇓–10 limited Rh testing,11⇓–13 and modified follow-up via “videoconference, telephone, patient portal, e-mail, text, or other telemedicine modalities.”7,14⇓⇓⇓⇓–19 With screening and counseling done ahead of time, the “no-test” protocol eliminates the majority of contact between patients and staff. However, unlike other telemedicine care, in which the physician can send a prescription to the pharmacy, the Food and Drug Administration still requires clinicians to dispense mifepristone directly to patients in person.

Increasingly, telemedicine is being used to maintain and to improve critical access to essential services. As more primary care is being provided through telemedicine, family physicians are well poised to fill gaps in abortion access via this delivery model. Moreover, according to a 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report about abortion care in the United States, family physicians can provide abortions safely and effectively in the outpatient primary care setting.2 Medication abortion specifically draws on existing clinical skills of family physicians including pregnancy diagnosis counseling, medication management, clinical follow-up.20 It requires neither procedural training nor specialized equipment. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical sites are using the “no-test” protocol described above, making medication abortion counseling and follow-up ideal telemedicine visits.

A widespread adoption of medication abortion provision by family physicians using these simplified protocols could have a profound effect on access to abortion in the United States. Historically, family physicians practice in underserved areas of the country and provide care that is difficult to access. There are approximately 200,000 practicing primary care physicians in the United States,20 and workforce data show that family physicians are the most common specialty practicing in medically underserved areas of the United States. These areas also happen to be regions with the largest barriers to abortion care.21⇓–23 Providing medication abortion is well aligned with the central tenets of family medicine, including the commitment to help reduce health care disparities. Medication abortion has success rates of 96.5% and 99.2%.24,25

Although family physicians are well poised to provide abortions, few do. Data from the 2018 and 2019 family medicine national graduate surveys of graduates 3 years out of residency showed that only 3.7% (172 of 4644) provided pregnancy terminations. Interestingly, of those who reported providing abortion care, almost half (40.7%) indicated that they did not provide uterine aspiration/dilation and curettage, likely signifying that they are performing only medication abortion (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Graduate Survey Data From Family Medicine Graduates 2018-2019, American Board of Family Medicine4

Whereas only 3.7% of recently graduated family physicians provide abortions, 13.3% report feeling prepared to provide abortion care based on training obtained in residency (Table 1). This discrepancy suggests the barriers are not limited to lack of education or training. Indeed, administrative and systems-level barriers in integrating abortion care were most frequently mentioned as reasons that respondents who intended to provide abortion are not currently doing so.26 Other barriers to medication abortion provision include stringent Food and Drug Administration regulations that require providers to register with a central database to dispense mifepristone to patients, strict medication-dispensing regulations that require a clinician to dispense the pills directly to the patient, concerns for safety of clinic staff and patients, personal beliefs, lack of insurance reimbursement, and lack of colleague support.20,27,28

These barriers, like other elements of care provision, are evolving in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and may not be present to the same extent in the future with new health care delivery methods. This time of transition marks an auspicious time to increase medication abortion delivery within family medicine. One in 4 women will have an abortion in their lifetime, and nearly every family physician will care for patients who can become pregnant. Now more than ever, medication abortion services and education should be championed within family medicine. This expansion of care is especially pertinent now, in a time of markedly decreased access to care, but changes adopted should continue into the future.

Acknowledgments

We thank Lars Peterson, MD, PhD, and Zachary Morgan, MS, from the American Board of Family Medicine in Lexington, KY, for their assistance with data analysis and review of the manuscript.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: None.

  • Funding: None.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/34/Supplement/S33.full.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jones RK,
    2. Witwer E,
    3. Jerman J
    . Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2017. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2019.
  2. 2.↵
    National Academies of Sciences Eg, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Committee on Reproductive Health Services: Assessing the Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the U.S. (2018). The safety and quality of abortion care in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Jones RK,
    2. Jerman J
    . Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2014. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:17–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Upadhyay UD,
    2. Desai S,
    3. Zlidar V,
    4. et al
    . Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:175–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Foster DG,
    2. Biggs MA,
    3. Ralph L,
    4. Gerdts C,
    5. Roberts S,
    6. Glymour MM
    . Socioeconomic outcomes of women who receive and women who are denied wanted abortions in the United States. Am J Public Health 2018;108:407–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ralph LJ,
    2. Schwarz EB,
    3. Grossman D,
    4. Foster DG
    . Self-reported physical health of women who did and did not terminate pregnancy after seeking abortion services: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2019;171:238.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Grossman D,
    3. Mark A,
    4. et al
    . Commentary: No-test medication abortion: a sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond. Contraception 2020;101:361–6. S0010-7824(0020)30108-30106.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bracken H,
    2. Clark W,
    3. Lichtenberg ES,
    4. et al
    . Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone–misoprostol. BJOG 2011;118:17–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Constant D,
    2. Harries J,
    3. Moodley J,
    4. Myer L
    . Accuracy of gestational age estimation from last menstrual period among women seeking abortion in South Africa, with a view to task sharing: a mixed methods study. Reprod Health 2017;14:100.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Bracken H
    . Early medical abortion without prior ultrasound. Contraception 2015;92:212–214.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hollenbach SJ,
    2. Cochran M,
    3. Harrington A
    . “Provoked” feto-maternal hemorrhage may represent insensible cell exchange in pregnancies from 6 to 22 weeks gestational age. Contraception 2019;100:142–146.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Horvath S,
    2. Tsao P,
    3. Huang ZY,
    4. et al
    . The concentration of fetal red blood cells in first-trimester pregnant women undergoing uterine aspiration is below the calculated threshold for Rh sensitization. Contraception 2020;102:1–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Wiebe ER,
    2. Campbell M,
    3. Aiken ARA,
    4. Albert A
    . Can we safely stop testing for Rh status and immunizing Rh-negative women having early abortions? A comparison of Rh alloimmunization in Canada and the Netherlands. Contraception: X 2019;1:100001.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chen MJ,
    2. Rounds KM,
    3. Creinin MD,
    4. Cansino C,
    5. Hou MY
    . Comparing office and telephone follow-up after medical abortion. Contraception 2016;94:122–126.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Clark W,
    2. Bracken H,
    3. Tanenhaus J,
    4. Schweikert S,
    5. Lichtenberg ES,
    6. Winikoff B
    . Alternatives to a routine follow-up visit for early medical abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:264–272.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Endler M,
    2. Lavelanet A,
    3. Cleeve A,
    4. Ganatra B,
    5. Gomperts R,
    6. Gemzell-Danielsson K
    . Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. Bjog 2019;126:1094–1102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jackson AV,
    2. Dayananda I,
    3. Fortin JM,
    4. Fitzmaurice G,
    5. Goldberg AB
    . Can women accurately assess the outcome of medical abortion based on symptoms alone? Contraception 2012;85:192–197.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Perriera LK,
    2. Reeves MF,
    3. Chen BA,
    4. Hohmann HL,
    5. Hayes J,
    6. Creinin MD
    . Feasibility of telephone follow-up after medical abortion. Contraception 2010;81:143–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Raymond EG,
    2. Tan YL,
    3. Grant M,
    4. et al
    . Self-assessment of medical abortion outcome using symptoms and home pregnancy testing. Contraception 2018;97:324–328.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Beaman J,
    2. Schillinger D
    . Responding to evolving abortion regulations—the critical role of primary care. N Engl J Med 2019;380:e30.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fink KS,
    2. Phillips RL,
    3. Fryer GE,
    4. Koehn N
    . International medical graduates and the primary care workforce for rural underserved areas. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:255–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fryer GE,
    2. Green LA,
    3. Dovey SM,
    4. Phillips RI
    Jr. The United States relies on family physicians unlike any other specialty. Am Fam Physician 2001;63:1669.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Phillips R,
    2. Dodoo M,
    3. Petterson S,
    4. et al
    . Specialty and geography distribution of the physician workforce: what influences medical student and resident choices? Robert Graham Center: Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2009.2
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bennett IM,
    2. Baylson M,
    3. Kalkstein K,
    4. Gillespie G,
    5. Bellamy SL,
    6. Fleischman J
    . Early abortion in family medicine: clinical outcomes. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:527–533.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Prine L,
    2. Lesnewski R,
    3. Berley N,
    4. Gold M
    . Medical abortion in family practice: a case series. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:290–295.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Srinivasulu S,
    2. Maldonado L,
    3. Prine L,
    4. Rubin SE
    . Intention to provide abortion upon completing family medicine residency and subsequent abortion provision: a 5-year follow-up survey. Contraception 2019;100:188–192.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Food and Drug Administration. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for single shared system mifepristone 200 mg. Washington (DC): Food and Drug Administration; 2019.3
  28. 28.↵
    1. Greenberg M,
    2. Herbitter C,
    3. Gawinski BA,
    4. Fletcher J,
    5. Gold M
    . Barriers and enablers to becoming abortion providers: the reproductive health program. Fam Med 2012;44:493–500.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family  Medicine: 34 (Supplement)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 34, Issue Supplement
February 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Family Physicians’ Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 12 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Family Physicians’ Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Payal Patel, Sumathi Narayana, Zoey Thill, Marji Gold, Allison Paul
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Feb 2021, 34 (Supplement) S33-S36; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200208

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Family Physicians’ Role in Simplifying Medication Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Payal Patel, Sumathi Narayana, Zoey Thill, Marji Gold, Allison Paul
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Feb 2021, 34 (Supplement) S33-S36; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200208
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Telehealth Medication Abortion in Primary Care: A Comparison to Usual in-Clinic Care
  • Family Physicians' Barriers and Facilitators in Incorporating Medication Abortion
  • Primary Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Essential, and Inspiring
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Maternity Care Deserts: Key Drivers of the National Maternal Health Crisis
  • Empowering Family Physicians in Medical Staff Leadership to Foster Physician Well-Being
  • The One Taboo Question
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Abortion Applicants
  • COVID-19
  • Family Physicians
  • Induced Abortion
  • Pandemics
  • Pregnancy
  • First Trimester
  • Telemedicine

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire