Review of publicly available state reimbursement policies for removal and reinsertion of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception ============================================================================================================================= * Ekwutosi M. Okoroh * Charlan D. Kroelinger * Olivia R. Sappenfield * Julia F. Howland * Lisa M. Romero * Keriann Uesugi * Shanna Cox ## Abstract We examined reimbursement policies for the removal and reinsertion of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). We conducted a standardized, web-based review of publicly available state policies for language on reimbursement of LARC removal and reinsertion. We also summarized policy language on barriers to reimbursement for LARC removal and reinsertion. Twenty-six (52%) of the 50 states had publicly available policies that addressed reimbursement for LARC removal. Of these, 14 (28%) included language on reimbursement for LARC reinsertion. Eleven states included language on barriers for reimbursement for removal and/or reinsertion: five state policies included language with other requirements for removal only, three policies included language with additional requirements for reinsertion only, and three included language with additional requirements for both. Three state policies specified no barriers be placed on reimbursement for removal and one specified no barriers be placed on reimbursement for reinsertion. Half of the states in the U.S. do not have publicly available policies on reimbursement for the removal and reinsertion of LARC devices. Inclusion of unrestricted access to these services is important for reproductive autonomy. ## Introduction Reproductive autonomy includes the right to decide and control contraceptive use [1–2]. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods (i.e. defined as intrauterine devices (IUD) and contraceptive implants) are safe, highly effective, and satisfactory options available to women who have been appropriately counseled [3]. Yet, multiple barriers to utilization have been identified [4–6] including hesitation from providers on ‘early’ LARC removal [7–9], delay in placement [10], and variations in available individual health coverage [11–12]. As of September 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires many insurance plans to provide in-network coverage without cost sharing of certain clinical preventive services including all FDA-approved contraceptive methods [13]; however, additional requirements for reimbursement of services in individual state-level policies, exist. For instance, health plans or issuers of plans may use reasonable medical management techniques to control cost by imposing cost sharing when equivalent branded drugs are used [13]. Barriers to LARC removal and reinsertion access may also occur due to imposing prior authorization and step therapy, approval for medically necessary procedures only [9], or other non-medical reasons [11]. Therefore, it is important to understand how reimbursement policies for LARC devices, specifically for removal and reinsertion, affect health services delivery at the population level. This review summarizes language in state-level reimbursement policies on LARC removal and reinsertion, and language on reimbursement requirements. ## Materials and methods *S*tudy authors conducted a systematic, web-based review of publicly available state-level documents from October 2017 to May 2018. Detailed search terms, data abstraction process, and methodology are described elsewhere [14–15]. Briefly, reimbursement policies (e.g., Medicaid Bulletin, Family Planning Waiver, State Plan Amendment) authored by the state or an entity with authority to create billing policies, were categorized as ‘State issued’. We used the term ‘Health Plan’, to categorize polices (e.g., Provider Manual and Insurance Manual) authored from a health plan with authority from the state to bill for services. When developing the definition of state-based reimbursement policies for LARC removal or reinsertion, study authors reviewed language in all documents that referred to or detailed reimbursement for LARC. If the word ‘removal’ or ‘reinsertion’ was included in the policy language or if the policy contained International Classification of Diseases codes (e.g., Z30.46, Z30.433) or Current Procedural Terminology (e.g., 11982, 11983, 58301) representing removal or reinsertion of a LARC device or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes (e.g., J7296, J7297, J7300, J7307), [16] the state was categorized as having reimbursement policies for LARC removal or reinsertion. Likewise, a state was categorized as having reimbursement language for reinsertion if the language included words such as ‘replacement’ ‘maintain’ and/or ‘re-implanted’ when describing LARC services or reimbursement policies. We categorized reimbursement requirements for removal or reinsertion into ‘not specified’ if policies did not specify reimbursement requirements for LARC removal or reinsertion, ‘no requirement for provision of services’ if the language prohibited limitations on removal or reinsertion services, and ‘specified’ if specific requirements were mentioned. Among policies with specific language, we categorized requirements into the following groupings: *Coverage-related requirements*―represented policy language that limits reimbursement to preferred in-network providers or by other stipulations in the members’ benefit. *Step-therapy related requirements*―allowed for reimbursement only after a therapeutic equivalency device has been used. *Time-related requirements*―limited reimbursement to mandated periods of effectiveness (e.g., 3 years), or required minimum time allotment prior to a device’s removal or reinsertion (e.g., 6 months). *Diagnosis-related requirements*―limited reimbursement to when the removal or reinsertion was needed secondary to the presence of a medical condition (e.g., bleeding issues, infection) or when the patient was treated for an unrelated diagnosis or for a visit not coded as a family planning visit. Lastly, *same-day related requirements*―represented language that limits reimbursement to same day visits. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the abstracted information. This study was determined to be public health practice and, therefore, did not require Institutional Review Board approval at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the University of Illinois at Chicago. ## Results Twenty-six (52%) of the 50 states had publicly available policies that addressed reimbursement for LARC removal or reinsertion Table 1. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/12/2024.05.10.24307204/T1) Table 1: Publicly Available Reimbursement Policies on LARC Removal Or Reinsertion By Policy Type and Source for All States, 2017–2018. (N=50) While all 26 states included language in policies that addressed reimbursement for LARC removal, only 14 policies included language to address reinsertion Table 2. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/12/2024.05.10.24307204/T2) Table 2: Summary of Reimbursement Policies and Requirements on LARC Removal or Reinsertion Among States with Publicly Available Policies, 2017–2018 (N=26) Three policies included language that specified no restrictions be placed on reimbursement for removal and one state specified no restrictions on reimbursement for reinsertion. The most common type of reimbursement requirement was time-related (n=5); the least common was same-day related requirements (n=1). Table 2. ## Discussion and conclusions We found that more than a quarter of states had policy language on reimbursement for LARC removal, while fewer addressed reimbursement for reinsertion. Only three states had policy language indicating no reimbursement requirement for provision of services. Most states with a publicly available reimbursement policy for LARC removal or reinsertion were Medicaid policies, with few states’ Health Plans polices publicly available for review. The public availability of more Medicaid policies likely reflects the efforts undertaken by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)/Center for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Services (CMCS) who, in 2014, launched the Maternal and Infant Health Initiative with the primary goal of increasing access and use of effective contraceptives including LARC [17] though use among Medicaid recipients varies by state [17–18]. One potential reason for requirements for reimbursement could be concerns that ‘early’ removal would be costly [19–20]. However, LARC devices are cost neutral as early as three months post insertion, prior to full duration of effectiveness, when compared with short-acting reversible contraception options (i.e., patches, rings, oral contraceptive pills and injections) or no method use at all [21]. This finding of cost neutrality is still present even when the cost implications of removing the device before the end of its effective date is included [21]. Our findings of state-level variation in LARC removal and reinsertion reimbursement policies is consistent with existing literature demonstrating variation in LARC access policies. [9,11,14,15, 22]. Specific reimbursement practices may present barriers for LARC removal or reinsertion. For women in states with policies that include reimbursement requirements, such as diagnosis and time-related requirements, preferences for LARC maybe impacted if women lack assurance that removal will be covered [9,23]. Moreover, access to LARC removal or reinsertion without restrictions is vitally important, particularly for populations who have experienced restraint of reproductive autonomy (e.g., American Indian/Alaskan Native people, Black people, people with disabilities, people experiencing poverty and people who are incarcerated or detained) [24–30]. Recognizing these concerns, national clinical organizations encourage patient-centered counseling based on individual patient contraceptive preferences, needs, and values, thus ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions [31]. Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a reproductive justice framework be employed during contraceptive counseling which entails shared decision-making with the patient and provision of information on the benefits and risks of all contraceptive methods with the avoidance of potential coercion [32]. Recently, a multidisciplinary group of experts developed a Reproductive and Sexual Health Equity framework; a key principle is the concept of honoring bodily autonomy, emphasizing ongoing difficulties women have accessing LARC removal [33]. Several limitations exist in interpreting our findings. First, we did not contact all states to verify their reimbursement policies on removal or reinsertion of LARC. Second, we only included publicly available policies, potentially missing any new, non-publicly available or unpublished policies. Third, while our reviewed focused on reimbursement policies and its effect on LARC access, numerous other barriers such as lack of provider knowledge [34], blocked time for provider training [35], credentialing gaps [36], and myths and misinformation from patients [32] may contribute to the ability of women to access LARC removal and/or reinsertion. Fourth, since the data collection timeframe, some state policies may have been reviewed or amended, potentially affecting our categorization of policy language. However, amendment of state policies may require multiple annual policy cycles depending on whether the policy is a law, regulation, standard, or protocol [17]. Given that reimbursement policies can influence service delivery [37], review of language may identify administrative, financial, or medical barriers to reimbursement for LARC removal or reinsertion [9,30,38]. For example, states could consider including reimbursement language that allows providers to bill per-service rather than per-visit, allowing insertion, removal, or reinsertion of a LARC during a single clinical encounter [39], if desired by the woman. Lastly, standardizing training of family medicine [35] or primary care residents [36] on insertion and removal with expanded reimbursement could increases timely access to LARCs. LARC removal and reinsertion are important aspects of contraception access. Reimbursement requirements may restrict contraceptive access. Removal of barriers to these services supports both the ability of providers to offer comprehensive contraceptive services, and patient reproductive autonomy. ## Data Availability Data are all publicly available. Detailed search terms, data abstraction process, and methodology are described and referenced in the methodology section. ## Acknowledgements None. ## Footnotes * CReDit Taxonomy: EMO conceptualized and developed the methodology for the study and led the original draft writing as well as the review and editing process. CDK conceptualized and developed the methodology for the study, provided supervision, and led the original draft writing as well as the review and editing process. ORS curated the data and participated in the investigation, led software development and formal analysis. JFH curated the data and participated in the investigation, led software development and formal analysis. LMR provided supervision and validation of data results. KU led project administration and provided supervision, supported development of the methodology and resources, and supported conceptualization of the manuscript. SC provided support in development of the methodology and provided review and editing of the manuscript. * Received May 10, 2024. * Revision received May 10, 2024. * Accepted May 12, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license ## References 1. 1.Gomez AM, Fuentes L, Allina A. Women or LARC first? Reproductive autonomy and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Sep. doi: 10.1363/46e1614. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1363/46e1614&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24861029&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 2. 2.Upadhyay UD, Dworkin SL, Weitz TA, Foster DG. Development and validation of a reproductive autonomy scale. Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Mar. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00374.x. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00374.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24615573&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 3. 3.Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011; 83(5): 397–404. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.contraception.2011.01.021&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21477680&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289821600003&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.Hopkins B. Barriers to Health Care Providers’ Provision of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception to Adolescent and Nulliparous Young Women. Nurs Womens Health. 2017; 21(2): 122–128. 5. 5.Baron MM, Potter B, Schrager S. A Review of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Methods and Barriers to Their Use. WMJ: official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin. 2018; 117(4): 156–159. 6. 6.Holden EC, Lai E, Morelli SS, Alderson D, Schulkin J, Castleberry NM, McGovern PG. Ongoing barriers to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception: a physician survey. Contracept Reprod. 2018 Nov 08. doi: 10.1186/s40834-018-0078-5. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s40834-018-0078-5&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Amico JR, Bennett AH, Karasz A, Gold M. “I wish they could hold on a little longer”: physicians’ experiences with requests for early IUD removal. Contraception. 2017; 96(2): 106–110. 8. 8.Manzer JL, Bell AV. The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114632. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114632&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Strasser J, Borkowski L, Couillard M, Allina A, Wood SF. Access to Removal of Long-acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods Is an Essential Component of High-Quality Contraceptive Care. Womens Health Issues. 2017; 27(3): 253–255. 10. 10.Runyan A, Welch RA, Kramer KJ, Cortez S, Roberts LJ, Asamoah C, et al. Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Placement, Continuation, and Removal Rates at an Inner-City Academic Medical Center Clinic. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 28. doi: 10.3390/jcm10091918. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/jcm10091918&link_type=DOI) 11. 11.Armstrong E, Gandal-Powers M, Levin S, Kimber Kelinson A, Luchowski AT, Thompson K. Intrauterine devices and implants: A guide to reimbursement. ACOG, NFPRHA, NHeLP, NWLC, UCSF.2015. Available from [https://larcprogram.ucsf.edu/](https://larcprogram.ucsf.edu/) 12. 12.Ela EJ, Broussard K, Hansen K, Burke KL, Thaxton L, Potter JE. Satisfaction, Resignation, and Dissatisfaction with Long-Acting Reversible Contraception among Low-Income Postpartum Texans. Womens Health Issues. 2022 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2022.02.006. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.whi.2022.02.006&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Department of Labor/Health and Human Services/and Treasury. FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXVI). 2015; Available from: Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs - Set 12 | CMS. 14. 14.Kroelinger CD, Okoroh EM, Uesugi K, Romero L, Sappenfield O R, Howland JF, et al. Immediate Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Review of Insertion and Device Reimbursement Policies. Womens Health Issues. 2021; 31(6): 523–531. 15. 15.Romero L, Sappenfield OR, Uesugi K, Howland JF, Kroelinger CD, Okoroh EM, et al. Review of Publicly Available State Policies for Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Device Reimbursement. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2022 Jan 17. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0361. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/jwh.2021.0361&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Coding for the Contraceptive Implant and IUDs. 2021; Available from: [https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/pdfs/publications/larc-coding-guide.pdf](https://www.acog.org/-/media/project/acog/acogorg/files/pdfs/publications/larc-coding-guide.pdf). 17. 17.Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMCS informational bulletin: state Medicaid payment approaches to improve access to long-acting reversible contraception. 2016; Available from [https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB040816.pdf](https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB040816.pdf) 18. 18.Rodriguez MI, Meath THA, Watson K, Daly A, Tracy K, McConnell KJ. Geographic Variation In Effective Contraceptive Use Among Medicaid Recipients In 2018. Health Aff (Millwood). 2023 Apr. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00992. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00992&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Chiou CF, Trussell J, Reyes E, Knight K, Wallace J, Udani J, et al. Economic analysis of contraceptives for women. Contraception. 2003; 68(1):3–10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00078-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12878280&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184481900002&link_type=ISI) 20. 20.Eisenberg D, McNicholas C, Peipert JF. Cost as a barrier to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2013 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.012. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23535059&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 21. 21.Trussell J, Hassan F, Lowin J, Law A, Filonenko A. Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Contraception 2015; 91(1): 49–56. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.contraception.2014.08.011&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25282161&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 22. 22.Walls J, Gifford K, Ranji U, Salganicoff A, Gomez I. Medicaid coverage of family planning benefits: Results from a state survey. 2022; Available from: [https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/report/medicaid-coverage-of-family-planning-benefits-findings-from-a-2021-state-survey/](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/report/medicaid-coverage-of-family-planning-benefits-findings-from-a-2021-state-survey/) 23. 23.Sobel L, Salganicoff A, Kurani N. Coverage of contraceptive services: A review of health insurance plans in five states. 2015.Available from: [http://kff.org/reportsection/coverage-of-contraceptive-services-introduction/](http://kff.org/reportsection/coverage-of-contraceptive-services-introduction/) 24. 24.Lawrence J. The Indian Health Service and the sterilization of Native American women. American Indian quarterly. 2000; 24(3): 400–419. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1353/aiq.2000.0008&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17089462&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 25. 25.Roberts D. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, New York: Vintage Book; 1997. 26. 26.Stern AM. Sterilized in the name of public health: race, immigration, and reproductive control in modern California. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95(7): 1128–1138. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15983269&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230126600021&link_type=ISI) 27. 27.Paltrow LM, Flavin J. Arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the United States, 1973-2005: implications for women’s legal status and public health. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013; 38(2): 299–343. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGRqaHBwbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIzOC8yLzI5OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA1LzEyLzIwMjQuMDUuMTAuMjQzMDcyMDQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 28. 28.Ohlheiser A. California Prisons Were Illegally Sterilizing Female Inmates. Atlantic. 2013 Jul 7 [Cited 2024 March 11]. Available from: [https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/california-prisons-were-illegally-sterilizing-female-inmates/313591/](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/california-prisons-were-illegally-sterilizing-female-inmates/313591/) 29. 29.Gold RB. Guarding Against Coercion While Ensuring Access: A Delicate Balance. Guttmacher Policy Review. 2014; 17:8–14. 30. 30.Levandowski BA, Green T, Liu L, Betstadt S, Thevenet-Morrison K, Harrington A. Results of Immediate Postpartum Long Acting Reversible Contraception Provision After Expanded Reimbursement Policy Implementation at an Academic Medical Institution. Matern Child Health J. 2023 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10995-023-03738-w. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10995-023-03738-w&link_type=DOI) 31. 31.Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press (US); 2001 32. 32.ACOG Committee Opinion No. 735: Adolescents and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131(5): e130–e139. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29683910&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 33. 33.Dehlendorf C, Akers AY, Borrero S, Callegari LS, Cadena D, Gomez AM, et al. Evolving the Preconception Health Framework: A Call for Reproductive and Sexual Health Equity. Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 137(2): 234–239. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/AOG.0000000000004255&link_type=DOI) 34. 34.Luchowski AT, Anderson BL, Power ML, Raglan GB, Espey E, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations. Contraception. 2014 89(6): 572–577. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.008&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24679477&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 35. 35.Callen EF, Na’Allah R, Lewis A, Kerns J, Hester CM. Block Scheduling for LARC in a Family Medicine Residency Program. Fam Med. 2023 Dec 20. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2023.253918. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38241742. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.22454/FamMed.2023.253918&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38241742&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F05%2F12%2F2024.05.10.24307204.atom) 36. 36.Holaday LW, Gover M, Iyer SV, DeLuca JP, Stella J, Gold M, et al. Effectiveness of training primary care internal medicine residents in etonogestrel implants and impact on their future practice: A cross-sectional study. Contraception. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2022.07.013. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.contraception.2022.07.013&link_type=DOI) 37. 37.Vela VX, Patton EW, Sanghavi D, Wood SF, Shin P, Rosenbaum S. Rethinking Medicaid Coverage and Payment Policy to Promote High Value Care: The Case of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception. Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28(2): 137–143. 38. 38.Centers for Disease Control Prevention. The 6/18 initiative: Prevent unintended pregnancy. 2016; Available from: [https://www.cdc.gov/sixeighteen/pregnancy/index.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/sixeighteen/pregnancy/index.htm) 39. 39.Orris A, Mauser G, Bachrach D, Grady A. A toolkit for states enhancing access to family planning services in Medicaid: ManattHealth. 2019; Available from: Arnold-Ventures\_Family-Planning-Toolkit\_FINAL.PDF ([manatt.com](http://manatt.com))