Real world outcomes related to providing an annual supply of short-acting hormonal contraceptives

A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives on a law that allows for a 12‐month supply of short‐acting contraceptives in Massachusetts: Barriers and facilitators to implementation

“…One approach to improving contraception access has been to dispense a 12‐month supply of SARCs instead of the one to three‐month supply that many health insurers currently cover. In a large cohort study in California, members who received a 12‐month supply of SARCs were significantly less likely to become pregnant compared to those who received a shorter‐duration supply 4 . They were also more likely to refill their prescription more than a year after their initial prescription, and less likely to utilize emergency contraception.…”

“…In a large cohort study in California, members who received a 12-month supply of SARCs were significantly less likely to become pregnant compared to those who received a shorter-duration supply. 4 They were also more likely to refill their prescription more than a year after their initial prescription, and less likely to utilize emergency contraception. Another study from the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system demonstrated cost savings associated with a 12-month supply of SARCS in addition to reducing unintended pregnancies among veterans.…”

2022 Update on contraception

“…roviding a 1-year supply of selfadministered contraception can lead to higher likelihood of continued use and is associated with reduced cost, unintended pregnancy, and abortion rates. [2][3][4] Although some patients may not use a full year's supply of pills, rings, or patches under such programs, the lower rates of unintended pregnancy result in significant cost savings as compared with the unused contraceptives. 2,3 Accordingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises dispensing a 1-year supply of self-administered hormonal contraception.…”