• Y Tony Yang and Katy B Kozhimannil.
• Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; and the Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
• Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb 1; 127 (2): 313-6.

AbstractIn summer 2015, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down a restriction that would have prevented physicians from administering a medication abortion remotely through video teleconferencing. In its ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court stated that the restriction would have placed an undue burden on a woman's right to access abortion services. It is crucially important for clinicians--especially primary care clinicians, obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns), and all health care providers of telemedicine services--to understand the implications of this recent ruling, especially in rural settings. The Court's decision has potential ramifications across the country, for both women's access to abortion and the field of telemedicine. Today telemedicine abortion is available only in Iowa and Minnesota; 18 states have adopted bans on it. If telemedicine abortions are indeed being unconstitutionally restricted as the Iowa Supreme Court determined, court decisions reversing these bans could improve access to abortion services for the 21 million reproductive-age women living in these 18 states, which have a limited supply of ob-gyns, mostly concentrated in urban, metropolitan areas. Beyond the potential effects on abortion access, we argue that the Court's decision also has broader implications for telemedicine, by limiting the role of state boards of medicine regarding the restriction of politically controversial medical services when provided through telemedicine. The interplay between telemedicine policy, abortion politics, and the science of medicine is at the heart of the Court's decision and has meaning beyond Iowa's borders for reproductive-age women across the United States.

20 keywords...

hide…