Yang Y Tony, Kozhimannil Katy B
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;127(2):313-6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001251.
In 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.
2015年夏天,爱荷华州最高法院一致否决了一项限制规定,该规定原本会禁止医生通过视频电话会议远程实施药物流产。在其裁决中,爱荷华州最高法院表示,该限制会给女性获得堕胎服务的权利带来过度负担。对于临床医生——尤其是初级保健临床医生、妇产科医生以及所有远程医疗服务的医疗保健提供者而言,理解这一最新裁决的影响至关重要,尤其是在农村地区。法院的这一决定对全国范围内女性获得堕胎服务以及远程医疗领域都可能产生影响。如今,远程医疗堕胎仅在爱荷华州和明尼苏达州可用;18个州已对其实施禁令。如果正如爱荷华州最高法院所认定的那样,远程医疗堕胎确实受到了违宪限制,那么推翻这些禁令的法院判决可能会改善这18个州2100万育龄妇女获得堕胎服务的情况,这些州的妇产科医生供应有限,且大多集中在城市和大都市地区。除了对获得堕胎服务的潜在影响之外,我们认为法院的这一决定对远程医疗也具有更广泛的影响,因为它限制了州医学委员会在限制通过远程医疗提供的具有政治争议性的医疗服务方面的作用。远程医疗政策、堕胎政治与医学科学之间的相互作用是法院这一决定的核心所在,并且对美国各地的育龄妇女而言,其意义超出了爱荷华州的范围。