Evidence Hub

Title X Policy Shifts and Michigan’s Reproductive Health Safety Net

Sarah D Compton, Andrea Pangori, A. Widner, Kamilah Davis-Wilson, Sarah Wallett, Vanessa K. Dalton

JAMA Network Open, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Key Points Question What were the changes to Michigan’s reproductive health safety net’s service delivery program associated with Planned Parenthood’s lack of participation in the Title X program during the Final Rule from 2019 to 2022? Findings This cohort study found that there were fewer Title X clinics in Michigan during the Final Rule (92 before, 76 during, and 92 after) and significantly fewer women served by these clinics. However, because Planned Parenthood of Michigan continued to serve similar numbers of clients even while not participating in Title X, the reproductive health safety net was relatively maintained. Meaning This study suggests that, because Planned Parenthood of Michigan was able to maintain service delivery levels over the short time they did not participate in the Title X program, the service delivery to the clients who rely on the reproductive health safety net in Michigan, as well as community health outcomes, were mitigated against the loss of federal funding.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free