MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415972044 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.04.25339524

Impacts of British Columbia’s free contraception policy on out-of-pocket payments and contraception costs: an interrupted time series analysis with other provinces as controls

2025· preprint· W4415972044 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth Nethery, Michael R. Law, Stirling Bryan, Fiona Clement, Nathan Nickel, Wendy V. Norman, Amanda Black, Mary Helmer‐Smith, Kimberlyn McGrail, Laura Schummers

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of ManitobaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaInstitute of Gender and HealthMichael Smith Health Research BCWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedical prescriptionPer capitaPaymentFamily planningDeveloped countryInterrupted time seriesPopulationFormulary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Cost is a key driver of inadequate, unequal contraception access. Without a national public pharmacare plan, Canadians use a mix of private or public prescription insurance plans to pay for drugs or devices. High deductibles, copayments, and/or exclusion of contraception from insurance formularies can result in access gaps. In April 2023, the western-most Canadian province (British Columbia (BC)) introduced universal, first-dollar coverage for prescription contraception. We estimated the effect of this free contraception policy on prescription contraception payer type and costs. Methods Using a national prescription database, we measured the monthly proportion of all dispensed contraception to reproductive-aged females (15-49y) in BC according to majority payer (out-of-pocket (patients), private, and public) and estimated costs per capita by payer type. We used a controlled interrupted time series analysis to compare outcomes in BC to expected trends if the policy had not been introduced and compared with synthetic controls derived from other Canadian provinces. Findings Pre-policy in BC, 39% of prescription contraception was paid out-of-pocket, 49% by private insurance, and 12% by public insurance. When BC’s policy was introduced, out-of-pocket payments immediately decreased (−24.3% 95%CI −24.8 to −23.7). At 2-years post-policy, 5.4% (95% CI 4.5% to 6.4%) of on-formulary contraceptives were paid out-of-pocket and 8.4% (7.5% to 9.3%) was paid by private insurance. Total monthly per capita out-of-pocket costs in BC were 86% lower than expected if the policy had not been implemented. Time trends pre-and post-policy were similar in BC and controls. Interpretation Up to 40% of contraceptives were previously paid out-of-pocket in BC compared to prior studies showing 20% of all drugs in Canada were paid out-of-pocket. Contraception may be uniquely sensitive to inadequate insurance coverage as with a mix of public and private drug plans. The implementation of a public drug plan providing universal, first-dollar coverage policy for contraception substantially reduced out-of-pocket payments for dispensed contraception. Key points Before policy implementation, 40% of contraception prescriptions in BC were paid out-of-pocket – double the national average for all prescription drugs – highlighting major gaps in coverage and inequitable access to contraception. A universal, first-dollar contraception policy reduced out-of-pocket costs by 86% within two years, with only 5% of on-formulary contraceptive prescriptions still paid out-of-pocket First-dollar public coverage effectively removes financial barriers and supports equitable access to contraception, providing timely evidence to inform national pharmacare implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207