Original research article| Volume 89, ISSUE 2, P85-90, February 2014

Scope of family planning services available in Federally Qualified Health Centers



      Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are a major and growing source of primary care for low-income women of reproductive age; however, only limited knowledge exists on the scope of family planning care they provide and the mechanisms for delivery of these essential reproductive health services, including family planning. In this paper, we report on the scope of services provided at FQHCs including on-site provision, prescription only and referral options for the range of contraceptive methods.

      Study Design

      An original survey of 423 FQHC organizations was fielded in 2011.


      Virtually all FQHCs reported that they provide at least one contraceptive method (99.8%) at one or more clinical sites. A large majority (87%) of FQHCs report that their largest primary care site prescribes oral contraceptives plus one additional method category of contraception, with oral contraception and injectables being the most commonly available methods. Substantial variation is seen among other methods such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), contraceptive implants, the patch, vaginal ring and barrier methods. For all method categories, Title-X-funded sites are more likely to provide the method, though, even in these sites, IUDs and implants are much less likely to be provided than other methods.


      There is clearly wide variability in the delivery of family planning services at FQHCs in terms of methods available, level of counseling, and provision of services on-site or through prescription or referral. Barriers to provision likely include cost to patients and/or additional training to providers for some methods, such as IUDs and implants, but these barriers should not limit on-site availability of inexpensive methods such as oral contraceptives.


      With the expansion of contraceptive coverage under private insurance as part of preventive health services for women, along with expanded coverage for the currently uninsured, and the growth of FQHCs as the source of care for women of reproductive age, it is critical that women seeking family planning services at FQHCs have access to a wide range of contraceptive options. Our study both highlights the essential role of FQHCs in providing family planning services and also identifies remaining gaps in the provision of contraception in FQHC settings.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Shin P.
        • Rosenbaum S.
        • Paradise J.
        • Beeson T.
        • Shirac J.
        Community Health Centers the challenge of growing to meet the need for primary health care in medically underserved communities.
        Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington, DC2012
      1. Uniform Data System: 2000–11. Health Resources and Services Administration (U.S.), Washington (DC)2011
        • Rosenbaum S.
        • Shin P.
        • Paradise J.
        Community health centers: the challenge of growing to meet the need for primary care in medically underserved communities. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
        (Available at:)
      2. 42 U.S.C. §254b(b)(1)(A)(i)(III)(gg).

        • Westhoff C.
        • Heartwell S.
        • Edwards S.
        • Zieman M.
        • Cushman L.
        • Robilotto C.
        • et al.
        Initiation of oral contraceptives using a quick start compared with a conventional start: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 1270-1276
        • Foster D.G.
        • Hulett D.
        • Bradsberry M.
        • Darney P.
        • Policar M.
        Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed and subsequent unintended pregnancies.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 566-572
        • Stuart J.E.
        • Secura G.M.
        • Zhao Q.
        • Pittman M.E.
        • Peipart J.F.
        Factors associated with 12-month discontinuation among contraceptive pill, patch, and ring users.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 330-336
        • Frost J.
        • Gold R.
        • Frohwirth L.
        • Blades N.
        Variation in service delivery practices among clinics providing publicly funded family planning services in 2010.
        Washington (DC), Guttmacher Institute2012
      3. Census regions and divisions.
        ([Internet]) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC2001 (Available from:)
      4. 42 U.S.C. §254b(b)(1)(A)(ii).

        • Henderson J.T.
        • Sawaya G.F.
        • Blum M.
        • Stratton L.
        • Harper C.C.
        Pelvic examinations and access to hormonal contraception.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1257-1264
        • Westhoff C.L.
        • Jones H.E.
        • Guiahi M.
        Do new guidelines and technology make the routine pelvic examinations obsolete?.
        J Women's Health. 2011; 20: 5-10
        • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        ACOG Committee Opinion No. 463: cervical cancer in adolescents: screening, evaluation, and management.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 469-472
        • Eisenberg D.
        • McNicholas C.
        • Peipert J.F.
        Cost as a barrier to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use in adolescents.
        J Adolesc Health. 2013 Jan; 52: S59-S63
        • Beeson T.
        • Wood S.
        • Bruen B.
        • Goldberg D.G.
        • Mead H.
        • Rosenbaum S.
        Accessibility of long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).
        Contraception. 2014; 89: 91-96
        • Harper C.C.
        • Blum M.
        • de Bocanegra H.T.
        • Darney P.D.
        • Speidel J.J.
        • Policar M.
        • et al.
        Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 1359-1369
        • Foster D.G.
        • Raine T.R.
        • Brindis C.
        • Rostovtseva D.P.
        • Darney P.D.
        Should providers give women advance provision of emergency contraceptive pills? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Women's Health Issues. 2010; 20: 242-247
        • Harper C.C.
        • Henderson J.T.
        • Raine T.R.
        • Goodman S.
        • Darney P.D.
        • Thompson K.M.
        • et al.
        Evidence-based IUD practice: family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists.
        Fam Med. 2012; 44: 637-645
      5. Ten great public health achievements — United States, 1900–1999. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.).
        MMWR. 1999; 48: 241-243
        • Institute of Medicine
        Clinical preventive services for women: closing the gaps.
        The National Academies Press, Washington (DC)2011
        • Lesnewski R.
        • Maldonado L.
        • Prine L.
        Community health centers' role in family planning.
        J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013; 24: 429-434
        • Huber L.R.B.
        • Hogue C.J.
        • Stein A.D.
        • Drews C.
        • Zieman M.
        • King J.
        • et al.
        Contraceptive use and discontinuation: do side effects matter?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179: 577-582