Liz Borkowski

Effects of Social, Economic, and Labor Policies on Occupational Health Disparities

BACKGROUND This article introduces some key labor, economic, and social policies that historically and currently impact occupational health disparities in the United States. METHODS We conducted a broad review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the effects of social, economic, and labor policies on occupational health disparities. RESULTS Many populations such as tipped workers, public employees, immigrant workers, and misclassified workers are not protected by current laws and policies, including workers compensation or Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforcement of standards. Local and state initiatives, such as living wage laws and community benefit agreements, as well as multiagency law enforcement contribute to reducing occupational health disparities. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to build coalitions and collaborations to command the resources necessary to identify, and then reduce and eliminate occupational disparities by establishing healthy, safe, and just work for all.

Access to Removal of Long-acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods Is an Essential Component of High-Quality Contraceptive Care

A case study that illustrates the importance and effectiveness of advocacy efforts that are timely and relevant to current issues and events. Advocates took advantage of the momentum from a national family planning conference and convened a meeting with district-level policymakers to assess how best to to increase access to contraceptives in their districts and act upon their family planning commitments.

For Medication Abortion, Science Should Guide Policy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of an updated label for the abortion drug Mifeprex in March 2016 (FDA, 2016a) marked an important step for access for abortion care and for evidence-based policy. Since the drug’s initial approval in 2000, a strong and growing body of research has demonstrated the safety of medication abortion and supported several advances in medication abortion procedures, including changes to medication dosages and requirements for in-person office visits (Borkowski, Strasser, Allina, & Wood, 2015). The FDA’s recent approval of the revised label submitted by manufacturer Danco Laboratories, LLC, represents the regulatory agency’s recognition of the scientific evidence. A science-based FDA decision about a drug should be an unremarkable development, but in this case it serves to highlight problematic state laws that limit women’s access to medication abortion based on a claim of health protection, despite strong evidence that the laws’ requirements are unnecessary and, in some cases, unethical. Among these laws are requirements that the procedure be performed precisely according to the FDA label, unless a statute allows for specific variations. Such laws are in force in North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas, and courts have prevented them from taking effect in Arizona, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (Guttmacher Institute, 2016). Until the FDA’s approval in March 2016 of a revised Mifeprex label, providers in North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas had to adhere to an outdated protocol that presented barriers to high quality, accessible care. Although the FDA’s decision reduces those barriers, it does not change the fact that several states have adopted these and other laws that limit