BOISE, ID – Obstetricians have left in droves since Idaho banned nearly all abortions in 2022, and rural women face the biggest impact from the exodus.
An analysis found Idaho had 268 OB GYNs when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, prompting the state’s trigger laws that prohibited nearly all abortions. By December 2024, only 20 obstetricians had come to the state, while 114 had left.
Lead Researcher and Chief Medical Officer at St. Luke’s Health Plan, Dr. Edward McEachern, said rural areas have been hit hardest.
“The real crisis is in those exurban, rural, and frontier communities where women often don’t have any access to obstetrical care,” said McEachern. “The family medicine obstetricians and the nurse practitioners do a fantastic job with what they can do — and they do have a broad scope of care — but when things go sideways and you need an obstetrician, you won’t have those.”
McEachern said the vast majority of obstetricians work in Idaho’s seven most populous counties, with only 23 OB GYNs serving the other 37 counties.
He said the study didn’t look at the impact of these losses on the outcomes of care. However, he noted that Idaho is a large state, which means drive times can be lengthy for rural residents seeking care.
McEachern said the loss of more than 100 doctors takes out between 250,000 to 500,000 patient visits a year, creating access and quality of care issues. Idaho does not have a residency program for doctors, and historically, most people stay where they complete their training.
He said that creates a pipeline issue for gaining back the OB GYNs who leave.
“I think it’s going to be a generational change,” said McEachern. “I mean, it’s going to take a long time for us to recruit back the number of obstetricians that have left.”
McEachern said a residency program could help stem the tide.
A 2023 Idaho Coalition for Safe Reproductive Health Care study found nearly all professionals in the obstetrics field would consider staying the state if there were medical exceptions to the abortion ban.
An April state court ruling did expand medical exceptions when a patient’s life is endangered, but the ruling’s scope is limited.
