More Lives That Matter

-->
Health Care, Women's Issues

The United States has among the highest rates of infant and maternal mortality in the developed world. Worse, according to official statistics, the rate of maternal mortality in the U.S. has shot up in recent years, even as the rate is going down just about everywhere else

(Maternal mortality rate refers to the number of women who die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth per 100,000 pregnancies/births. Infant mortality rate refers to the number of infants per 1,000 births who die between birth and their first birthday.)

Maternal mortality has jumped from 7.2 in 1987 to 18.5 in 2013; I understand the U.S. is roughly tied with Iran and Hungary in the maternal mortality department. And keep in mind that those numbers are averages; some states are not that bad, and some are worse.

However, a recent article in Scientific American argues that the maternal mortality rate really isn’t going up; it’s always been that bad, and we just didn’t know it.

Until relatively recently most states relied on a death certificate form that was created in 1989. A newer version of the form, released in 2003, added a dedicated question asking whether the person who died was currently or recently pregnant—effectively creating a flag for capturing maternal mortality. Specifically, this recently introduced question asks if the woman was pregnant within the past year, at the time of death or within 42 days of death.

The addition of this question means that the apparent increase in maternal mortality in the U.S. “is almost certainly not a real increase. It’s better detection from the new certificates,” says Robert Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. “The numbers are going up but it’s most likely not because women are more likely to die,” he contends.

In other words, maybe the problem isn’t getting worse; it’s just that the way we used to collect data camouflaged how bad things were before. That’s so … not a relief. However, other researchers quoted in the same article think there is an increase that can’t be entirely accounted for by the change in data collection.

Also:

One aspect of maternal mortality that has not changed over the years is the extent to which it varies by race. The risk of maternal mortality has remained about three to four times higher among black women than white women during the past six decades. Since 1999 maternal mortality has climbed among both black and white women—potentially due to those changes in death certificates and also how deaths are now coded in the U.S. using the ICD-10. Yet even with the cross-race increases in deaths related to pregnancy, in 2007 the maternal mortality rate for black women was still nearly three times higher than the rate for white women.

Researchers have shown that black women are not inherently more likely to have underlying pregnancy complications. Indeed, one national study that looked at five major common causes of maternal death and injury that collectively account for more than a quarter of all pregnancy-related deaths found that black women did not have a significantly higher prevalence than white women of those conditions—preeclampsia, eclampsia, obstetric hemorrhage, placental abruption and placenta previa. Yet black women were two to three times more likely to die than white women with the same complication.

Increased poverty and stress are an obvious reason why black mothers are at increased risk, IMO, but the medical science guys who look at this stuff aren’t persuaded that’s the entire story.

Whatever the cause, the data tell us that a lot of women die in the U.S. who would have lived had they gone through pregnancy and childbirth in any of about 50 other countries, including Estonia and Qatar. And a disproportionate number of those women are African American, and nobody knows why.

There are huge differences from state to state, for that matter. Maine has a maternal mortality rate of 1.2, according to data aggregated from the Center for Disease Control. Michigan has a rate of 21.0. The District of Columbia is even worse — 38.2. We’re in Third World territory with that number.

Similarly, the United States lags behind most of the developed world in infant mortality, and a disproportionate number of those infants also are African American. Conservatives for years have dismissed the data with claims that these are mere reporting anomalies. If an extremely premature infant dies immediately after birth, for example, it’s usually counted in the infant mortality data in the U.S. but would not be counted as such in some other countries.

An article in the Washington Post from September, 2014 blows that argument out of the water

Despite healthcare spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland or Slovakia. Or in Belarus. Or in Cuba, for that matter. …

… One factor, according to the paper: “Extremely preterm births recorded in some places may be considered a miscarriage or still birth in other countries. Since survival before 22 weeks or under 500 grams is very rare, categorizing these births as live births will inflate reported infant mortality rates (which are reported as a share of live births).”

Oster and her colleagues found that this reporting difference accounts for up to 40 percent of the U.S. infant mortality disadvantage relative to Austria and Finland. This is somewhat heartening.

But what about that other 60 percent?

“Most striking,” they write, “the US has similar neonatal mortality but a substantial disadvantage in postneonatal mortality” compared to Austria and Finland. In other words, mortality rates among infants in their first days and weeks of life are similar across all three countries. But as infants get older, a mortality gap opens between the U.S. and the other countries, and widens considerably.

See the chart in the article. We’re not losing newborns as much as we are losing infants from one to 12 months old, and the gap widens as the infants get older. It appears many babies are dying in the U.S. who would have lived if they’d been born in Finland. And the biggest factor seems to be income; in the U.S., babies born into poor families die a lot more often than babies born into wealthy families. There also are big discrepancies from one state to another.

The U.S. rate of 6.1 infant deaths per 1,000 live births masks considerable state-level variation. If Alabama were a country, its rate of 8.7 infant deaths per 1,000 would place it slightly behind Lebanon in the world rankings. Mississippi, with its 9.6 deaths, would be somewhere between Botswana and Bahrain.

Needless to say, a disproportionate number of those poor families are African American. I couldn’t find raw numbers, so I don’t know how many African American women and babies die what must be preventable deaths in the U.S. every year. Maybe someone else can find that number. I don’t know how many White, Native American, Asian American and Latina women and their babies die, either. In 2013 about 800 women of all races died of complications of pregnancy and childbirth in the U.S., and if you have the data and can do math better than I can perhaps you can figure it out. I found no raw numbers of babies who die before their first birthday, just the rates.

The bottom line, though, is that access to health care, including reproductive health care, is a life and death issue for American women. And our lack of attention to this problem is a national disgrace. Yet instead of addressing it we’ve been manipulated into a phony controversy about Planned Parenthood. Really disgusting.

Share Button
20 Comments

18 Comments

  1. uncledad  •  Aug 14, 2015 @11:43 am

    “I understand the U.S. is roughly tied with Iran and Hungary in the maternal mortality department”

    What do they say about the company you keep? I think the stat in para. 3 might be a typo?

  2. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 14, 2015 @12:12 pm

    Welcome to 19th Century America!

    Ooops!
    I meant 21st Century America…
    Ok, make that a mechanized and well armed 19th Century Banana Republic version of America.

    Thanks, conservatives!

    Your supposed “love” for America is far outweighed by your hatred of “other” Americans:
    Females, blacks, latino’s, and other minorities.

    But if you’re a guy, and you’re white, then you’re alright!

    And it’s called “Planned Parenthood,” not ‘Planned Abortion.’
    NO tax dollars are paying for the 3% of the women who have an abortion through that organization.
    Those are paid for by willing donors.

    Donors who understand that women – and men – want to plan to become parents.

    You idiots want to defund “Planned Parenthood” completely – or turn it into ‘WHOOOOOOPS!!! Parenthood?’

    And, I guess if women and their children die, then they deserved to die.
    Right?

    In 1958, when I was born, the US led the world in science, math, technology, education, and health care services.

    But conservatives brought us back to the pack!
    ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. rudolph schnaubelt  •  Aug 14, 2015 @12:15 pm

    Perhaps a more generous parental leave program for workers would alleviate the high rates of infant mortality. The noticeable disparity in mortality rates for infants in in the first year of life can certainly be addressed by granting more parents the ability to be with their newborns in that critical period.

  4. maha  •  Aug 14, 2015 @12:52 pm

    rudolph — Certainly the lack of time off could be part of the problem. I’d also suspect a lack of affordable day care.

  5. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 14, 2015 @1:33 pm

    Also, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, and older siblings, babysitting while someone’s at work.

    I was a very careful and attentive Uncle, but I never had any children of my own, and let me tell you, I was in a constant state of panic that something would happen when I was watching my sister’s or my friend’s children!

    Mercifully, nothing major ever did.

  6. maha  •  Aug 14, 2015 @4:04 pm

    If you are poor and working you are very lucky to have nearby grandparents, aunts, etc. I had no such luck. It was hard for me to find day care that I could afford and didn’t make me queasy; I can’t imagine how women who make minimum wage do it at all. I suspect a lot of children are left in, shall we say, less than optimum circumstances.

  7. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 14, 2015 @1:39 pm

    Why am I in moderation again?

    I’m a person of extremes, not moderation!

  8. maha  •  Aug 14, 2015 @1:42 pm

    gulag — I have no idea why the twit filter grabbed that comment. Maybe it thinks “sibling” is a dirty word.

  9. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 14, 2015 @2:42 pm

    Or maybe it knows I’m a twit!

  10. PurpleGirl  •  Aug 14, 2015 @3:48 pm

    When a baby is born in Finland, that parent gets a baby box. A box the baby can sleep in in a drawer for example, and it has diapers and bottles and blankets and clothes, lots of things to keep the baby wrapped in warmth. The baby boxes were started decades ago and the Finnish people love them so much that they have continued to give them to new parents. Each baby born gets a its own baby box.

    I think it’s a wonderful idea and tradition.

  11. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 14, 2015 @4:01 pm

    Yeah, better a cardboard box than a small pine box!

  12. PurpleGirl  •  Aug 14, 2015 @4:09 pm

    Double-checked with Wikipedia and the baby box program was started in 1938 and formalized in the 1940s. The only pre-requisite is that the mother be seen by a doctor by her fourth month of pregnancy. It has resulted in decreased infant mortality. The contents have changed over time but continues to be heavily leaning toward things that keep a baby warm.

  13. maha  •  Aug 14, 2015 @4:56 pm

    The Finns do have to work at keeping warm, I understand.

  14. uncledad  •  Aug 14, 2015 @4:50 pm

    “Or maybe it knows I’m a twit”

    It certainly finds me now and then!

  15. PurpleGirl  •  Aug 14, 2015 @6:41 pm

    The Finns do have to work at keeping warm, I understand.

    Maha — what a charming way to put it. The parents can ask for a cash payment instead of the baby box but people continue to ask for the baby box. I think the box has come stand for care — care for the mother and the baby. A society concerned that people are taken care of well.

  16. Omar  •  Aug 15, 2015 @12:26 am

    Aha, Maha, you conveniently forgot to mention that Planned Parenthood is part of the black genocide movement. All you white liberals talking all those black women into having abortions (because obviously they can’t decide for themselves). And then making a fortune selling fetal tissue to doctors. Except for Ben Carson. Not anymore. Well not recently, anyway. Lucky I get my information from urban astro turf pro fetus organizations or I wouldn’t know anything. Now allow me to quote mine Margaret Sanger…..

    I used to think that–despite repeated evidence to the contrary–white conservatives believe African Americans are so stupid we’ll fall for anything. But lately I’m thinking that we’re not the real audience for this nonsense. Their white evangelical foot soldiers are. Not that they really care about black babies. It’s just one more reason to hate the left.

    Defunding Planned Parenthood is their latest battle cry. Has any candidate actually promised to overturn Roe V. Wade? I know they can’t. But evangelicals are reliable voters and they’ve fallen for this kind of thing before.

  17. maha  •  Aug 15, 2015 @8:42 am

    Omar — yes, as you know, we white liberals build Planned Parenthood clinics in black neighborhoods and lure women in with promises of free goodies. And before you know it, they’ve had abortions! Even women who weren’t pregnant to begin with!!!

    However, we’re also supposed to be keeping African Americans docile and “on the Democratic plantation” by voting for welfare handouts, so that we can corner the black vote. So it doesn’t make a lot of sense that we’d be trying to kill off the black population at the same time. Maybe we should be re-thinking this. ;-(

  18. Sondra  •  Aug 15, 2015 @8:39 am

    Many years ago I was a sales rep. for a company that sold neonatal equipment to major hospitals in the New York/New Jersey area and I spent a lot of time in NICUs doing in-service training.

    I once asked the nurses in those units about their neonate infant mortality rates and they told me that the white babies survived better than the black babies and that white baby girls survived better than white baby boys and black baby boys: black baby girls survived better than black baby boys.

    I don’t remember if black and white baby girls had different survival rates, but in general the girls did better. The nurses didn’t know why these rates of survival happened, they just knew that they did.

    I can’t speculate either because all of those babies received the same care in those hospitals with outstanding NICUs: and there weren’t that many BTW.

    I guess if you are pregnant you should hope to be carrying a girl because they seem to have a greater will to live.

2 Trackbacks



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile