Some healthcare trivia: In the United States, what is the No. 1 reason people are admitted to the hospital? Not diabetes, not heart attack, not stroke. The answer is something that isn't even a disease: childbirth.
Not only is childbirth the most common reason for a hospital stay -- more than 4 million American women give birth each year -- it costs the country far more than any other health condition. Six of the 15 most frequent hospital procedures billed to private insurers and Medicaid are maternity-related. The nation's maternity bill totaled $86 billion in 2006, nearly half of which was picked up by taxpayers.
But cost hasn't translated into quality. We spend more than double per capita on childbirth than other industrialized countries, yet our rates of pre-term birth, newborn death and maternal death rank us dismally in comparison. Last month, the March of Dimes gave the country a "D" on its prematurity report card; California got a "C," but 18 other states and the District of Columbia, where 15.9% of babies are born too early, failed entirely.
The U.S. ranks 41st among industrialized nations in maternal mortality. And there are unconscionable racial disparities: African American mothers are three times more likely to die in childbirth than white mothers.
In short, we are overspending and under-serving women and families. If the United States is serious about health reform, we need to begin, well, at the beginning.The problem is not access to care; it is the care itself. As a new joint report by the Milbank Memorial Fund, the Reforming States Group and Childbirth Connection makes clear, American maternity wards are not following evidence-based best practices. They are inducing and speeding up far too many labors and reaching too quickly for the scalpel: Nearly one-third of births are now by caesarean section, more than twice what the World Health Organization has documented is a safe rate. In fact, the report found that the most common billable maternity procedures -- continuous electronic fetal monitoring, for instance -- have no clear benefit when used routinely.
The most cost-effective, health-promoting maternity care for normal, healthy women is midwife led and out of hospital. Hospitals charge from $7,000 to $16,000, depending on the type and complexity of the birth. The average birth-center fee is only $1,600 because high-tech medical intervention is rarely applied and stays are shorter. This model of care is not just cheaper; decades of medical research show that it's better. Mother and baby are more likely to have a normal, vaginal birth; less likely to experience trauma, such as a bad vaginal tear or a surgical delivery; and more likely to breast feed. In other words, less is actually more.
The Obama administration could save the country billions by overhauling the American way of birth.
Consider Washington, where a state review of licensed midwives (just 100 in practice) found that they saved the state an estimated $2.7 million over two years. One reason for the savings is that midwives prevent costly caesarean surgeries: 11.9% of midwifery patients in Washington ended up with C-sections, compared with 24% of low-risk women in traditional obstetric care.
Currently, just 1% of women nationwide get midwife-led care outside a hospital setting. Imagine the savings if that number jumped to 10% or even 30%. Imagine if hospitals started promoting best practices: giving women one-on-one, continuous support, promoting movement and water immersion for pain relief, and reducing the use of labor stimulants and labor induction. The C-section rate would plummet, as would related infections, hemorrhages, neonatal intensive care admissions and deaths. And the country could save some serious cash. The joint Milbank report conservatively estimates savings of $2.5 billion a year if the caesarean rate were brought down to 15%.
To be frank, the U.S. maternity care system needs to be turned upside down. Midwives should be caring for the majority of pregnant women, and physicians should continue to handle high-risk cases, complications and emergencies. This is the division of labor, so to speak, that you find in the countries that spend less but get more.
In those countries, a persistent public health concern is a midwife shortage. In the U.S., we don't have similar regard for midwives or their model of care. Hospitals frequently shut down nurse-midwifery practices because they don't bring in enough revenue. And although certified nurse midwives are eligible providers under federal Medicaid law and mandated for reimbursement, certified professional midwives -- who are trained in out-of-hospital birth care -- are not. In several state legislatures, they are fighting simply to be licensed, legal healthcare providers. (Californians are lucky -- certified professional midwives are licensed, and Medi-Cal covers out-of-hospital birth.)
Barack Obama could be, among so many other firsts, the first birth-friendly president. How about a Midwife Corps to recruit and train the thousands of new midwives we'll need? How about federal funding to create hundreds of new birth centers? How about an ad campaign to educate women about optimal birth?
America needs better birth care, and midwives can deliver it.
Jennifer Block is the author of "Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care."
What If This Is Not the End of Your Story?
2 days ago

8 comments:
I saw a doctor during my pregnancy and was *not* happy with my care. She didn't listen and was almost rude on several occasions. She ordered unnecessary tests and then refused to answer my legitimate questions about them. After being on bedrest for a month due to pre-term labor, she insisted I travel over 4 hours for a high-tech ultrasound. When I refused, she became so angry that I finally gave in. The doctors at the speciality clinic wanted to know why I was even there. "Your baby is healthy and you're about to deliver--why are you traveling?"
I asked to see a midwife instead of a doctor when I delievered and she was *wonderful.* Very calm, stayed with me, very reassuring.
I will not be seeing a doctor again for future pregnancies unless it becomes necessary.
Great article!
My dad started looking into these kinds of issues after both my sisters got pregnant. My family is very happy for the midwives, but also for the hospital that was there when one of my sisters needed an emergency c-section. I agree: Let's move toward midwives that help women, and leave the hospitals for the emergencies.
I hope good things come from this. Thanks for sharing!
~Luke
Good article Erin... so you doing a homebirth this time around then???
I'm meeting with a HB MW tomorrow... eeks!
I have had 3 HB's w/ a midwife and wouldn't have it any other way. My 4th child was a planned home birth, but when a prolapsed umbilical cord presented, we had to rush in for an emergency C-section. The dr who performed the C-section said that if we had not been planning a homebirth and my midwife had not been there when my water broke, the baby would have died in a few minutes. If we had been nest door to the hospital, we couldn't have gotten there in time.
Thanks for posting this!
And I will be keeping you in prayer as you prepare for birth!
What an interesting topic. As one who delivered 4 of my children via c-section (NOT by choice), I can appreciate the wisdom here.
When I here the term "elective" csection, I am often amazed because my early deliveries (vaginal births) were so much better and the recovery so much faster and enjoyable. Why anyone would CHOOSE a surical delivery is beyond me but I have met several women who do.
thank you so much for posting this article. i so wish that more women knew these things. i think it's so important to educate ourselves about these types of issues. so, thanks again!
so, was this article able to convince your husband to let you have a homebirth this time around? ;)
stacey
My sweet husband has said that there won't be a homebirth this time around, but I am thankful to be able to have a midwife in the hospital.
With the birth of my third, my OB was very disappointing. She ordered an epidural for me before I even made it to the hospital (which I am sure many find considerate and accommodating, but I did not want one and never asked for one), and during the delivery, she refused to let me try any other positions than flat on my back, and literally yelled at me when I requested otherwise. While both Joel and I ended up healthy and fine in the end, emotionally, it was a traumatic birth. My other OB births (the first 2) were not as bad, but also had many issues that weren't quite "right".
I delivered Nathan in a hospital with a midwife, and it was SUCH a difference. She let me follow my own time schedule, no waiting or hurrying, she let me use the bathroom when I needed, drink water, and even suggested different pushing positions when I was having trouble getting him to drop down. It was so relaxed and it felt like "my" delivery, rather than something someone was doing TO me. Nice and natural, as it should be (when possible). I was beyond grateful for my midwife and I'm looking forward to doing it again.
I expressed to my midwife at my last appointment that my real desire was to have a homebirth, and she said "well, we can't give you a homebirth, but we'll do everything we can to make it as much like one as possible" which I appreciated :-)
Erin, I had NO idea of these facts, and it is horrendous. Thanks for posting the article; I will post a link to it myself.
Post a Comment