-
How the United States Ranks
- Jul 15, 2009 at 6:34 PM
- By
- Comments (6) Total Views (126) Everyone can see this journal post.
HOW THE UNITED STATES RANKS
There are precious few situations in life where the cheaper alternatives is also the better alternative - and maternity care is one. If we eradicated the unjustified obstetric monopoly in the United States, with its extreme medicalization of birth, and replace it with a humanized maternity care, we can vastly improve the care of women and babies, lower death rates for both women and babies, and save vast sums of money at the same time.
A few facts:
- Percentage of gross national product spent on health care
- 1966: 6 percent
- 1992: 12 percent
- Percentage by which U.S. health care expenditures exceed those of
- Canada: 40 percent
- Germany: 90 percent
- Japan: 100 percent
- The twenty-two countries with lower infant mortality rates than the U.S.: Japan, Sweden, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Scotland, Australia, Northern Ireland, Spain, England and Wales, Belgium, Austria, Italy.
- Percentage of countries with lower infant mortality rates than the US that provide universal prenatal care: 100 percent
- Percentage of US women who receive little or no prenatal care: 25 percent
- Chances that a woman with little or no prenatal care will give birth to a low-weight baby(less than 5.5lbs) or premature baby(less than 37wks): 1 in 2
- Factor most closely associated with infant death: low birth weight
- Percentage of infant deaths link to low birth weight: 60 percent
- Average cost of long-term care(through age 35) for a low-birth-weight baby: $50,5588
- Average cost of long-term care (through age 35) for a baby of average birth weight: $20,003
- Cost of newborn intensive care for one infant: $20,00 to $100,00
- Cost of prenatal care for thirty women: $20,000 to $100,000
- Percentage of births attended principally by midwives (CNM's and CPM's):
- United States: 10 percent
- European Nations: 75 percent
- Percentage of countries with lower infant mortality rates than the US in which midwives are principal birth attendants: 100 percent
- Average cost of a midwife-attendant birth in the US: $1,200
- Average cost of a physician-attended vaginal birth in the US: $4,200
- Health care cost savings obtainable by using midwifery care for 75 percent of pregnancies in the US: $8.5 BILLION per year
- Cost per year of using routine electronic fetal monitoring during every childbirth: $750 million
- Number of well-constructed scientific studies in which routine electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during every birth has been proven more effective than the simple stethoscope to monitor the fetal heart: zero
- Health care cost savings obtainable by eliminating the routine use of electronic fetal monitoring in every birth: $675 per year
- US C-section rate: 1965: 5 percent, 2004: 29.1 percent, 2007: 33.3 percent
- Cesaren section rate targeted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): 12 percent
- The eighteen industrialized nations and states with lower C-section rates than the US: Czech Rebubplic, Japan, Hungary, Netherlafnds, England and Wales, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Scotland, Bavaria, Australia, Canada.
- Percentage of women in the US with C-sections who undergo repeat c-sections today: 91 percent
- Ratio of women dying from C-section to women dying from vaginal birth: 4 to 1
- Average cost of a C-section birth: $7,826
- Health care cost savings obtainable by bringing the US C-section rare into compliance with recommendaton from WHO and the federal Department of Health and Human Services: $1.5 billion a year
Source: Born in the USA by Marsden Wagner,M.D. , 2006
Comments:
sharing this on fb :)
Wow- scary when it's all written out like that!!! Maybe we should change the lyrics of a certain song to "... and I'm ashamed to be an American." lol All joking aside, this is the reality and it's only getting worse. Pathetic.
Thanks Cindy. =)
great info but i think the one about prenatal care is misleading. When people think of "regular" prenatal care in this country, they think of going on the typical OB schedule (which most midwives also follow) but in those countries with lower infant mortality ratings where the majority of births are with midwives, they go for prenatal visits around 3-5 times the whole pregnancy. In this country, I don't believe that it's lack of prenatal "care" CAUSING 1 in 2 rate of problems in birth (for those who don't get prenatal care), it's a CORRELATION with the fact that most of those not getting prenatal care are poor, uneducated, and have poor nutrition (living on junk food or not getting enough food at all).
I understand how that when you take the profit motive out of the maternity care system it gets MUCH better, and being a woman of child-bearing age with daughters, this is a beautiful thing. On the other hand, the thought of the government taking over something that was otherwise private is kind of scary because if you read the marxist.org steps to changing a country communist, it is part of the steps. So <shutters> I am just worried about where this could lead. Possibly to China's one child only policy complete with forced abortions. Dear God I hope not. So let's say, "ok, but government, you must stop here!" Also, another thing that I am pondering is the incentives for making sure people have the care that they need to stay alive. So in other words, if you would die without regular whatever, where would be the incentive to keeping those people alive. IDK, pros and cons. That brings about the whole euthanasia issue another characteristic of communism. <Arg, I hate that word>
What do you think?
I agree. I think socialized health care with some checks and balances would be good. Also if we had somone OBs, Midwives and hospitals had to report to.
Already a member? Click here to log in
Stay in touch with CafeMom wherever you are
:o) Thanks dear