Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to be below a certain poverty level to get Medicaid; many working poor do not qualify.
And I'd guess that poor prenatal care, combined with other lifestyle factors would increase the preterm birth rate, as well as increasing the rate of stillbirth and unhealthy babies.
Here are a few causes of preterm births:
Domestic violence (including physical, sexual or emotional abuse)
Lack of social support
Extremely high levels of stress
Long working hours with long periods of standing
Exposure to certain environmental pollutants
I think a lot of the "infant mortality rate" has to do with a society that tries to SAVE babies that clearly are unsaveable. Clearly, there are times when you just have to accept the fact that it is a MISCARRIAGE and not a "premature birth". I think a lot of countries who don't pump GAZILLIONS of dollars into neonatal units that have to be PAID FOR by the blood of babies that are only five or six months into gestation, just let them go. Peacefully, instead of being hooked up to 15 different monitors; not to mention undergoing every possible kind of "procedure" before eventually dying.
20yrsinBranson
You thought wrong.
The majority of preterm births occur during a gestational period when the baby could easily be saved.
Quote:
More than 70 percent of premature babies are born between 34 and 36 weeks gestation.
Quote:
About 12 percent of premature babies are born between 32 and 33 weeks gestation, about 10 percent between 28 and 31 weeks, and about 6 percent at less than 28 weeks gestation.
Lol, the op is clueless. Infant mortality is a useless statistic since each country uses a different methodology for it's calculation. Comparing US infant mortality to Cuba's is like comparing apples to bowling balls.
"But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think.* The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations.* The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16** While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not.* Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17** This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure."
There are places in America where the unthinkable is happening — too many babies are dying. In most cities, black babies are dying at three times the rate of white babies. That’s what’s happening in Memphis, Tennessee, the city with the nation’s highest rate of infant mortality. A baby dies there on average every 43 hours.
Why Does The US Appear to Have Higher Infant Mortality? (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/why-does-the-us.html - broken link)
August 21, 2008, 9:11 am
I am sure you have seen various rankings where the US falls way behind other western nations in terms of infant mortality. This stat is jumped on by the left as justification for just how cold and heartless America is, and just how enlightened socialized medicine must be. However, no one seems to bother to check the statistic itself (certainly the media is too incompetent to do so, particularly when it fits their narrative). Statistics like this that are measured across nations are notoriously unreliable, as individual nations may have different definitions or methods for gathering the data.
And, in fact, this turns out to be the case with infant mortality, a fact I first reported here (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/01/more_fun_with_s.html - broken link) (related post on medical definitions driving national statistics here (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/01/uncovering-some.html - broken link)). This week, Mark Perry links to an article further illuminating the issue:
The main
factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and
prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such
babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what
the numbers reveal. Low
birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birthâ€
statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates. According
to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a
premature baby weighing less than 500 kg is not considered a living
child.
But
in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live
births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered “unsalvageableâ€
outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily
high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews
U.S. infant mortality statistics.Norway
boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when
the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in,
Norway has no better survival rates than the United States….
In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth
(take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered
alive.
If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the
first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage†and
does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates….
Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since
2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g
(0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.
Hmm, so in the US we actually try to save low-birthweight babies rather than label them unsalvageable. Wow, we sure have a cold and heartless system here. [disclosure: My nephew was a very pre-mature, very low-birthweight baby who could have fit in the palm of your hand at birth and survived by the full application of American medical technology. He is doing great today]
SO WHAT IS THE SIMPLE ANSWER? The reason why the US has such a high infant mortality rate is we count every child who is born no matter how low their chance of survival is unlike other countries.
I wasn't aware of a different standard between countries reporting, but I'd like to see documentation on that.
There isn't.
The link posted in Post #8 is from The National Center for Public Policy Research a conservative think tank which is biased and the purpose of which is propaganda.
Here is reliable information on how infant mortality is calculated by the World Health Organization:
Quote:
Neonatal deaths account for a large proportion of child deaths. Mortality during neonatal period is considered a good indicator of both maternal and newborn health and care.
Definition
Number of deaths during the first 28 completed days of life per 1,000 live births in a given year or period.
Neonatal deaths may be subdivided into early neonatal deaths, occurring during the first seven days of life, and late neonatal deaths, occurring after the seventh day but before the 28 completed days of life.
Quote:
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life - e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles - whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.
WHO | Health Status Statistics: Mortality (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indneonatalmortality/en/ - broken link)
Lol, the op is clueless. Infant mortality is a useless statistic since each country uses a different methodology for it's calculation. Comparing US infant mortality to Cuba's is like comparing apples to bowling balls.
"But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think.* The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations.* The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16** While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not.* Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17** This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure."
That info is interesting, but not convincing. No way a minor variation in reporting procedures would catapult the US into 41st place in the world in infant mortality, unless that's where we deserve to be.
You are linking to a conservative think tank (ie, lobbyists for the insurance companies), so it is hardly unbiased information, either.
Keep soothing yourself by telling yourself this is just bad accounting but don't sell that to the rest of us.
You are clearly clueless, you can't compare apples and oranges. If we have strict definition of infant mortality and another country has a looser definition, you simply can't compare the 2.
You are clearly clueless, you can't compare apples and oranges. If we have strict definition of infant mortality and another country has a looser definition, you simply can't compare the 2.
Apparently the US has different definitions and measurements between states and ethnic groups.
Quote:
Variations in infant mortality rates among the states and between different racial and ethnic groups in this country are greater than the differences between the United States and many other countries. Black infant mortality rates, in particular, are exceptionally high, and the relative gap between black and white infant mortality rates has been increasing over time.
The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
