Racism and lack of social services: The status of women's health care in the US

A recent publication from the Commonwealth Fund is the 2024 State Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care in which they rank all the states (plus DC) for how well that care is provided and the health status of women that results. The map below gives an overall sense (darker is worse), and the entire ranked list can be found in an interactive table in the document. 

The first thing that we see is that there are no real surprises. Massachusetts is at the top and Mississippi is at the bottom. The other top and bottom states are the usual suspects for almost anything that is beneficial to people, with the Northeast doing best and the old Confederacy doing the worst. There are always some minor shifts within those groups, and in this ranking we see that Louisiana* and South Carolina are only “worse than average” not in the “bottom performing states”, while disappointing to me, Arizona and New Mexico are in the lowest group. The reasons are a little different in different states; the Arizona legislature is (narrowly; we hope to flip it this year) controlled by Republicans who are as mean and nasty as those in the deep south. New Mexico is controlled by Democrats, but it is very poor. Poor is a big component of health status, and its fingerprints are all over this data on women’s health.  ‘Despite a small rebound in women’s life expectancy in 2022, it remains at its lowest since 2006,’ says the report.

Abortion care – access to it and the quality of it – has dominated the national political discussion. I don’t want to minimize it; it is incredibly important that women can have abortions, it is a privacy issue, and it will hopefully have major negative repercussions for the party whose agenda is to limit it. That the greatest restrictions on abortion are in the same states that have the worst women’s health status is neither a coincidence nor a surprise; the people who control these states and are anti-abortion are also racists and are unwilling to provide funds to improve the health standards of people who are women, minority, or poor – and especially all three. But it goes far beyond abortion:

For health outcomes, we measured all-cause mortality, maternal and infant mortality, preterm birth rates, syphilis among women of reproductive age, infants born with congenital syphilis, self-reported health status, postpartum depression, breast and cervical cancer deaths, poor mental health, and intimate partner violence.

Abortion is not the major component of poor reproductive health status. Maternal mortality rates are shockingly high in the southeast, and worst in the Mississippi Delta. The US overall does not do very well in this area, especially as it is the richest country in the world. Data from the CIA (!) shows that in 2020, the US maternal mortality rate overall was 21/100,000, tied with Lebanon, Grenada, and Malaysia and just slightly worse than the West Bank or (pre-war) Gaza Strip. This was (and remains) much higher than Canada (11), UK (10), and most of Europe, including eastern Europe at 5 or less! (Note, showing the same dramatic racist differences as in the US, Israel is at 3). Of course, this overall rate in the US is driven by the states with the highest rates, with the worst states having a range of 34.1-51.7! While this is largely the result of excessively high rates in minority women, it is worth noting that the maternal mortality rate for white women in the US is over 19!

 

This is a good time to discuss the segmentation of results for maternal mortality (and all-cause mortality, and really most things) by race or ethnicity. In the bizarre, perverted, and of course racist excuse provided by many (racists) for why the US’ maternal mortality is so high compared to civilized countries, it is often said “it’s the minorities that drive the rate up”. In addition to ignoring the excessively high rate for US whites (19) it is scarcely an excuse; indeed, it is an indictment. It is not only that the US, unlike civilized countries, does not provide health care for everyone, essentially free of charge at the time of service (that is, paid for by tax revenues, as well as costing a lot less because of the elimination of the incredible profits extracted by middlemen such as insurance companies in the US). It also provides lousy social services of all kinds, not ensuring, as civilized countries do, housing, food, and education for everyone. These (the “social determinants of health”) are even more important than medical care in creating improved health status. And, while other countries do spend much more money than we do on providing them, the total cost per capita is probably less than what the US spends on health care alone! Of course, much of the spending (particularly on social services and health care for the poor, like Medicaid) is on a state basis; that is why there are such differences between the Massachusetts’ and Mississippi’s in this Commonwealth Fund study. And what are the practices that work? Again, no surprise:

In our scorecard, states with the lowest rates of maternal mortality had:

·       more maternity care providers (Vermont #2, Connecticut #3)

·       fewer women with no prenatal care (Vermont #1, California #3, Connecticut #5)

·       fewer women with no postpartum checkups (Vermont #1)

·       fewer uninsured women ages 19–64 (Vermont #3)

 

It cannot be stated too strongly that public funds should support a public social safety net, not bloat the profits of private companies as they do here in the US! This is most well-documented for the piggish pharmaceutical industry and the entirely unnecessary (indeed, far worse than unnecessary, destructive and evil) for-profit health insurance industry, which I have discussed many times. But it is also the other parts of the health care industry, particularly delivery systems (e.g., hospitals). Yes, the for-profits, hospitals and nursing homes and other facilities, especially those run by corporations. But it is also the ostensible “non-profits”, which do their best to emulate for-profits by doing everything possible to exclude patients without insurance or with Medicaid, pay their CEOs (and other C-suite executives) exorbitant salaries, and channel huge earnings into subsidiaries that actually own or invest in for-profit enterprises! This is documented in Why many nonprofit (wink, wink) hospitals are rolling in money by Elisabeth Rosenthal (Washington Post, July 29, 2024) and discussed by Don McCanne in Health Justice Monitor ‘Not-for-profit care begets profits’. Dr. McCanne cites a study by KFF showing even a program providing “street medicine”, healthcare for the homeless, in California is making money by getting huge amounts of Medicaid funds. Providing health care to homeless people is a good thing, something we need more of. If I had my druthers, I would rather see them making money than huge “non-profit” hospital systems (or of course straight for-profits, although those at least pay taxes), but they shouldn’t be either.

In health care, and in all social service, all the public money should go to providing direct care (OK, maybe with a 2% overhead, like Medicare – but NOT Medicare (Dis)Advantage – has). Zero dollars should go to profits (or “excess” income that can be invested for profit), bloated salaries, and the like.

We have too many people, women and others, dying because of the lack of such care.

 

*Louisiana just put the two drugs used for medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, on its state’s controlled dangerous substances list, like narcotics. So look for LA’s ranking to drop!

US Maternal Mortality Rate Exemplifies Moral Bankruptcy of Our Health System

My friend, Dr. Don Frey, recently published America’s DWP Crisis: Dying While Pregnant (DWP) on his blog, “A Family Doctor Looks at the World”. It leads with shocking and distressing statistics about the US maternal mortality rate, which has long been the highest in the “developed world” and has been steadily increasing. Citing a recent article in JAMA, Trends in State-Level Maternal Mortality by Racial and Ethnic Group in the United States (LG Fleszar, AG Bryant, CO Johnson, July 3, 2023), he  points out that in the 20 years from 1999 to 2019 US maternal mortality more than doubled (it actually went up 2.5 times):

In every corner of the country, for every ethnic group, outcomes worsened.  By 2019, deaths per 100,000 pregnancies (the benchmark measure) had increased from 12.7 to 32.2.  For Black and American Indian women, the picture was much worse.  Their mortality skyrocketed to 55.4 and 49.2, respectively.

And this doesn’t even include deaths from accidents and homicide – the latter being the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in the US!

Let’s stop and think about that. In the rest of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, = wealthy) countries maternal mortality is going down. For the most recent reported years, it ranges from about 1.6 to 8.8, with most below 5. When we were at 12.7 we were way out of the picture. Now we are at 32.2! And our rates for minority women are like poor countries! Even though the maternal mortality rate is high and rising for all races and ethnicities, it is made even higher by the ridiculously high rates for some populations. In what conceivable way could this be compatible with the US having “the best healthcare in the world”, or anything approaching it? Only if you accept the definition of “well, the best healthcare is available for some people, who can afford it, but not even for most Americans”.

Dr. Frey points to several reasons why our “DWP” (and our dying-while-recently-pregnant, ie, post-partum) rate is so high, and they are valid, and addressing them would certainly significantly lower it. The major one is what we often refer to as “the social determinants of health”. This is a fine term, except it has almost become routine to cite them while we, as a country, continue to do little or nothing to address them. People are much more likely to have poor health status if they are financially poor, poorly nourished, poorly housed, poorly educated and live with ongoing danger and the fear that comes from it. And when those bad things happen in childhood, their risk continues higher for the rest of their lives. We call this “ACEs”, Adverse Childhood Events, and the higher number and degree of ACEs, the worse the outcome for not only those children but for the adults that they will become. Thus a person who grew up poor is likely to have worse health status as an adult than a neighbor who did not grow up poor, even if they end up with similar incomes and lifestyles. In addition to the ACEs that have their origin in poverty, there are others, ranging from growing up in a family with adults who abuse alcohol and other drugs, to parents’ divorce, to death of a parent, to physical and sexual abuse, that can occur in any socioeconomic group.

Dr. Frey also cites the number of states that have passed – and implemented – “anti-woman” laws, usually under the guise of being “anti-abortion”. While the legislators who propose and vote for them, and the state governments implementing them, would deny that they are anti-woman, the facts speak otherwise. A good example that Dr. Frey discusses, is

Last year in Missouri, for example, the legislature debated whether to outlaw surgery for ectopic pregnancies (an embryo that implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), even though such pregnancies are 100% non-viable.  Apparently, the near-certainty of a mother’s tubal rupture, internal bleeding, sepsis, and death, wasn’t particularly important.

That law has not passed (so far) but many others have so limited access to abortion that women have to travel very far, have waiting periods, get illegal abortions, and otherwise risk their lives. Despite the ostensible justification for anti-abortion laws is to protect the “unborn”, the result is to increase the risk to fetuses, newborns, and their mothers. Dramatically.

There are also medical and healthcare factors that contribute to the maternal mortality rate in this country. As much as the social determinants of health, and anti-abortion anti-woman laws, contribute to the problem, medical care can make a difference. But too many women are not able to access good medical care for their pregnancies and births, in the prenatal and especially in the post-partum period. Among the important factors are the number and type of providers, geographic distribution of those providers, preference of providers for the kind of care that they want to do (or not do), and the ownership of practices and hospital by corporations that are interested mainly in money-making.

Let’s look at providers. Usually we think of obstetricians (OB-GYNs) as the people who deliver babies. And they do. Or at least many of them do. Actually, a minority, decreasing in % as they age. Doing gynecologic surgery is much more lucrative, and doesn’t require getting up at all hours to do deliveries. Plus, like most specialists, they are concentrated in urban (but not poor or inner-city) and suburban areas. So access to them is limited, especially geographically and financially. Certified Nurse-Midwives (CNMs) and family physicians also deliver babies, but often have the same “lifestyle” disincentives. Nurse-midwives are by definition about delivering (or “catching”) babies but usually are subservient to the dictates of the OB-GYN community. OBs probably do not mind if CNMs -- or family physicians -- deliver babies where the OBs do not want to be (rural and inner-city areas) but training programs may not have enough deliveries to allow them to learn. While nurse-midwives are a separate profession, their training may not strongly encourage them to assert themselves in practice.

And there is huge gap is in post-partum care. It is not uncommon for OBs (and, perhaps, others) to believe their job is done when the baby emerges, or at least when the woman is discharged. But as Dr. Frey’s piece points out, a very large number of maternal deaths take place in the post-partum period, up to 6 weeks after delivery, from bleeding, infection, and other causes that could be identified with the kind of close follow-up that too frequently does not occur. Not to mention identifying the risks for homicide (and suicide) in the situation in which the women lives.

Finally, but far from least important, is the structure of the medical care system. I have written extensively in previous blog posts about how hospitals and medical practices are run as businesses, to make money, rather than as facilities dedicated to improving the health of communities and the people in them. Birth, and the accompanying circumstances including maternal mortality, make a particular case. The businesses, as well as the physicians who work for them, are interested mainly in providing care when and where it is relatively easy and most profitable. This is understandable, but it is unacceptable. It is, at bottom, the cause of all the other problems. Receiving care for childbirth –including the prenatal and postpartum periods, as with all necessary medical services, should not be treated as luxury goods.

It may be OK that some people have a Lexus or Tesla, others a Toyota or Chevy, and still others an old clunker, while many have to walk or ride the bus. But it is not ok for healthcare, and specifically not childbirth. Women need to have access to excellent care no matter how much money they have or where they live.

That they do not is yet another indictment of a system built on profit rather than health.

Maternal mortality in the US and UK: Why do we tolerate paying so much more for so much worse outcomes?

Last year, ProPublica, in association with NPR, published Why Giving Birth Is Safer in Britain Than in the U.S. In typical journalistic style, it starts by grabbing your attention with a case report of a woman in England who almost died of post-partum hemorrhage, but did not. The lesson is presumably that she did not because the physicians, midwives, and others attending her followed a rigorous set of established protocols for addressing post-partum hemorrhage that are implemented nationally in the UK.

Of course, there is a possibility that this individual woman could have died, or had to undergo more invasive surgical procedures further down the protocol’s algorithm, but the real point is that, overall, the system is working. The evidence is in that the maternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 women delivering) is 8.9 in Britain, while in the US the rate in 2015 was 25.1, three times that of the UK! What makes this more dramatic is that the disparity has developed only since 1990; until then the maternal mortality rates in the US and UK had been declining in parallel since the 1950s.

The article cites several reasons for this difference. One, a very important one, is that the UK collects data on maternal mortality nationally and develops guidelines based upon this data which are implemented nationally. In contrast, the US collects data at best by state, or even by hospital, and

There is no federal-level scrutiny of maternal deaths, and only 26 states have an established committee (of varying methodology and rigor) to review them. Nor do all U.S. hospitals routinely examine whether a death could have been avoided. Procedures for treating complications such as preeclampsia, and for responding to emergencies such as hemorrhage, vary from one doctor, hospital and state to the next.

This is true despite the fact that the methods used by the British to collect and analyze this data were developed in the US. While there has been a well-documented 30-year effort to improve quality and to reduce preventable deaths (a category into which most maternal mortality falls) in the US, led by such organizations as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and embraced by such other organizations as the American Hospital Association (AHA), National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA), the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (TJC), the National Academy of Medicine, and on and on, no compulsory national approach to this problem has developed. This reflects a common, and often knee-jerk, opposition to centralized approaches to almost everything, even when they have been determined to have an important effect on reducing death. It is actually parallel to efforts within hospitals to standardize care, to require, for example, all surgeries to go through a series of prescribed steps (“timeouts”) before operating, or limiting the number of different devices implanted to those needed by different types of patients rather than by the preference of the individual surgeon (for an interesting discussion, see A. Gawande, “Big Med”, New Yorker, August 13, 2012). That is, it is effective where it has been done, but it is not mandated to be done everywhere and comprehensive national data is not even collected.

Another big part of the successful UK approach to the reduction of maternal mortality has been collecting detail on what happened and why; this goes beyond “there was a death”, or “there was a death from hemorrhage”, or “there was a death from sepsis”, to identifying why it happened, particularly if the reason was something that is relatively easily addressed. Marian Knight, head of MBRRACE-UK, the group that collects the data and makes the guidelines, says

It’s all very well to know a woman died of sepsis, but to know that she died of sepsis because nobody measured her temperature, as they had no thermometers on the postnatal ward, that’s where the instruction Put a thermometer on your postnatal ward might make a difference. It’s not just the what, it’s the why.

Can you believe that there might be post-partum units where there is no thermometer? Apparently it has happened. And having a rule that it must be present is a way of preventing it from happening again.

There are at least three other important dimensions. One is that, as the report states, “These U.S. deaths are not spread equally. Women who are poor, African American or live in a rural area are more likely to die during and after pregnancy.”  This is not a big surprise.  Poor women, minority women, rural women, and uninsured women do much worse, and are much more likely to die from complications of delivery. It is the familiar song in the US, as in so many areas, of health and of every aspect of society. Is it not true in Britain? The article goes on to say

In the U.K., while inequalities persist when it comes to serious complications, according to 2012-2014 data, there is no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between women in the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups. All British women have equal access to public medical services, including free care and prescriptions from pregnancy through the postpartum period.

This also has two components; the greater equity of the quality of healthcare delivered to all segments of the population, a result of having a national health care system, and less disparity in the “social determinants of health”, the actual quality of the lives of people (women, in this case) before they access care. Especially for rural women, some of the problem the lack of an adequate number of health professionals. Over 20 years ago, family medicine residencies in Texas were surveyed and only a small percent of residents were interested in providing rural obstetric care, but no OB/Gyn residents were! This has not improved; while a recent study published by Tong, et al., in Family Medicine (Characteristics of Graduating Family Medicine Residents Who Intend to Practice Maternity Care) found that 22% of FM residents planned to deliver babies, they cite his 2012 study that showed that only 9.1% of FM residency graduates were delivering babies 1-10 years out into practice despite an intention to do so of 24%, comparable to the current study.

Another dimension is that the difference in maternal mortality reflects a greater focus on the health – and life -- of the pregnant woman in Britain, while in the US the focus is more on the health of the fetus and the newborn. This goes far beyond the issue of abortion, although the focus on children rather than women is one that is also characteristic of the anti-choice movement in the US. It is so deeply ingrained in our culture that even many health professionals (including midwives, doctors, and nurses) who see themselves as “pro-choice” and would never want to see a maternal mortality, are still more focused on the fetus and baby. It results in a practice, if not a belief, that considers the woman but a vehicle for producing a child.

Finally, there is cost, ironically but again unsurprisingly much higher in the US. Much higher. The total cost for a normal vaginal delivery in the US is about $30,000, and about $50,000 for a Caesarean section. In Britain, the cost for a normal vaginal delivery or planned Caesarean is about $2500, or less than 1/10^th the cost in the US, perhaps rising to $3400 for complicated cases (such as the one that leads off the article). Thus, the US charges far more, but has much worse outcomes for maternal mortality (as for many other conditions). This is not a side note; it is not just an interesting contradiction that our care costs more but has worse outcomes. And it is not by any means limited to pregnancy care or maternal mortality, but is present in our healthcare system at almost all levels and for most conditions. What ties these two components, cost and quality, tightly and inversely together, is that our “healthcare system” is only secondarily about delivering quality healthcare, and primarily about being a profit-making business.

So, that is the bottom line. The US has three times the maternal mortality rate of the UK despite charging ten times as much for delivery. The reasons are the absence of a national strategy to identify and remedy the causes of maternal mortality and the lack of a national healthcare system to provide the access necessary for women at risk. It causes the suffering and death to disproportionately affect those women who are already at greatest risk: the poor, minority, rural, and uninsured. The root cause is that our healthcare system is composed of poorly interconnected components, most of which are run as businesses to make money.

It is inequitable, and it is irrational from a health perspective if not from a business one. It causes unnecessary death and excessive cost, and seems to not be improving. It is not acceptable. We need to change it.