As you may have heard, maternal mortality is on the rise. According to Ina May in her new book, pregnant women today are two times more likely to die due to complications caused during pregnancy or birth, than our mothers were. In spite of Because of rising cesarean rates, rising induction rates, maternal health disparity between the classes, and spending more money on maternity care than any other country, more women are dying today due to pregnancy related ills than in the past 50 years. There’s a bill in the works to help with our growing problem, click here for more information.
Depressing? Possibly. But I have another idea:
According to Radical Doula in this article for colorlines, poverty, lack of prenatal care, and pre-existing conditions all contribute to the rise in maternal mortality. So, what if we reformed the maternity care system at the Medicaid level? Republicans want to cut the Medicaid program to save taxpayer money, but I have a better idea:
Why not make just make quality care more accessible and less expensive? How you ask? With midwives. Radical Doula advocates home birth as a solution, and I’m certainly not discounting that. But I also believe in meeting people where they’re at, and with 98% of women giving birth in a hospital, I don’t know if our society is quite ready for that big of a leap. While I think that home birth could, and should, be covered under Medicaid, I also think it’s more important to reform maternity care in the hospital setting. Here’s how I would do it:
Provide women with more options of health care providers in a hospital setting. Nationally, Medicaid lists Licensed Midwives, Certified Professional Midwives, and Certified Nurse Midwives, as licensed providers. However, currently, only 11 states recognize midwives as licensed providers under Medicaid. In Washington state, women on Medicaid were given the option of receiving prenatal care from Licensed Midwives, (LM), Certified Nurse Midwives (CNM), and Certified Professional Midwives (CPM). In doing so, the state saved $3.1 million dollars over two years (I can’t find a link to the study, but I’m pretty sure these were the numbers). I think by providing more options of quality care providers (i.e. midwives) to women on Medicaid, and providing incentives to physicians and hospitals to support midwifery care in their practices and in the hospitals, valuable taxpayer dollars can be saved.
In addition, midwives generally spend more time concerning themselves with the mother’s diet and emotional wellbeing than physicians do; both of which are crucial to a healthy mother and healthy baby. I have a hunch that this simple change could make a huge difference in the number of premature deliveries, cesarean sections, and breastfeeding success among mothers on Medicaid. (All of which mean lifetime health for both mother and baby and less money spent down the road on health care.)
I see midwives working with OB practices. When a Medicaid client calls her OB office of choice for her first prenatal visit, she visits with one of the midwives. The midwife assesses her initial condition, and then the woman has the opportunity to continue seeing the midwives, or see an OB. This would be true for normal, low risk pregnancies.. all but about <10% or so. The way I see it, there’s more caregivers to go around, no one is as over worked, stressed, or as tempted to just-do-a-section-and-deliver-the-baby-so-he/she-can-go-home-for-a-couple-of-hours-of-sleep-before-having-to-wake-up-again-and-go-back-to-work. It just. makes. sense. to offer midwifery care to low-risk, low-income women on Medicaid, doesn’t it?
Provide the option of group prenatal care to women on Medicaid. A recent study in Sweden found a possible link between maternal stress and cesarean section. This study looked at the link between chronic maternal stress and preterm deliveries. They found vast improvements simply by providing group prenatal care with a midwife. As the lovely Henci Goer pointed out:
Group prenatal care builds community and helps women feel more competent and confident, as shown by the trial’s other positive outcomes: women in group sessions were less likely to have suboptimal prenatal care, knew more about pregnancy, felt better prepared for labor, were more likely to initiate breastfeeding, and were more satisfied with their prenatal care. With social interventions, everyone wins, not just women spared a preterm birth. Best of all, there is NO downside to group prenatal care, no worries about adverse effects of treatment short- or long-term.
It hardly needs to be said that the cost of providing group prenatal care would be significantly lower than the cost of drugs to prevent preterm deliveries, or perform cesarean sections. And what could the associated risks be of providing such care? Go ahead, think of one!
Doula. Support. Medicaid should cover doula support for every woman on Medicaid. Having a doula present during labor significantly lowers the instance of cesarean section, vacuum/forceps delivery, and a need for pain medication. Women who have a doula during labor also have better success breastfeeding, and are more satisfied with their birth experience. Statistically, they have significantly shorter labors. This combined with lower instance of c-section means shorter hospital stays. Shorter hospital stays, less money spent on anesthesiologist, better breastfeeding, healthier mom/baby, all add up to money saved, immediately during birth, and in the long run. I hardly think a doula’s fee would be as costly as all of these savings.
I suspect implementing these changes to Medicaid care would mean a drastic decrease in maternal death, but even if none of these things helped, not even a little bit, what would be the harm done?
I also suspect that as more women catch wind of the quality care provided to women and families on Medicaid, they will begin to demand the same quality of care for themselves; and for good reasons! And again I will ask, why not? Call me naive, but could the “down side” to such an experiment really be as costly as the number of lives lost this year due to suboptimal care?
So I’ll ask again: how can we make this happen?

