Posted on 05/09/2006 7:23:46 AM PDT by ol painless
America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.
"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.
The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.
"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr. Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Save the Children report, released Monday, comes just a week after publication of another report humbling to the American health care system. That study showed that white, middle-aged Americans are far less healthy than their peers in England, despite U.S. health care spending that is double that in England.
In the analysis of global infant mortality, Japan had the lowest newborn death rate, 1.8 per 1,000 and four countries tied for second place with 2 per 1,000 — the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland and Norway.
Still, it's the impoverished nations that feel the full brunt of infant mortality, since they account for 99 percent of the 4 million annual deaths of babies in their first month. Only about 16,000 of those are in the United States, according to Save the Children.
The highest rates globally were in Africa and South Asia. With a newborn death rate of 65 out of 1,000 live births, Liberia ranked the worst.
In the United States, researchers noted that the population is more racially and economically diverse than many other industrialized countries, making it more challenging to provide culturally appropriate health care.
About half a million U.S. babies are born prematurely each year, data show. African-American babies are twice as likely as white infants to be premature, to have a low birth weight, and to die at birth, according to Save the Children.
The researchers also said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves likely contribute to the poor U.S. rankings. Those factors can lead to poor health care before and during pregnancy, increasing risks for premature births and low birth weight, which are the leading causes of newborn death in industrialized countries. Infections are the main culprit in developing nations, the report said.
Other possible factors in the U.S. include teen pregnancies and obesity rates, which both disproportionately affect African-American women and also increase risk for premature births and low birth weights.
In past reports by Save the Children — released ahead of Mother's Day — U.S. mothers' well-being has consistently ranked far ahead of those in developing countries but poorly among industrialized nations. This year the United States tied for last place with the United Kingdom on indicators including mortality risks and contraception use.
While the gaps for infants and mothers contrast sharply with the nation's image as a world leader, Emory University health policy expert Kenneth Thorpe said the numbers are not surprising.
"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well," Thorpe said. "What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases."
BULLFEATHERS
And add in the ones they kill on purpose....
What a stupid article.
The US newborn survival rate is low because we can detect problems in-utero, do a C-Section, and put the babies in NICU.
In other countries they die before birth, and are thus not counted.
Dumbies.
Wasn't this debunked before as a function of foreign hospitals reporting any infant death within a certain period after birth as a stillbirth while US hospitals would report a live birth and then an infant death? I will do a little research in a bit...
See post 5.
and yet... whenever some dictator gets sick where do they come for medical care? the US.
This article is BS.
If we're tied with England, how did these geniuses determine that lack of national health care was the problem?
I'm getting about sick of these idiotic studies that insult our intelligence all to drive an agenda of national healthcare.
The high infant mortality rate can be linked directly to the crack whores, and I don't want to become any more financially responsible for their bad decisions than I already am.
Certainly not all infants who die are the offspring of drug addicts, but a truthful look at it would show that a sizeable percentage are, IMO.
What's "culturally appropriate" health care? Voodoo priestesses and medicine men?
How many babies per thousand do we kill intentionally before birth?
What's "culturally appropriate" health care? Voodoo priestesses and medicine men?
They were trying to say nicely that it's hard to persuade Quonesha who spends her pregnancy drinking and smoking crack, and Imelda who spends her last month hiking across the desert so she can deliver an anchor baby here, that their choices may be leading to the deaths of their babies. You can't get good prenatal care that will save babies to mothers who are either drugged up or aren't even in the US at the time of conception, and in either case aren't eating properly or taking prenatal vitamins and getting ultrasounds.
We have got the best health care in the world here. If that were not the case, then rich Saudis and Englishmen wouldn't be coming here for medical care when they get cancer. Even poor people in this country have access to good FREE health care (if they choose to live near civilization). But you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force him to get good health care.
The strongest predictor of infant mortality is an unmarried mother. With a rapidly-increasing illegitimacy rate, of course we have higher infant mortality as well.
Third Worlders bringing us down again.
Very well said.
I thank God that I live in the US. My son was 2 months early and might have died if it were not for the state of the art NICU unit.
While your point is taken, the chart above has an interesting statistic --- "Mexicans" have a lower infant mortality than non-Hispanic whites.
Ergo, the "anchor-baby" issue dragging the statistics down is not the issue. (Not that there are not real problems with anchor babies, just not infant mortality.)
The big thing is this ENTIRE study is bogus. In the US more C-Section are performed to try to save early-term babies that would simply die (generally taking mom with him or her.).
"Third Worlders bringing us down again."
Not according to the post above. To the extent we have any problems (we don't --- the statistics are bogus, not accounting for NICU care in the US), the problems are home grown.
This report is way too vague for my blood. It looks like creative counting to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.