posted May 09, 2006 01:53 PM              

Tuesday 09 May 2006, 16:20 Makka Time, 13:20 GMT

Only Latvia had a worse record among developed countries

Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback

America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among developed nations.

Among 33 industrialised nations examined in a new study, the United States tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly five per 1,000 babies.

Only Latvia had higher mortality figures, with six per 1,000, according to the report by the US-based Save the Children non-governmental organisation.

Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for Save the Children, said: "We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the healthcare they need."

Rankings were compiled based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.

Black women

Researchers have noted that the United States is more racially diverse and has a greater degree of economic disparity than many other developed countries.

They said providing culturally appropriate healthcare was thus more challenging.

"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"

Mary Beth Powers,
reproductive health adviser,
Save the Children

The report, which was released on Monday, also said a lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves probably contributed to the poor US rankings.

Other possible factors in the United States 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 black households, there are nine deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialised world.

One US paediatrician, Dr Mark Schuster, said: "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."

Schuster is Rand Co researcher and paediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.

Japan does best

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 two per 1,000 - the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland and Norway.

Still, it is the impoverished nations that feel the full brunt of infant mortality, since they account for 99% of the four 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.

Premature births

In the United States, about half a million babies are born prematurely each year, data show.

"What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive healthcare 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"

Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy expert at Emory University

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 lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves in the US can lead to poor health care before and during pregnancy.

These factors increase risks for premature births and low birth weight, which are the leading causes of newborn death in industrialised countries.

Infections are the main culprit in developing nations, the report said.

In past reports by Save the Children, US mothers' well-being has consistently ranked far ahead of those in developing countries but poorly among industrialised nations.

This year, the United States tied for last place with the United Kingdom on indicators including mortality risks and contraception use.

Lacking primary healthcare

While the gaps for infants and mothers contrast sharply with the nation's image as a world leader, Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy expert at Emory University, said the numbers were not surprising.

"Our healthcare system focuses on providing hi-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well.

"What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive healthcare 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."

posted May 10, 2006 05:58 PM              

The truth is that under Bush's leadership there are over 30,000,000 American children now without medical and dental insurance. Those are third world figures, Jwhop.

posted May 10, 2006 06:19 PM            

It's been one long whine and screech since Algore lost the election in 2000.

Now, you're blaming the President for US infant mortality rates...when the infant mortality rate is down...lower than under your leftist icon Commander Corruption.

You and other leftists went on the same kind of lying campaign before the last election to get the traitor Kerry elected. It did you no good then and it will do you no good in the fall elections either.

What leftist democrats don't get is that it's their radical leftist policies the American people reject....when leftist politicians have the decency to tell the truth about what they propose...which is almost never....tell the truth, that is.

Fact is Mirandee, you never miss an opportunity to screech against the President. You haven't come up with a thing to hang on Bush yet. Lies don't cut the mustard.

Too bad about that Mirandee because lies are only arrows democrats have in their quiver.

A national health care system...another Marxist wet dream. Then, we could all stand in line for 2 to 6 months waiting for an appointment to see good ole doc and die while waiting 2 to 6 months more for an appointment to see a specialist or waiting for treatment...just like Canada or Britain.

posted May 10, 2006 07:29 PM            

Some cultures are absolutely against abortion - so they will risk carrying a pregnancy to term even if there are genetic complications. Diet, environment and society also play into the program.

Let's be honest, many of the communities that are having the highest number of mortality rates here in the US also promote children out of wedlock and with multiple fathers. I am not being racists, the statistics are there and many members of the Hispanic and African American populations are trying to stop such problems.

In some areas the indigent population is provided with 100% welfare and medicare, yet they cannot seem to stop having children. Sad, but it's true. Other countries are strict about how their population must live (I doubt as many developed countries have such a horrid welfare system with crack babies and others) I have heard from a representative from Denmark that they too are starting to see a burden from the influx of immigrants into their country and how it is taxing their medical system.

In the study posted by Prox - Page 37 includes a paragraph that states the following: Mothers in lower socioeconomic levels with less education have found to be at a significantly higher risk of pre-term delivery, even when controlling other high risk factors such as weight prior to pregnancy, weight gain, alcohol and tobacco consumption, race, parity, and source of pre-natal care.

What do we do when it is a "genetic" thing that specific races may be predisposed to? What if medical care is only part of the answer? For example - it is obvious that education is important, so do we go into those areas and educate people on how to manage their health along with adequate health care.

What happens for those that are genetically predisposed to disorders that keep them from carrying a child to term? Do we tell them not to have children? Of course not, we can't dicate what people do with their bodies.

The next page goes further stating that newborn deaths are most common in states where women are less educated:

In Mississippi where only 70% or so of the females have a high school diploma or equivalent there is a mortality rate of 7 / 1000

Washington DC where the HS diploma and GED rate is close to 80% has almost 8-9/ 1000

According to the percentages on page 38, the US has a mortality rate of 4.8 deaths / 1000 births -but the rate for non-Hispanic blacks increases to 9.3 / 1000.

Australia found that Aborignal babies were twice as likely to be born of low birth rate or die within the first year compared to the rest of the population.

Sweden found that the risk of newborn death is 33% greater in the least socially advantaged areas compared to to the most advantaged areas.

In Belgium researchers found that mothers with low levels of education were much more likely to miscarry and suffer the death of a newborn.

The main point on Page 38 is the direct link between low education and high mortality rates.

Is an increase in Health care really the answer? Why do we have such a problem with education? More money that ever is being pushed through the system

BUT...

It has to start at home. Women in some communities are taught that they don't need an education (this is still HUGE in various cultures and I have seen with my own family - some are considered "sell outs" or "Trying to be too white" if you get your education.

Women are ridiculed for bettering ourselves, getting college degrees etc... in some cultures.

How do we change it? When I interviewed for a position at a place where troubled kids lived / went to school the main focus was on me being an educated woman that could not only serve as a role model for women / girls that are used to seeing their mothers in a subservient role.

I don't think this is as easy as taking money from the war and diverting into healthcare- especially since Education is the key link.

posted May 10, 2006 09:18 PM              

The Bush administration cut the funding of all the social programs that would help educate poor women and minorites. He cut funding for Head Start programs so that poor kids can no longer have free breakfasts or free lunches in school. He cut the funding for government programs such as Americorps which did address the social ills that you mentioned in your post, Pidaua.

All those social ills you mentioned does not change the fact that under his leadership over 30,000,000 American children are now without medical insurance due to legislation passed in favor of the health insurance companies and corporations. And that's just the children. It does not include all the elderly and employed workers now without health benefits.

Another fact in inner city life is that the abortion rate has increased under the Bush administration due to economic factors. The facts show that when people are employed abortion rates drop as it did under the Clinton administration even though he was in favor of abortion on demand. When people are not employed abortion increases. The extent of the people who have been hurt by Bush's policies depends largely on what part of the country you live in and what type of social circles you travel in. Those people who live in industrial areas have been hurt very severely by Bush's policies. The elderly have been hurt very badly by Bush's policies. The people in inner cities who are born into poverty and minority groups are always the first ones hurt.

We can deny the truth and the facts but doing that doesn't change them. We can look the other way and deny that the government leadership is not responsible for the social ills in this country and therefore under no obligation to help the needy, the children and the elderly but it doesn't change the moral obligation of the government leadership to do so one iota.

Bush chose to solely serve the 25% of Americans who own all the wealth in this country and in serving them he has ignored the needy, the children, the elderly, the social ills of this country and even gone beyond that to take away what little the majority of the working class people did have to enhance the wealth of that 25% he serves.

posted May 11, 2006 01:19 PM            

That's funny because I work in education now. In fact, I handle the grants and serve as the director of the education service agency for my county along side with all of our other AZ county reps.

The free breakfast and lunch program is alive and well. We have numerous schools here in my county that qualify to the free programs. The money goes directly to the school instead of being doled out through other services (such as solely through the health department). Incidently, the WIC program is also still thriving with free food for women / children (when I worked for BT, WIC was across from me).

Instead of just sending a huge wad of cash through the Feds and down to the State - which then went throug several avenues to deposit money to the schools - WE (each Local Education Agency or LEA) has more control over what we receive.

We have a Title III NCLB grant that provides money to each school based on the number of English Language Learners in each School. The money goes towards English Immersion programs (which each school and our county office offers at least 6 times a year for educators) SELP or AZELLA testing (which reviews the status of each student to see where they stand regarding English).

We also have hundreds of thousands (per county and district) that goes towards High Quality Teacher grants, Rural County grants, Seamless transition, etc...

In the end, the schools are not applying for the money - they WANT IT TO COME TO THEM instead of justifying why they need the money.

We always have a surplus because the districts (this is Nationwide) are not spending the money for the projects detailed in the funds or in the grants.

This isn't an administration problem- it can start at the County level with a Board of Supervisors group saying "Well, we realize that you have a US Dept of Education grant that will pay for you to go to a Spanish Immersion class to aid in you reaching Spanish Speaking kids BUT - YOU NEED TO TAKE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY or VACATION because we won't let you spend the grant for your time off.... even if the grant stipulates that you get reimbursed...etc.."

There is red tape on every level. When I met with our State Reps and Fed Reps they said "WE have MILLIONS in carryover because the counties and local Districts are NOT spending the grants or using the funds".

Even at our state meetings I hear people complain "God, why should I have to justify what the money will be spent for when that takes so much work?"

We all have to do it and how we do it is by showing that the programs are working. Comparing test data from one year to another, demonstrating a drop in drug use, or showing that children receiving free lunches are improving in the classrooms.

I tell my colleagues to see the BIG PICTURE. So many people think Money is wasted in Education - well, sometimes it is, with money being redirected or LEA's NOT showing where the money went.

So the money is pulled away and grants dissolve because if you can't prove how the money is working, then the State can't justify it to the Feds and the FEDS cannot justify it to the money source.. the TAXPAYERS...

In the meantime, many states have been given millions in funds to increase teacher's pay. My own state has been awarded money to go towards just that - BUT WE CAN'T GET IT PAST our own legislature (hopefully it will go through this year).

SO - how do we resolve all the money that is left over at the end of the year, sitting in Fed / State money pots because agencies didn't apply for it?

Would you like that money to be distributed indiscrimately without follow up or knowing that the students are actually benefiting?

The argument that this is just about poor minorities is wrong. All of our border counties house / feed / educate even our illegal immigrants, at a great cost to those immigrant / poor students that are here LEGALLY.

In Maryland they spent millions on the Reading by 8 or whatever age and even provided tutors to the inner city children. They had small classes, intense training, etc...

NOTHING brought up the scores ... they determined, through neighborhood interviews, that the culture did NOT support learning. Kids had their butts kicked for studying and not hanging with their homies.

How do we resolve that?

PS... as far as abortion vs Employment. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years. Abortion does NOT count when it comes to US mortality rates at all. If abortion did count and the numbers were as increased as you insinuate, why do we still see such an increase in the number of children born without fathers to mothers in the inner city?

According to the Dept of Labor- the actual employment numbers for African American grew while the jobless rate dropped. (let's also NOT forget the fact that we had Katrina which resulted in a large number of African Americans going without work - those numbers are not figured in at this time but are looked at separately) But in April it was found that 62.5% have already returned to the labor force.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Again,

I really not seeing how the availability of abortion in the poor areas affects the US Infant mortality rate or even enters into this argument.

SO many people complained that abortions were only available to rich white women, now healthcare has supplied it to all and people are still complaining.