No, it’s not. The US has long lagged behind other industrialized nations in key health statistics, and our relatively high infant mortality rates periodically make headlines.
A very large part of it is due to the high number of premature babies we make heroic efforts to save. Other nations don’t put the same amount of resources into preemies as the US does, and if they’re not figured there’s nothing anamolous about our infant mortality.
Low birth weight is a primary cause of infant mortality, and black women are twice as likely to give birth to LBW infants, even when statistics are adjusted for socioeconomic status:
According to a study publicized in Science Daily, there’s no genetic basis for the discrepancy as African immigrant mothers have LWB rates comparable to whites:
Chronic high blood pressure and preeclampsia (gestational high blood pressure and swelling) are risk factors for preterm births. Obesity and a high sodium diet are risk factors for high blood pressure. Black women have higher obesity rates than white women, but not twice as high. Moreover, Hispanic women have higher obesity rates but lower LBW rates and they receive comparable prenatal care, so obesity and poverty alone cannot explain the high LWB for black women. It is probably diet that explains the difference.
The US may make heroic efforts to save preemies, but our LWB rates are significantly higher than in other countries to begin with. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. WWe Americans pay for our crappy diet on so many levels.
I have no doubt that the US makes a heroic effort to save premature babies, but I don’t think that Canada, the UK, and Australia are especially notable for not making similar efforts.
It should still prompt us to wonder the following: Are there racial or income disparities when it comes to rates of infant survival in the US? How about for the rate of premmies who are saved versus those who are not?
I’m somewhat skeptical about these kind of statistics - and they are sometimes twisted and distorted just to slam the United States - but if there are clear income or racial disparities when it comes to education, crime, and other areas in America, why should healthcare - including infant mortality - be any different?
“I’m somewhat skeptical about these kind of statistics - and they are sometimes twisted and distorted just to slam the United States - but if there are clear income or racial disparities when it comes to education, crime, and other areas in America, why should healthcare - including infant mortality - be any different?”
Spot on, gvi. If such stats are indeed true (and not skewed for effect), it is worth finding out the reasons and seeing if there are ways to correct the problems, but if it’s just another excuse to bash the US and to trumpet the wonders of socialist ways of doing things, then such articles need to be countered or ignored. The American health system obviously has alot of problems, but as a friend noted, the US health system is likely the best in the world. The only problem is that it is very expensive and not everyone is covered.
“According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.”
“Switzerland, for instance, doesn’t count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.”
…
“Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, economist John Goodman and others in their 2004 book, ‘Lives at Risk,’ conclude, ‘Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low-birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development].’ Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same.”
“A very large part of it is due to the high number of premature babies we make heroic efforts to save. Other nations don’t put the same amount of resources into preemies as the US does, and if they’re not figured there’s nothing anamolous about our infant mortality.”
If “heroically saved” preemies who later died were a major factor explaining the discrepancy between US infant mortality and that of other industrialized countries, those other countries would have significantly higher rates of perinatal morality (late fetal deaths from 22 completed weeks of gestation to seven days after birth, which overlaps slightly with infant mortality) coming from the fetuses that were not saved from heroic means.
But the perinatal mortality rate is nearly the same among these industrialized countries (most industrialized countries are around 5, 6, or 7 per 1000, with the US at 7):
Nice try on blaming the liberals. Did it occur to you that maybe the problem is with the American definition? Was it thought up by conservative politicians who saw it as a step towards passing laws that would state that life begins at conception? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were so.
Wedge, I don’t think its a matter of “throwing money” at healthcare (the US already spends an incredible amount per capita) - its about making sure its delivered fairly. Which it isn’t.
I had my own experience with the US health”care” system when I was there. I busted my knee badly skiing, caught a bus to the local town, went to the hospital on a ski pole crutch and got told at the counter that they wouldn’t even see me because I didn’t have my insurance papers on me. I was in distress, my knee had blown up like a melon, and I had to walk back outside in a blizzard, catch a bus back to my apartment, then return to the hospital with my documents. A doctor saw me, I got a shiny new brace and some medication, and they gave my insurance company a bill that could have fed a small african nation for a year.
I posted a comment on this last night, but the links must have gotten it caught in the spam trap. I’ll post again sans links.
Low weight births account for 20% of all infant deaths. Black women are twice as likely as white women and Hispanic women to give birth to LBW infants. This is true for women in all socioeconomic groups. High blood pressure and preeclampsia (gestational high blood pressure and swelling) are risk factors for LWB, and obesity is a risk factor for both of these health conditions. Black women have an obesity rate of 40% compared to 35% for Hispanic women and 30% for white women. Hispanic women have LBW rates closer to white women than black women, suggesting obesity is not the only factor in determining LBW risk. It’s not genetic because a study comparing African immigrant women and US-born black women showed that African women have LBW rates comparable to white women, not black women.
I think the other factor is diet. Native-born Americans eat a diet high in processed foods, which are nutrient-poor and usually high in sodium. This is especially true for poor people. Hispanics have a larger share of immigrants than other population groups, and a healthier traditional diet of unrefined foods probably explains why Hispanic LBW rates are almost as low as white LBWs despite the fact that Hispanic women are heavier.
IMHO, Sonagi has an very important issue and that is the role of diet, especially if it is a poor one. America has a very bad food culture that is largely determined and driven by the food industry. As most people who live abroad in Korea, Japan or other countries that have an older and better food culture, the first thing that one notices upon returning to the U.S. are the number of obese people everywhere.
One notes the increasing amount of information that confirms that diet plays a major role in good health (and exercise) and reading through just the posted health notes in major newspapers, it is more obvious that processed foods contribute greatly to health problems such as the use of high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks and its statistical link to obesity in the U.S. (since 1973) or problems now associated with additives like sodium nitrates, hydrogenated fats, etc. These are the sort of additives one finds in cheaper foodstuff, which most Americans eat, especially if they have not the money to buy better food. Even then, many of these additives have become endemic in the food industry.
The above, combined with a growing healthcare coverage problem ($$$) may be the best explanation for this odd statistic.
Korea News via Google
12 Comments
No, it’s not. The US has long lagged behind other industrialized nations in key health statistics, and our relatively high infant mortality rates periodically make headlines.
A very large part of it is due to the high number of premature babies we make heroic efforts to save. Other nations don’t put the same amount of resources into preemies as the US does, and if they’re not figured there’s nothing anamolous about our infant mortality.
This article gives a little more information about the problem.
Low birth weight is a primary cause of infant mortality, and black women are twice as likely to give birth to LBW infants, even when statistics are adjusted for socioeconomic status:
http://www.reuters.com/article.....geNumber=1
According to a study publicized in Science Daily, there’s no genetic basis for the discrepancy as African immigrant mothers have LWB rates comparable to whites:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173400.htm
Chronic high blood pressure and preeclampsia (gestational high blood pressure and swelling) are risk factors for preterm births. Obesity and a high sodium diet are risk factors for high blood pressure. Black women have higher obesity rates than white women, but not twice as high. Moreover, Hispanic women have higher obesity rates but lower LBW rates and they receive comparable prenatal care, so obesity and poverty alone cannot explain the high LWB for black women. It is probably diet that explains the difference.
http://www.statehealthfacts.or.....&cat=2
http://obesity1.tempdomainname....._Pop.shtml
The US may make heroic efforts to save preemies, but our LWB rates are significantly higher than in other countries to begin with. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. WWe Americans pay for our crappy diet on so many levels.
I have no doubt that the US makes a heroic effort to save premature babies, but I don’t think that Canada, the UK, and Australia are especially notable for not making similar efforts.
It should still prompt us to wonder the following: Are there racial or income disparities when it comes to rates of infant survival in the US? How about for the rate of premmies who are saved versus those who are not?
I’m somewhat skeptical about these kind of statistics - and they are sometimes twisted and distorted just to slam the United States - but if there are clear income or racial disparities when it comes to education, crime, and other areas in America, why should healthcare - including infant mortality - be any different?
“I’m somewhat skeptical about these kind of statistics - and they are sometimes twisted and distorted just to slam the United States - but if there are clear income or racial disparities when it comes to education, crime, and other areas in America, why should healthcare - including infant mortality - be any different?”
Spot on, gvi. If such stats are indeed true (and not skewed for effect), it is worth finding out the reasons and seeing if there are ways to correct the problems, but if it’s just another excuse to bash the US and to trumpet the wonders of socialist ways of doing things, then such articles need to be countered or ignored. The American health system obviously has alot of problems, but as a friend noted, the US health system is likely the best in the world. The only problem is that it is very expensive and not everyone is covered.
Nice try, but this is a major liberal myth cited by those who want to throw more money at health care. Here’s a better explanation:
http://archive.newsmax.com/arc.....4540.shtml
“According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.”
“Switzerland, for instance, doesn’t count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.”
…
“Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, economist John Goodman and others in their 2004 book, ‘Lives at Risk,’ conclude, ‘Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low-birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development].’ Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same.”
“A very large part of it is due to the high number of premature babies we make heroic efforts to save. Other nations don’t put the same amount of resources into preemies as the US does, and if they’re not figured there’s nothing anamolous about our infant mortality.”
If “heroically saved” preemies who later died were a major factor explaining the discrepancy between US infant mortality and that of other industrialized countries, those other countries would have significantly higher rates of perinatal morality (late fetal deaths from 22 completed weeks of gestation to seven days after birth, which overlaps slightly with infant mortality) coming from the fetuses that were not saved from heroic means.
But the perinatal mortality rate is nearly the same among these industrialized countries (most industrialized countries are around 5, 6, or 7 per 1000, with the US at 7):
http://www.who.int/making_preg.....onatal.pdf
#6,
Nice try on blaming the liberals. Did it occur to you that maybe the problem is with the American definition? Was it thought up by conservative politicians who saw it as a step towards passing laws that would state that life begins at conception? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were so.
Wedge, I don’t think its a matter of “throwing money” at healthcare (the US already spends an incredible amount per capita) - its about making sure its delivered fairly. Which it isn’t.
I had my own experience with the US health”care” system when I was there. I busted my knee badly skiing, caught a bus to the local town, went to the hospital on a ski pole crutch and got told at the counter that they wouldn’t even see me because I didn’t have my insurance papers on me. I was in distress, my knee had blown up like a melon, and I had to walk back outside in a blizzard, catch a bus back to my apartment, then return to the hospital with my documents. A doctor saw me, I got a shiny new brace and some medication, and they gave my insurance company a bill that could have fed a small african nation for a year.
I posted a comment on this last night, but the links must have gotten it caught in the spam trap. I’ll post again sans links.
Low weight births account for 20% of all infant deaths. Black women are twice as likely as white women and Hispanic women to give birth to LBW infants. This is true for women in all socioeconomic groups. High blood pressure and preeclampsia (gestational high blood pressure and swelling) are risk factors for LWB, and obesity is a risk factor for both of these health conditions. Black women have an obesity rate of 40% compared to 35% for Hispanic women and 30% for white women. Hispanic women have LBW rates closer to white women than black women, suggesting obesity is not the only factor in determining LBW risk. It’s not genetic because a study comparing African immigrant women and US-born black women showed that African women have LBW rates comparable to white women, not black women.
I think the other factor is diet. Native-born Americans eat a diet high in processed foods, which are nutrient-poor and usually high in sodium. This is especially true for poor people. Hispanics have a larger share of immigrants than other population groups, and a healthier traditional diet of unrefined foods probably explains why Hispanic LBW rates are almost as low as white LBWs despite the fact that Hispanic women are heavier.
IMHO, Sonagi has an very important issue and that is the role of diet, especially if it is a poor one. America has a very bad food culture that is largely determined and driven by the food industry. As most people who live abroad in Korea, Japan or other countries that have an older and better food culture, the first thing that one notices upon returning to the U.S. are the number of obese people everywhere.
One notes the increasing amount of information that confirms that diet plays a major role in good health (and exercise) and reading through just the posted health notes in major newspapers, it is more obvious that processed foods contribute greatly to health problems such as the use of high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks and its statistical link to obesity in the U.S. (since 1973) or problems now associated with additives like sodium nitrates, hydrogenated fats, etc. These are the sort of additives one finds in cheaper foodstuff, which most Americans eat, especially if they have not the money to buy better food. Even then, many of these additives have become endemic in the food industry.
The above, combined with a growing healthcare coverage problem ($$$) may be the best explanation for this odd statistic.