TPMCafe
« Can You Believe It? Black President of the United States Gives Highest Honor to Gay Jew | Home | Pre-Existing Conditions »

Maybe We Need "Birth Panels"- Promoting Less Costly, Safer Births

user-pic
Yeah, we know the rightwing now officially believes that government should do nothing to restrain health care costs, since as we know rightwing politicians have been opposed to any cuts in funding of Medicaid or Medicare for years.  But at the risk of adding fuel to the fire, how about some birth panels to think about reducing the insane overuse of surgery for births in the United States?

C-sections during birth are the most common surgical procedures each year, with roughly half of them at deemed to be unneeded and potentially dangerous to other and child.  

So to encourage more natural childbirths, beginning this month, the state of Washington will pay hospitals the same amount for an uncomplicated C-section as for a complicated vaginal birth under its Medicaid reimbursement rules.  With half of all births in Washington paid for by Medicaid, this will likely have a significant impact in reducing unneeded C-sections in the state, saving money and potentially lives.

The Alarming Rise in C-Sections:  As the Washington State Department of Social & Health Services described in adopting new reimbursement rules to encourage more natural births, the problem of unneeded C-sections had been rising dangerously in recent years:

  • Nationally, the U.S. has seen a 50 percent increase in C-sections since 1996.
  • Washington state's C-section rates have jumped 60 percent in low-risk mothers.
  • Paralleling national trends, Washington State is approaching a 30 percent surgical birth rate.
  • Highlighting the arbitrary rise of the procedure, this rate varies between 15% and 48% at different hospitals.

Nationwide, the C-section rate is almost 32 percent, more than double what both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control say is necessary.  When the rate of C-sections rises above 10 to 15 percent, both the WHO and CDC find that the harm outweighs the benefits to mothers and babies.  So at least half of the approximately 22,000 C-sections performed each year in Washington are not only unnecessary, but also harmful.

Changing Incentives:  The new rules adopted will cut Medicaid reimbursements for uncomplicated C-sections from about $3,600 to around $1,000. Hospitals with high C-section rates will ideally be encouraged to change practices that have been unnecessarily driving up C-section rates.  Assuming no changes in C-section rates, the change in reimbursement rates will save the state close to $2 million and the federal government another $2 million.  But if the incentives decrease the total number of C-sections, the savings will be even larger.  And if adopted nationally, one analysis notes:

"With C-sections accounting for 45 percent of the $86 billion the U.S. spends on childbirth each year, lowering the C-section rate could go a ways toward paying for President Obama's goal of getting health coverage to everyone in the country."


Notably, developed countries with lower C-section rates (12% in the Netherlands and 18% in France) tend to have both lower infant mortality rates and spend less of their GDP on health care. 

These proposals are just part of Washington state taking the lead on childbirth reimbursement reforms.  By paying for home births attended by a licensed midwife, it has a rate of out-of-hospital birth double the national average, which a 2008 Department of Health cost-benefit analysis found resulted in good outcomes for mothers and babies and yielded a net savings to the government of about $250,000 per year from the reduced numbers of C-sections. 

Again, it's worth considering that in Europe, midwives assist at more than 70% of normal vaginal births, compared to midwives delivering just 7% of American babies in 2003-- again with lower costs and lower infant mortality in Europe compared to results in the United States.

13 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic


Picking up the legal costs for doctors that are sued for malpractice for failure to do a C section may be the shortest path to fewer C sections.

user-pic

Ah yes, the Medical Malpractice Myth. Which is why Texas, having passed some of the toughest restrictions of payments in medical malpractice suits in the country, still has some of the highest cost medicine in the country.

It's kind of a simple concept that a free market type should understand. If you pay doctors more to do C-sections than for doing a natural birth, you end up with more C-sections.

But sure, let's ignore Ocam's Razor and respond to a post on the subject of birth and bring up a rightwing hobbyhorse like medical malpractice. Can we expect Health Savings Accounts next? Or just scream "death panel" and skip an actual discussion on a cost control proposal.

user-pic

Pretending malpractice litigation costs play no part in this is just hiding your head in the sand. "Reality based" means looking at all the factors

"From 1991 to 2005, average malpractice rates increased from $50,345 to $126,806." That kind of increase is supposed to change behavior. That it does should not be a suprise.

user-pic

Okay, so let's look at evidence, say a basic
business journal on insurance issues on a study of the issue:

Contrary to popular belief, growth in malpractice payments was consistent with increases in health care spending between 1991 and 2003.

"The large jury awards that attract so much public attention actually are rare events and comprise a very small portion of all malpractice payments," said lead study author Amitabh Chandra of Dartmouth College. "They're certainly not key drivers of malpractice insurance increases." Instead, he and his colleagues argue that the increase in payments parallels the increase in health care spending.

So while doctors seem to believe that jury awards are driving up malpractice rates, there's little evidence that lawsuits are the culprit.
user-pic

Maybe we should pick up their greens fees for missed T-times.

user-pic

Please read your own quote.

"The large jury awards that attract so much public attention actually are rare events and comprise a very small portion of all malpractice payments..."


But those large awards are only part of the cost. Perhaps we should we just ignore completely the man behind the curtain, the increase in the number of suits, that all cost time and money to defend. You have done a nice job of knocking down a straw man.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) ... According to the 2003 ACOG survey, 76.3% of the membership have been involved in a lawsuit at least once in their professional career; the average malpractice lawsuit has lasted 4 years from the time of the event until completion ...

Further:

Many physicians have stopped practicing in the medical specialty area of obstetrics in the past 10 years. During this period of time there has been a significant increase in the number of malpractice claims against these practitioners.

user-pic

So-- I'm trying to figure out how the other 25% avoided a lawsuit at all. Angry, sick people sue-- most lose and a lawsuit extending for four years does not mean being in court for four years. It just means that medical cases have long timelines for the lawyers involved.

As for obstreticians as a group, most are wonderful people but the whole specialty is hardly considered the glamour division, and many have no doubt migrated to more lucrative specialties just as most general practioners have moved to the higher-paying specialties.

None of this refutes the basic reality that malpractice awards have not increased faster than overall medical costs, that it's a pretty minor issue compared to most other factors driving up health costs in the U.S.

user-pic
None of this refutes the basic reality that malpractice awards have not increased faster than overall medical costs...

And that in no way refutes the fact that awards are but only a portion of the costs imposed by the increase in the number of suits.

You seem to be suffering under the misunderstanding that litigation costs are limited only to awards. That this misunderstanding is so obviously false, one wonders why you even bother to mention it.

user-pic

First, of course, the Post should have used constant dollars. So that's really a rise from $72,000 to 126,000 (about 70% instead of 150%). Second, anyone who bothers to read the article will see that it's making the opposite point from the one "Abdul" claims: all the doctors are saying that if C-sections were intended to reduce litigation and thus malpractice costs, they've failed miserably. All they've done is drive up doctor and hospital income and increase morbidity for mothers and babies.

user-pic

. . . half of all births in Washington [are] paid for by Medicaid . . . .

Incredible!

user-pic

I'd like to see a panel assembled to keep births from happening into dead-end families unqualified to raise themselves.

Facebook

Thank you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, microsoft iscsi 3.2 tools

Facebook

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of cluster high availability

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address