Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
15 Oct

The High-Tech, High-Risk State of Maternity Care

I’ve been known to critique various elements of the medical establishment now and then, it’s true. (Anyone for a good Big Pharma rout?) But I’ll admit I’m venturing into new and weighty territory today. (My Y chromosome and I will tread lightly and respectfully, I promise.) It’s been a while since my own (indirect) experience in the obstetrics arena, but a new report came across my radar last week that led my mind back to the maternity ward.

It’s the Evidence-Based Maternity Care report (PDF), a collaborative effort of the Childbirth Connection non-profit organization, the Reforming States Group, and the Milbank Memorial Fund. The report was picked up by a modest number of news organizations, but it was reviewed by dozens of top physicians and policy makers across the U.S.

The findings are enough to make anyone wince. Despite paying the most for our maternity medical care, the U.S. has fallen increasingly behind (as low as 36th in the world) in certain negative markers such as low birth weight, premature delivery, and maternal and fetal/infant death. Between 1981 and 2006, the U.S. saw a 36% rise in pre-term birth. Low birth weight numbers during that time period increased 22%. Since the 1990s, the U.S. caesarean rate has risen dramatically and is expected to account for 1/3 of births this year. (The World Health Organization suggests a statistical guide of 5-10% caesarean rate.) Labor induction doubled between 1990 and 2005. What’s going on here?

The report points to a “specialist orientation care” for both pregnancy and labor. While the vast majority of women have “low risk” medical profiles, “pathology- and surgery-oriented obstetric specialists” are the primary care providers in 79% of pregnancies. The study’s authors also discuss the “optimism bias” in maternity care – a bias rooted in the research itself. Obstetrics studies, the report says, distinctly emphasize potential benefit in tested procedures and surgical/pharmaceutical interventions while they give little attention to “harm” data. Many studies’ designs don’t even include sufficient time for adverse effects (to mother or especially baby) to become apparent.

In the U.S. alone, we can expect more than 4.3 million children to be born this year, and the costs are accordingly substantial. The report explains that with the overwhelming predominance of hospital birth in the U.S., the cost of hospitalization alone for annual births approached $80 billion in 2005 (higher than those “for any other condition”). Caesarean sections are now the “most common operating room procedure in the country.” Compared to an average of about $7000 for an “uncomplicated vaginal (non C-section) birth,” in a hospital, the average bill jumps to a whopping $16,000 for C-section births. (Rare and little-used “out-of-hospital” birth centers, the reports says, charge on average about ¼ of what hospitals do for uncomplicated, vaginal births.)

And what do we get for these exorbitant bills? Not higher quality care, the report authors (and the aforementioned comparative statistics) suggest. The study’s authors evoke the “‘perinatal paradox: doing more and accomplishing less.'” Not only does our “procedure-intensive” approach cost patients and insurers more money in the U.S., it results in higher medical risks and death rates, and it leaves women less satisfied with their experiences. Almost 10% of women who have given birth report stress symptoms clinically indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder. Not surprisingly, women who described symptoms in line with PTSD, “had a higher rate of medical intervention.”

Why are there more interventions in the U.S. than other developed countries? What’s behind these medical trends? Some critics direct attention to a consumer culture that expects more convenience and intensive, cutting edge intervention in maternity as in general medical care. I believe they have a point, but it’s also all in the “patients”/society’s education. What information is out there? What approaches and limits are dictated? What “preferences” are encouraged by the care providers themselves? It’s clear that the high tech hobby horse is the medical community’s (as a whole) before (and likely more) than anyone else’s. Just as we have an intervention, pharmaceutical based mentality in health care at large, does it come as much of a surprise that this mindset also drives many care providers in the obstetrics arena?

Yet, some experts say that there are even more suspicious motivations behind the high tech trends. In an interview with U.S.A. Today following the report’s release, Douglas Laube, former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and reviewer of the report, said he believes there are “‘very significant external forces’ for the overuse of expensive technologies in maternity care.”

He goes on to explain, “‘I don’t like to admit it, but there are economic incentives’ for doctors and hospitals to use the procedures.” Examples of these profitable procedures, he says, include unnecessary labor inductions and C-sections. Laube also adds that doctors often perform unwarranted tests and procedures for legal liability sake. (A whole other ball of wax – and post – all together.)

And there’s another issue not directly covered by the report but worth mentioning here. In addition to the routine use of procedural and narcotic interventions, we’re seeing more common use of “off label” pharmaceutical treatment used in labor and delivery. Cytotec, a medication prescribed for the treatment of ulcers, is increasingly used for labor induction as a cervical ripening agent. Critics claim that the drug, when used in this manner, can increase the risk for uterine rupture and shock. Again, it seems to me like another example of favoring benefit versus harm analysis, choosing loose consensus opinion over hard evidence.

The report (PDF) ultimately comes out in favor of many common sense, safe, and evidence-based practices for facilitating labor such as: “continuous support throughout labor,” comfort measures like warm baths and sterile water injections, and “upright and side-lying” positioning for labor. It also shows that family physicians and especially midwives tend to use non-invasive, evidence-based practices more often and medical intervention more conservatively than their higher paid counterparts in the OB circuit. The report authors note that shifting low-risk maternity care to these groups can result in substantial cost savings. The report also commends the “excellent outcomes” and “very high levels of satisfaction” observed in studies of free-standing birth centers, which serve low-risk pregnancies and deliveries.

Their goals, the report authors explain, include sharing and expanding upon research in the area of successful, evidence-based maternity care. Beyond the issue of intervention-focused culture (“willingness,” I’ll venture to say), there’s a legitimate lack of training and preparation in evidence-based, non-invasive techniques. In some cases, physicians don’t know enough about complementary medical techniques (such as acupuncture to turn a breech baby or to induce labor when necessary) to recommend them. In some other cases, we assume, women aren’t told because the doctors are motivated by profit. In either case, I have to ask as I’ve asked before: what are you paying for? What is our health care system paying for? And how many people have paid a price beyond dollars for unnecessary and even unsubstantiated medical interventions? The authors’ intentions don’t end with education. They hope their findings and subsequent research will initiate a “reform” of the “reimbursement system” to provide less monetary incentive for unnecessary high tech intervention and more incentive for evidence-based, non-invasive care. (Now that proposal is almost worth a cigar.)

Finally, I just want to recommend checking out the full report. (Truth be told, after reading the report, I could go on for days.) And while you’re at it, take a turn through the Childbirth Connection’s website for more information on maternity care research and resources for both health care providers and expectant parents/interested individuals.

Now it’s your game. I’d love to hear your thoughts from all sides of the issue (parents, medical professions, taxpayers, concerned citizens, etc.). Though the report focuses on maternity care in the U.S, I hope our Apples from overseas and over the borders feel free to share their insights as well. Thanks for reading.

morgantepsic Flickr Photo (CC)

Further Reading:

Deconstructing Healthcare in America – A Modest Proposal

The Beginning of the End: Statins for Children

NNT (Number Needed to Treat)

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. Another homebirthing mama here. Our son was born in January, 2008…first pregnancy, beautiful birth. :)

    I’m game for a circumcision chat, as well. :)

    Lindsey wrote on June 16th, 2009
  2. Home births are often less problematic and stressful than the hospital. I had planned to have a home birth, but so far, I’ve had 4 early miscarriages. Maybe someday.

    Elizabeth Colon wrote on July 17th, 2009
  3. I am a birth doula and birth assistant. I planned a home birth with my first child but transferred appropriately prior to labor and had a normal delivery with a CNM in the hospital. My second child was born at home with a CPM and what a difference! I will avoid giving birth in the hospital again if at all possible.
    Check out my blog for lots of great info on pregnancy and childbirth!

    Naomi wrote on August 5th, 2009
  4. When I was pregnant with my first child 40+ years ago, I was really interested in natural birth, but didn’t know how to find supportive care where I was living (Florida). I ended up with a very conventional doctor and hospital, being drugged into insensibility by deception, and being very upset by the experience. With my second baby, I was at least allowed to be awake, with demerol and a spinal. With the third baby, I was living in Oregon,and was able to find a midwife and deliver at home. Of course it was a happier, much more fulfilling experience, and I’m grateful to have finally had it.

    Maxine Humpherys wrote on November 19th, 2009
  5. My birth is my own war story. My pregnancy went great. My labor was a disaster. My doctor left me in various stages of labor for 6, yes, 6 days. $ nights were spent sleeping for minutes at a time in between contraction in a warm bath. 3 trips to the doctors office, 3 trips to the hospital finally yielded the idiot doctors I had to step in and move things along. Out of the 7 to 8 different doctors I saw not a single one figured out my son was in the posterior position. By the time they FINALLY admitted me to the hospital my blood pressure was out of control, too much protein in my urine and I was peeing blood. My doctors were ignoring my body’s signals that my son needed to come out, instead I got the response this is your first child it takes a while and you aren’t due for a week. No matter how much complaining, crying, telling them something wasn’t right they kept shoving me out the door with the same response. Ultimately I ended up with a C-section and I firmly believe my doctors were on a path to almost killing me and my son. There is modern birthing in a nutshell. I don’t think most OBGYNs know how to deliver a baby the old fashioned way.

    Kara wrote on February 8th, 2011
  6. I have great respect for midwives and wanted to use them with my first pregnancy, but then found out we were having twins. The midwives in my area do not deliver twins (it’s considered hgh risk), which I understood, but was a little sad about. Despite this, I LOVE LOVE LOVE my OB! He (yes HE) was amazing. He cared about delivering babies safely. He cared about my questions and took time to answer them- even the silly ones. He was kind and reassured me when I had to have a c-section (the “bottom” baby wouldn’t flip down and I never went into labor). My babies were born at 39.5 weeks weighing 7-14 and 6-9! They are healthy, and IF I have more children, I’ll be going back to him!

    Jessica wrote on March 12th, 2013

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2016 Mark's Daily Apple

Subscribe to the Newsletter and Get a Free Copy
of Mark Sisson's Fitness eBook and more!