Another Victory FOR Pregnant MOMS!
On May 11, Moms in the Middle celebrated another victory when the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Kathleen Ryl-Kuchar, a woman whose employer, Care Centers, retroactively canceled her health insurance when she filed for leave to care for her newborn triplets under the Family Medical Leave Act (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=title&v1=Kathleen+Ryl-Kuchar). Judge Terence Evans wrote that sufficient evidence existed to prove that Care Centers had canceled the insurance as retribution for Ryl-Kuchar’s leave and the Court upheld an earlier ruling that ordered Care Centers to pay Ryl-Kuchar $30,000 to cover her medical bills. Amen!
This is a victory that can be savored, but only temporarily. We can rejoice that the court protected the rights of a Mom in the Middle; but at the same time we must lament the fact that it is so easy for women to be discriminated against. Ryl-Kuchar’s battle was hard-fought and spanned five years of litigation – no easy task, especially if you have no job and three young children to care (and pay) for.
There’s still much work to be done if we’re to prevent pregnancy discrimination where it starts – in the workplace – before it has to go to court. Bearing the burden of proof can seem an extraordinary challenge to Moms in the Middle who fear facing the legal teams Big Business can bankroll. Modern media has many convinced that you can’t win in court against financial powerhouses. But this is an insult to respected justices who can judge a case based on its merits rather than its rhetoric.
Employers and insurance companies must practice equitable treatment. Legislation might protect women from pregnancy discrimination; but only if they take action against it. To maximize the impact potential of law, courts should impose hefty penalties on organizations that practice pregnancy discrimination. If companies do not pay taxes, the government will put them out of business; if companies discriminate, the livelihood of their businesses should likewise be at stake. Operating illegally is breaking the law, no matter what the infraction is.
Let’s hope that would-be discriminators hear about Ryl-Kuchar’s case against Care Centers, and understand that a similar outcome awaits any organization found guilty of pregnancy discrimination.
Another Glimmer of Hope For Pregnant Women
Remember the huge March of Dimes Report Card that shed light on the pervasive premature birth problem in the United States? You know, the one that put in indisputable figures the dismal state of our maternity health care system… the one that found that one of the leading factors in the U.S. premature birth rate is a lack of prenatal care?
While legislators finally begin addressing the overwhelming need for proper and affordable prenatal care, some institutions have been offering affordable prenatal care to pregnant women for years. And the results are just as stunning as the figures in the March of Dimes report.
Take Dallas’ Parkland Memorial Hospital, which last week announced that it had cut premature rates almost by half in the last two decades (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-babies_28met.ART0.State.Edition1.4a5c74e.html).
The information published by Parkland validates the assertion that prenatal care is vital to healthy, timely delivery. Two paragraphs say it all:
“Dallas County’s public hospital, which operates one of the nation’s busiest maternity wards, cut its rate of premature births nearly in half – to 4.9 percent in 2006 from 9.4 percent of births in 1988.
Parkland officials credited comprehensive prenatal care for improving the outcomes of 16,000 births annually at the hospital, which has the second-highest number of deliveries in any U.S. hospital.”
The statistics are amazing, especially for a high-volume hospital such as Parkland. And to what does Parkland owe its stellar premature birth rate record? PRENATAL CARE!
What’s more, Parkland officials say most of their maternity patients are low-income women who either pay affordable $50 co-payments per visit or qualify for government assistance and pay little to nothing at all.
With these figures, it’s no surprise that Parkland is ranked among the nation’s best gynecological hospitals (http://www.usnews.com/listings/hospitals/6740950). And because Parkland is a PUBLIC HOSPITAL, the hospital’s success in reducing instances of premature births lends credence to the notion that publicly-funded medicine can and does work!
Let’s hope that the news doesn’t fall on deaf ears, that Congress learns from the successes of others and works to provide proper prenatal care to all women, regardless of socioeconomic factors, so America’s future is invested in healthy children.
The Prenatal Pandemic
While the world scrambles to understand and combat the swine flu, declared an imminent pandemic by the World Health Organization, another pandemic rages on in the United States – and this one is far deadlier.
The growing inaccessibility to proper prenatal care has caused a pandemic of enormous proportions in the United States. Consider that:
- A lack of prenatal care means a baby is three times more likely to be born premature, and five times more likely to die;
- The number of Americans without health insurance that would cover prenatal care has grown by nine million in the last 13 years;
- The March of Dimes gave America a “D” on its recent Prenatal Care Report Card – because a full 12.7% of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S. annually are premature;
- Over 19,000 babies die within the first 28 days of birth each year in the U.S.;
- Of those deaths, a full 30% are directly caused by premature birth…
- Meaning that premature birth accounts for over 6,000 infant deaths in the United States annually.
A lack of prenatal care leads to premature birth. Premature birth leads to death. A lot of it. The bell sadly tolls for over 6,000 babies each year. That’s more than the death count from the World Trade Center attacks, and this wound is self-inflicted.
Many of these deaths could be prevented with proper prenatal care, yet the U.S. government is more concerned with the swine flu which, as of this writing, has killed one person on U.S. soil. In fact, President Barack Obama has even requested a whopping $1.5 BILLION from Congress to combat the spread of the swine flu.
That kind of money could cover prenatal care for nearly every uninsured pregnant woman for a year. It seems as those who can think for themselves are more interested in protecting themselves from a relatively mild flu than protecting the babies who are unable to think – or speak- for themselves.
Even though a pandemic is characterized by the presence of an infectious disease, how can we be more fearful of a relatively mild swine flu than an epidemic that, in a decade’s time, kills more than 60,000 babies? That’s more than the population of Carson City, Nevada.
Human life is too precious to politicize. It’s time to get our priorities straight. Yes, the swine flu needs addressed. But it’s also time to take care of our nation’s babies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_dFD0J47I
A Spark of Light in New Jersey
New Jersey’s uninsured pregnant women – and their unborn children – have an ally in the statehouse. Assemblywoman Sheila Oliver is sponsoring a bill that would allow for continued prenatal care for young and minority women if a clinic closes. In effect, the bill would give “the commissioner authority to determine whether to dedicate funds from the Health Care Stabilization Fund to support obstetrics at a financially distressed health care center” (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj-xgr-legislativepr0111jan11,0,6201915.story).
While this might not be the state’s long-term solution, if passed it will at least lend hope that legislators are paying attention to the crises faced by many uninsured pregnant women – and are willing to take strides to end it. In New Jersey, African American and teenage women are especially vulnerable to economic conditions that lead to a lack of maternal insurance, and therefore a lack of prenatal care.
Nobody wants to be without health insurance, and many people simply cannot gain access to it due to economic conditions beyond their control. Even worse, the medical community often turns away those who need their help the most, and insurance companies refuse to write policies for those with a “pre-existing” condition such as pregnancy. And, even more heinous, are those insurance companies who refuse to cover pregnancies conceived within six months of policy initiation.
In New Jersey, at least one person who is in a position to affect change is listening. Let’s hope that the rest of the state’s assembly is listening, too. Let’s hope this bill passes, and we can continue moving our cause forward, baby step by baby step.
A Butterfly Flaps Its Wings…
A recent study by the University of Alabama in Birmingham proved how delicate timing is in fetal development. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, linked early Caesarian sections to an increased risk of newborn complications, including respiratory distress, hypoglycemia, infection and extended hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp).
The amazing thing is that the risk of intensive care hospitalization was found to be 50% greater when C-sections are performed just a few days early.
All of these complications can result in tragic outcomes for families, and all of them drive up medical costs. So, why is it that C-sections are often scheduled earlier than the 40-week full-term period? Is it, as many believe, to perform the procedure before the natural course of labor begins? Or is it because hospitals make more money when complications arise?
Despite my firm stance against egregious hospital overcharges – they do try to take advantage of pregnant women, especially those who are uninsured or have no insurance – I’m loathe to postulate that the medical industry would put the health of our women and children at risk in the interest of making a buck. But the question begs to be asked.
When you consider that many medical professionals will not provide prenatal care to uninsured pregnant women without 100% upfront payment, and that the lack of prenatal care is proven to increase the risk of newborn complications and mortality, one has to wonder what underlying motivations exist. These women are not given treatment because they do not have the money, despite the fact that these doctors have taken an oath to uphold the sanctity of life without other consideration. But without profit, they do not feel obligated to uphold this oath.
Denying health coverage is a reactive approach; if one does not have money in-hand, one does not provide life-giving services. Facilitating conditions that result in complications is a proactive approach; if the pursuit of profit pushes medical scheduling forward, we’re all at risk regardless of whether we have insurance coverage or not.
A butterfly flaps its wings in China, a tornado forms in Alabama. A C-section is scheduled a week early, a newborn spends five days in NICU. A woman cannot gain access to prenatal care, her baby dies.
Maternity Health
