Strollerderby : health insurance

Kids are Suffering in Emergency Rooms Nationwide

JeanneSager — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT

No one wants to spend a night with their child in the emergency room. But the numbers of kids spending hours in the nation's ERs waiting to be seen by doctors is on the rise.

The problem? It's the economy (duh).

Without health insurance to cover an expensive doctor's visit, parents are turning to the emergency room for their primary care. And they're bringing their kids.

Forty-four percent of children's hospitals in the U.S. have reported a spike in emergency room visits. That's just child-specific hospitals, but numbers are up at other hospitals too (where patients are both adults and kids). This comes on the heels of already growing numbers - even when the economy was steady, the CDC reported a decade-long hike in emergency room visits from 1996 to 2006. Of them, kids made up the largest number, followed by adults over the age of seventy-five.

The chief problem is health insurance, and one in nine kids is estimated to be without it (and of those kids, nine in ten has at least one working parent and is a U.S. citizen). Even folks who qualify for Medicaid often end up carting their kids to the ER because private doctors won't accept it.

But kids are waiting longer and longer periods of time before getting treatment. That's both in the ER (where more visits combined with fewer emergency rooms means longer waits) and out - where parents who worry about the hospital bill are delaying the trip to the hospital. A recent Kaiser survey found at least twenty-seven percent of Americans have actually delayed care because of the cost, And that's what has medical practitioners worried.

Kids' bodies are changing quickly and their immune systems are less developed. They're at greater risk than the average adult, and they need healthcare more desperately than the average adult. Which means parents have to make tough choices - as hard as it may be, and as many sacrifices as it might take, that emergency room visit might be the best option.

Have you suddenly found yourself in an emergency room when you'd never visited one before?

Image: CBS News

Is Your Employer "Adoption Friendly?"

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:51:00 GMT

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has announced its top 100 most adoption-friendly employers of 2009. At the top of course, is Wendy's International, Inc., the late Thomas's own company, which offers up to $24,300 and six weeks of fully paid leave to employees who adopt children.

The rankings are based first on the adoption cash benefit and then on the amount of paid or partially paid leave given to employees who adopt. Some companies offer considerably more than six weeks, like #7, Bowen Engineering which offers up to 13. Those lengthy paid leaves can be very helpful to parents adopting older children or others with special attachment challenges. In those cases, it's critical for parents to spend virtually all their time for quite a long time, just being with and providing for their new children's needs.

Adoption benefits are important because unlike the biological route (without complication) to parenthood, health insurance doesn't cover the adoption process. The cheapest public adoptions are usually covered by the federal tax credit for adoption, but most other adoptions will cost something--sometime quite a lot--out of pocket to adoptive parents. Every little bit helps, but most employers offer little to nothing in the way of adoption benefits.

On the other hand, often employees don't realize their company does offer adoption benefits. If you are considering or planning adoption, be sure to check with your employer about this. There might be something available to help.

Meanwhile, check out the top 100. Maybe you're lucky enough to work for one of these!

Home Birth: A Right or a Must?

JeanneSager — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:38:00 GMT

I wasn't surprised to read Melanie Reid's assumption that home birthing moms are all sandal-wearing hippie freaks (OK, I added that last part). It's the way a lot of people look at women who decided to deliver a baby at home. That's not to say I agreed with her.

But even with her narrow description of the type of woman who decides to give birth at home, Reid's piece in the Times of London this week hit upon some pretty shocking numbers: home birthing is on the rise after decades of decline, but so too are the numbers of people pushing to make home birth THE way to give birth.

And that, I have to admit, I'm not kosher with.

Because for all the wonderful things that home birth offers, and all the reasons I think it should be available to any mother who wants to try it, the one thing I have heard from most moms who have actually given birth at home is that what empowered them to do it was knowing the hospital was just a phone call - and an ambulance ride - away should they need it.

I'm not sure if Reid has met your average home birther, to be honest. She calls the countries where home birthing rates are low as the "sensible" ones, and calls hospitals"the only intelligent, progressive, logical place to give birth." Ask your average home birthing advocate, and she will actually tell you hospitals ARE progressive, intelligent, logical places to give birth - if you need them. The truly sensible home birthers decided to make the choice based on medical assessments, which you very well might call progressive - considering back in the day there was no doctor checking for fetal distress before a woman on the prairie gave birth in her house. If the hospital becomes necessary, the sensible homebirthers say OK, and get there . . . pronto.

As our own home birthing Strollerderby writer Madeline Holler pointed out in her Babble essay on the topic, when she asked her midwife all the what ifs, the dangerous ones pointed to a trip to the hospital - no matter what:

What if the cord slips out before the baby? (We go straight to the hospital.) Bleeding? (Hospital.) Premature labor? (Hospital.)

But, as Reid explains, there's a difference between helping women to realize their dreams of a homebirth and actively advocating we all head in that direction. Wales actually put out a target of having at least ten percent of women give birth at home (this was in 2002, and their target year was 2007 - they're two years past and nowhere near it).

Why?

Because for all its advantages (and there are plenty - read Madeline's essay, she's been there, done that, and can explain them much better than a hospital birther like me), the hospital birth remains its back up because it has something a home can't have: the means to deal with complications. Midwives have modern medical training and are fantastic for your average birth, but outside of a hospital setting, if something DOES go wrong, where do they send you? You got it.

Which means pushing women to have a homebirth, rather than simply accommodating those who want to give it a go, does indeed put us back toward the dark ages. It means putting more women at risk, more babies at risk. The reason a select few women give birth at home in countries like the U.K. and the U.S. is not only because, as Reid claims "We're squeamish. We are hardwired to go to hospital and have our babies there. It's what we do. It's in our modern DNA."

It's because that's a better option for a lot of women. Not all. But a lot. Women like me who had to have pitocin adminstered because my daughter just WOULD NOT come out. Or women like my friend whose son had been improperly measured by her midwife and came out with shoulder distortion because he was just too darn big for her tiny frame. It's better for women with pre-existing conditions, babies with elevated heart rates.

Pushing for the opposite, pushing women to return to their homes, to take away their access to the modern advances of technology heightens the risks for women, gives insurance companies the excuse NOT to cover services and demeans the needs many women experience during labor and delivery. So some women can do just fine in a birthing pool at home. So some women make it through balancing on a ball in their bedroom. Not all of us can.

Very simply: it's one thing to chose a home birth. It's another to get the most out of home birth.

Image: TrueBirth

Breastfeeding Debates: Just a Tempest in a Sippy Cup?

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

Homebirthing Advocate's Baby Dies During Homebirth

Also on Babble:

My Illegal Home Birth

Kindergartner Saves Diabetic Dad from Coma

JeanneSager — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:03:00 GMT

Danny Stephen has had a tough go of it. Diagnosed twenty-six years ago with diabetes, he's struggled in recent months to buy the medical supplies needed to take care of himself after being laid off from his job in construction.

What's more, Danny Stephen is a single dad - his wife Michelle died following a stroke in the fall.

For all those lemons thrown curveball-style his way, Danny Stephen is still filling up on lemonade (sugar free, natch). He's got a son, five-year-old Jude, who last weekend rescued Danny from a diabetic coma by forcefeeding him sweets.

With his dad flitting in and out of consciousness all day, Jude kept himself out of trouble at the Stephens' Florida home. But when dinner time came and Dad wasn't up, Jude went to his side, but Danny literally couldn't move. He could only mumble nonsense - even his attempt to get the boy to understand he needed juice to pump up his sugar levels were for naught. The boy thought he was saying "Jude." But Jude eventually got the juice, along with honey and cupcakes, which he practically shoved down his father's throat - enough to bring Danny Stephen out of the coma. Paramedics said without the tot's intervention, Danny would have died.

If you're sobbing at this story - from the passing of mom to dad losing his job to the little hero - you're not alone. The other part of me is just stark raving mad. Danny Stephen couldn't afford medical supplies, so a little boy almost lost his second parent in as many years.

What kind of country do we live in where a single dad can't get test strips to keep track of his blood sugar levels? Criticize socialized medicine all you want (and it does have its faults), but the basic medical supplies are taken care of - even for single parents who have lost their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis. Or we could keep going along as we are - leaving men like Danny Stephen to be rescued by their quick-witted kindergartners.

On a lighter note, the first comment on the site of the Tampa Bay newspaper that broke the story comes from a medical company owner - he's putting up all the test strips Danny Stephen could use. Bravo.

Image: TopNews

Georgia Family Has Everything They Own Up on eBay

JeanneSager — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:59:00 GMT

I could make all sorts of jokes about throwing in the kitchen sink. But I won't.

Because there's nothing funny about the circumstances that forced Gregg and Brittiny Peters to put every single item in their household up on eBay. That means the washing machine, the beds, even the family car.

Gregg, a tennis instructor, and Brittiny, a stay-at-home mom, have three kids. Seven-year-old Ayla has a rare and debilitating form of arthritis while two-year-old Noah is autistic. The medical bills have crippled the family, and the economic downturn hasn't helped.

So they put everything up - first on eBay where they have set the opening bid at $20,000, the exact amount of medical debt hanging over their head. Then, someone launched a Website dedicated to their cause, www.everythingweown.org. The title page says it all - Everything We Own, Except the House and Kids.

It wasn't the Peterses creating the site - it was art gallery owners Don Weir and Andrea Chandler, who say the Peterses weren't asking for anyone to give them money. But people wanted to give. So Weir and Chandler threw up the site, which tells the Peterses' heartbreaking story:

"We are just 2 average people who became 1 above-average "team" when we met and fell in love almost 9 years ago. We both agree that neither one of us would be "whole" or "complete" without each other! Our incredible love for one another has ALWAYS pulled us through even the most difficult times we have faced together."

Reading up on the Peterses' blog, Brittiny breaks down their medical issues - she has a blood clotting disorder that's made it hard to obtain health insurance, while Gregg is self-employed and thus doesn't have an employer-sponsored health plan. They have Medicaid, but it falls short on covering a lot of the kids' bills, and does nothing to cover the loss of income when Gregg has to stay home to help out with the kids or the travel expenses of seeing out-of-town specialists. Since 2001, the couple has suffered through losing a baby at three months and watching another come into the world stillborn. Their three surviving children are their "blessings," despite the maladies that have put the Peters' in such dire straits.

"Nothing's more precious than the kids, not a sofa, not a TV. It is as simple as that," said Gregg Peters in an interview with the Daily News.

So far, there have been no bids on eBay. The family is selling it all as a lot - from the kids' swingset to Mom's jogging stroller. The latter site has brought in $10,000 in donations so far - and if the eBay site doesn't get any hits, they're going to break it all down and sell things off item by item.

A part of me would love to see the donations mount so high they never have to come to that point, but an even bigger part of me says good for you to the Peters. As Brittiny says on the family's blog, Gregg worked hard for everything they owned - and they bought nice things BEFORE the children's diagnoses put a financial strain on the family. Now they're acting responsibly and selling the "nice things" off one by one.

It's sad that it has to come to that. But here's a family who has taken the words "fiscal responsibility" to heart. Their kids are lucky to have them.

Michigan to Parents: Get Married, Or Pay Up

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The state of Michigan says Gary Johnson owes them $3,800 for the birth of his daughter. Unless, of course, he wants to actually marry her mother already.

How exactly do they rationalize this? Gary Johnson is not a deadbeat dad. He lives with Rebecca Witt, his daughter's mother, and they plan to marry someday, but they were hoping to wait until they were in a better financial position to do so. Right now, though, they're pretty poor, as evidenced by the fact that Witt was on Medicaid at the time of the birth. That's the payment that the state is trying to recoup from Johnson.

Now, I could understand if they thought the couple wasn't getting married in order to hide Johnson's income and qualify for Medicaid if they wouldn't otherwise. (I might argue, still, that that's the state's own fault for defining families the way they do, but I'd understand it from a self-interest perspective.) However, if they're willing to let him off the hook entirely if he just gets hitched, then clearly it's not just a matter of needing the money. Besides, the report I read made no mention of anything less than honest on the part of the couple.

It appears that this is one of those instances where the state has just decided it will help society to force people into legal marriage. For more examples, along with an explanation of why this is a dumb way to go about things, check out the splendidly named report Let them Eat Wedding Rings.

As for me, I might disagree with Witt about what constitutes a "really nice" wedding or how important it is, but I also understand wanting to make it special and not just exchange Cracker Jack rings in front of a judge. In fact, I think it comes down to this: Witt and Johnson appear to be (1) caring for their kid together (2) taking marriage seriously and (3) being prudent and trying to plan ahead rather than putting an expensive wedding on a credit card or something. Isn't that the sort of behavior Michigan ought to be supporting?

Image from Liam's Pictures from Old Books.

More by this author:

Mom Says Hospital Fouled Childbirth - Twice

JeanneSager — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:15:00 GMT

What would you do if you thought your OB/GYN caused your baby irreperable harm during delivery? Would you go back?

A mom from Queens returned to the hospital where she'd delivered her first son to deliver her second - and once again, she says the doctors "yanked" on her child, causing a debilitating nerve injury that may lead to permanent paralysis.

The boys, a year apart, are both suffering from ERB's palsy. It's a condition Annemarie Dhana's lawsuit claims is caused by malpractice at childbirth.

"In both cases their shoulders became stuck after the head was delivered. In both cases excessive force was used to deliver the babies, resulting in ERB's palsy," according to a sworn affidavit, signed by Dhana.

The trouble is, during childbirth, how do you know if the doctor is using excessive force or doing what is necessary to get that baby out? Every delivery is different, and so is every doctor or midwife - and their preferred methods for delivery.

Despite repeated (Ok, obsessive) viewings of The Baby Story before delivering my daughter, I had never seen a mom being handed a towel by her doctor so she could pull and he could pull - offering her leverage. It's a practice my OB/GYN apparently uses (successfully, I might add) with a lot of moms - as other women whose children were delivered by him shared the same story. But none of us had ever heard of it before.

What jumps out at me about this case was Dhana's decision to go back to the same hospital where her lawsuit says prenatal care from her first pregnancy was lacking. Throw in the botched delivery, and I would have been running from in the other direction - especially considering she is in Queens, where it has to be easier to find another healthcare facility than it would be in rural upstate New York (where I live, and frankly got lucky considering my lack of options for obstetrical care).

Most of the commenters said as much over at the New York Daily News, where this story first appeared. But let's consider this mom's options:

If this were a case of a health insurance company forcing her to return to the same medical facility where she'd received substandard care, it's could be another example of the failings of our healthcare system in this country. In-network versus out-of-network should be set aside in favor of "good for patient" vs. "bad for patient."

If this were Dhana's own choice, however, I wonder, could she have known that the first case, the ERB's palsy in her elder son, wasn't just a fluke? Was this a case of a mom who didn't bother to do her homework on her medical choices, or more a case of a mom who simply didn't know? Her children are just a year apart, so she was struggling with a child who had a severe medical condition and a pregnancy at the same time.

Would you call this fishy or do you think this mom has a case?

Image: The Daily Mail

Mother Sues OB Who Said She Deserved Pain—And Gave It to Her

Cops End Search for Baby Thrown in Hospital Trash

They Say: Vicks VapoRub Bad for Baby

Duggar's Eldest Married: Babies on the Way?

Adoption Application Turned Down Due to Prospective Father's BMI

Finally, Some Good Coming From Cigarette Smoking

SunnyChanel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Now here is something positive coming out of the dirty habit of smoking, health insurance for the children of the United States.

Today, the House will start debating a new bill that would increase the money spent on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $33 billion bucks over the next 4 ½ years. The way this increase in funds will be accomplished is by a tax increase on a pack of cigarettes by 61 cents.

The new changes will also help to insure legal immigrants and pregnant immigrants. The supporters in the House have their fingers crossed that the bill will be passed right after Barack Obama takes office. The bill has been vetoed twice in 2007 by George W Bush.

Let's hear it for the smokers! And if some happen to quit smoking because of this price increase, well that's good news too.

Source

Airing the Parental Dirty Laundry

Brett Singer — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

If you blog, you presumably want readers. And one way to do that is with a snappy headline. One could borrow from supermarket tabloids and go with something sensational and completely fake -- "Sarah Palin Gives Birth To Three Headed Alien" – that would do it. But if you blog about family matters, the truth can work just as well.

For example: this post on Yahoo! Shine.

My son is home!!! And I am really mad at his father.

The title got me to click and see what the heck was going on.

The first sentence was a grabber:

I recently wrote a blog about how I hate it when my son goes to his father's for Christmas.

Then it got better:

So many of you left very nice comments about my tough time while he is gone. There were a few that said I was being petty. Let me Go deeper into this........

I started to feel like a voyeur. This was pretty personal stuff. But it's not like I'm looking in the author's window. I'm reading something she posted on the Internet.

I'm not sure what the initial post was about, but this one tells the tale of a father who brought his son home after Christmas with an injured thumb. The mother was mad because the kid should have gone to the emergency room, and thinks that pop was too cheap to pay the seventy-five dollar co-pay. The injury is described in "ER"-level detail: "When I picked him up, it was black and purple and he could not bend it. We went immediately to the ER. After 2 shots of pain killer, they drilled 2 holes in the nail to relieve the pressure." Presumably the couple is divorced and the boy was spending the holidays with his father, although the post doesn't say that explicitly.

So here's my question. Is this fair to the kid, the father, and everyone else involved? Most of us who blog, whether for pay or play, reveal certain details. But it's one thing to talk about a goofy thing your three year old told you. It's another thing to reveal personal details like the ones on this particular Shine post.

It could be a generational thing. I'm selective about what I share with the world, and I think most folks are. Other people don't mind putting it all out there. (That's why Facebook is so successful.) In this case, I imagine that posting these personal details is therapeutic for the author. It is also interesting to other people; the post has over 100 comments. But if I'm the father, I'd be irritated.

Of course, if I'm the father and I really didn't take my son to the emergency room because I didn't want to spend seventy-five dollars, I'm also a major league jerk. Part of the problem, of course, is that we don't know what the father did or didn't do. It's possible that he weighed in with a comment; I haven't read them all. Still, judgments will be made – by me, the commenters on Shine, and commenters here. That's the nature of blogs. Once it's out there, it's out there. But is there a line that we shouldn't cross when kids and/or our significant others are involved? Can there be such a thing as too much sharing online?

Source: Yahoo Shine

Image (which is completely unrelated to this topic): sas.org.uk

Is Miley Cyrus' First Photo Shoot Creepy?

Baby Bikini and Pregnant Man Top 2008 Weird News List

Babble Talk: Did Mommy Get New Boobies?

A Quiverfull Of Kids

Working Parents Smackdown Part 2 – Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs

Working Parents Smackdown Part 1 - SAHD vs SAHM

Woman Induces to Beat Health-Insurance Cancellation Date, Fails

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:40:00 GMT

It's a story painful in every way: Starla Darling was only days from her due date when she heard from a fellow Archway employee that the company was going bankrupt, they were being laid off, and their health insurance was being canceled in two days.

She panicked, ran to her midwives, had them induce labor, and ended up with an emergency c-section. She had been planning a water birth and natural labor. (Granted, there's no guarantee she would have had one anyway, but induction does increase the likelihood of c-section dramatically.)

The worst part? Insurance didn't cover it anyway and newly laid-off Darling has an $18,000 medical bill. She would have been better off to wait. But there was no way for her to know that and no one can blame her for taking what she thought was the cautious route.

It seems Archway was behind on its premiums and apparently the insurer has been denying a bunch of claims from that week, before the employees were told their coverage was ended. Frankly, at the least, someone ought to be responsible for making sure that claims made while employees still believed they had coverage are paid. After all, they had paid their share of the premiums. In fact, it's really Archway's fault more than the insurer, though I would hold Blue Cross Blue Sheild responsible too. That's just not OK.

I'm afraid we're only going to be seeing more of this stuff.

More by this author:

Pre-Term Elective C-Sections Are Dangerous: So Why Insure Them?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Michael McGuire is CEO of UnitedHealth, a health-insurance provider in New Jersey. In an op-ed in the Trenton Times recently he talked intelligently about the health dangers of elective pre-term c-sections.

The evidence keeps mounting—prematurity, even by a few weeks, means higher rates of breathing problems, cerebral palsy, NICU stays, etc. When the baby's not ready to come out, it's not ready, folks.

McGuire makes the impressive assertion that when he explained this carefully to a "pilot group" of physicians and hospitals and they stopped scheduling c-sections before 39 weeks, there was a 46 percent drop in NICU stays. Those are results to write home about. As he writes, "That's almost half the number of newborns with potential health problems, almost half the number of distraught parents, al most half the number of potential tragedies. The cost savings to these hospitals, the parents and the health-care system is enormous."

He notes carefully, as do I, that sometimes a pre-term c-section is medically necessary for health of mother and/or baby. Obviously, that is not what I'm talking about. But I would include c-sections that are planned for medical reasons,* but where there is no medical reason not to carry the baby to term. I think those are far, far more common than the over-hyped "too posh to push" phenomenon.

So here's what I want to know: If it's documented to be such a health risk, why don't McGuire and his colleagues just stop paying for c-sections that are unnecessarily scheduled at an unsafe time?

Insurers already go out of their way to not cover things they claim are optional (including some that are emphatically not), not to mention dangerous. Usually I question their judgment, but the evidence is pretty compelling on this one.

I'm all for educating docs, but it seems to me the insurers could stop this practice cold with their purse strings.

Photo by César Rincón.

*(Of course, many of those "medical reasons," like a previous c-sections or breech presentations, don't actually require a c-section, but that's a separate post.)

Related Posts:

More by this author:

U.S. Birth Centers in Danger of Closing

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Everyone likes a best of both worlds solution, right? For many pregnant women, birth centers provide just that. For low-risk pregnancies, they are a comfortable, calm, non-hospital atmosphere in which to give birth. They often have pools, and kitchens for family members to cook in. They don't separate mother and baby after birth, but check vitals right there. And yet, for those uncomfortable with birthing at home, there are also a staffed and equipped medical facility, usually quite near a hospital and with established transfer protocols in place. They are often crucial in rural areas where hospitals are few and far between.

And yet, after 20 years, the federal Medicaid agency has all of a sudden begun to refuse to pay for them. (Why? Do they prefer to pay tons more for a hospital birth?) The agency claims there is nothing specifically in any legislation saying that it's a covered cost. (Ah, I see. Bureaucracy strikes again.)

This is not merely a case of the poor getting screwed either notes the American Association of Birth Centers. Other payers follow Medicaid's example, they say. Basically, if the law isn't changed, pronto, freestanding birth centers will be fighting for their financial lives. Many are already suffering from refused payments.

There is a chance to clarify the law when the SCHIP bill passes, but it has to be done before the Christmass recess, so AABC is asking everyone to call their congresspeople and let them know that this is in fact important—a no-brainer even (but perhaps you oughtn't to use that phrase).

Photo from Alma Midwifery.

More by this author:

Midwives to Daschle: We're Cheaper and Better

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:30:00 GMT

The folks at The Big Push for Midwives are organizing to try to get upcoming HHS Secretary Sen. Daschle to make one of the community meetings on healthcare he attends one that they are holding in Missouri to discuss reforming maternity care.

There's good reason for this: Maternity care is one of the areas where the U.S. healthcare system exemplifies the lose-lose proposition of spending tons of money for piss-poor results in terms of maternal and infant mortality rates. There are better ways. As the Big Push folks report, "A recent Washington State study, using conservative cost estimates, estimates that the state's licensed midwives program, over two years, resulted in recoveries from Medicaid Fee for Service (FFS) alone at more than $473,000. Cost savings to the health care system (public and private insurance) is estimated at $2.7 million." That should catch any budget-minded appointee's attention.

On the other hand, I do have to quibble a little with the activists when they write: "The first step in maternity care reform centers on recognizing that our problems go beyond the secondary issue of insurance coverage and access to care." Yes, access to a broken system is a mixed bag and our problems go beyond insurance. But lack of health insurance isn't secondary. As much as I adore the midwife model of care, I'm willing to bet that lack of any prenatal care at all, health complications in mothers that went untreated because they didn't have insurance pre-pregnancy, and the stress of working extra jobs/hours to pay for unaffordable insurance total to a bigger problem for babies' health than even intervention-happy OBs. Besides, people without insurance won't get to see midwives either.

But nonetheless, Daschle should talk to the midwives at some point. Their message of better, cheaper, common-sense care is just the kind of thing the Obama administration might be able to see the value of.

More by this author:

Uninsured Children Turning to Alternative Medecine

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:00:00 GMT

For the first time, the government has officially studied the use of alternative medicine among kids, and the results are both exciting and discouraging. As someone who recovered from a severe childhood kidney disease using a combination of alternative techniques and low-impact mainstream interventions (I refused to do chemo against my doctors’ wishes), I find it exciting that the government is studying alternative medicine in the first place—and that nearly 12 percent of children are making use of unconventional techniques like meditation, acupuncture, and herbal supplements.

Being exposed to these techniques at a young age gave me a holistic approach to my mental and physical health that is invaluable to my well-being as an adult, so I hope the percentage of youth using non-traditional treatments continues to increase—but not as a replacement for traditional health care.

Unfortunately, the study also found that children are more likely to use alternative medicine when their families can’t afford traditional care. Appropriate nutrition and vitamins, no matter how useful they may be, are no substitute for necessary pharmaceuticals and regular doctor visits. Furthermore, studies on the benefits and risks of specific alternative treatments for children are few and far between.

Let’s hope the field of alternative medicine continues to grow in this country, right alongside the number of children with health insurance.

Photo: Shiatsuhealing.com

Have a Uterus? McCain Wants You to Pay More for Health Insurance

JeanneSager — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Turns out the biggest difference between men and women in America might not be their "down there parts," but what health insurance companies think those there parts will cost them. A study in yesterday's New York Times states women ages 19 to 55 who are paying for individual health insurance plans are being charged significantly more than male counterparts for the same plans.

The reason? Women are using more insurance, the companies say. But thanks go to the sharp-witted writers at Jezebel, who were quick to point out that research has shown seeking care earlier (they often call it preventative care?) saves people down the line. Saves their lives, and saves them money. Because preventive care, well, it prevents major illness.

Jezebel's report also pointed out something American voters need to keep in mind come Tuesday. Senator John McCain's chief healthcare plans call for "tax credits" that we as Americans would then use to pay for our own health insurance plans - the ones that cost women more. He's against the (currently relatively widespread) practice of employer-based health insurance plans, or group plans, whereby insurance plans are bought in bulk by an employer to wrangle a lower cost for each individual plan. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (you see the little EEO or EOE acronyms in a lot of newspaper classifieds) watches over employer-based health plans and prohibits gender-based discrimination. In other words - our civil rights in the workplace guarantee we can't be charged more for our employer-based health plan than the guy at the next desk. Walk out of the workplace, however, and the game changes.

The Times report even quotes a Humana representative who claims, "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.” Say what?

A woman who popped out a baby, but has a yearly check-up at the general practitioner plus her annual "foot-in-the-stirrups, let's get this over with doc, I hope you have warm hands this time" visit is apparently going to wet herself down the road. And that's going to cost them. But the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in a decade and sits on his ass eating Cheetos and screaming, red-faced at SportsCenter all day, every day is going to cost them less down the line?

I can invest in Depends, but he's a walking heart attack.

And, apparently, Senator McCain thinks he shouldn't have to pay as much for cardiac catheterization, an eventual quadruple bypass, a lifetime of blood pressure monitoring and heart medications, a twice-yearly stress test . . . should I go on? . . . as long as he doesn't have a uterus.

Image: CrunchGear

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Salvation Army Says: We'll Take Palin's Clothes!

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Palin's Kids Traveling on the State's Dime, She's Trying to Claim "State Business"

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

They (Should) Say: 6 is the New 60

Palin Mocks Autism Research

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:30:00 GMT

No one should be too surprised at this point to hear that one of McCain’s top advisers referred to Sarah Palin as a “whackjob.” Or that Alaska’s largest newspaper enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for president. But it remains fun (in that stomach-churning way) to take a peak at some of the myriad reasons why Palin is widely disliked and distrusted even among her own people.

Take fruit flies, for instance. In Palin’s recent speech on special needs children, one of her more awkward blunders pertained to earmarks:

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? [...] You've heard about, um, these -- some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!"

As the Huffington Post points out, fruit flies have been essential to autism research, showing that a protein called neurexin plays a huge role in proper brain functioning. Considering that this speech was supposed to be about helping special needs families, it’s truly baffling why Palin would have chosen to bash research that is widely known to be integral to understanding and treating autism.

Furthermore, fruit flies are the basic research tool of modern genetics, as anyone who has taken a biology class knows. To sneer at such research displays either extreme stupidity or a dangerous lack of concern for the opinions of the vast majority of her would-be constituents.

Photo: wizbangblog.com

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Palin Speaks Out on Special Needs Trusts

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

RNC Mailer Could Give Your Kids Nightmares

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents

N-Word Flies at Palin Rally

Brett Singer — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:00:00 GMT

This is really ugly.

I hope that whomever you happen to be voting for, this isn't something you can condone.

As the blog We Are Respectable Negroes (the name comes from the Forty Acres and a Mule document) puts it: "It seems that Barack Obama was finally called a 'nigger' at a recent Republican presidential rally."

Palin will get a lot of flack for not responding, and while I can't argue otherwise, I don't know what she should have said. (In a Palin voice: "Oh, come on now! That's a bad thing to say!") Then again, how do you stand in front of a crowd that screams out something like that?

Michelle Malkin is claiming that the person was actually shouting, "Redistributor!"

Yes, of course. I make that mistake all the time.

(Aside: in case anyone is planning to leave a comment along the lines of, "What about that Sarah Palin hanging effigy? Why aren't you railing against that?" It's terrible and should be taken down immediately.)

I'll ask you -- what do you think you heard? I actually closed my eyes so I couldn't see the captioning on the video. Send the kids out of the room and tell us what you think was said.

Source: We Are Respectable Negroes, MichelleMalkin.com

Babble Talk: The Candidates Health Plans

Palin's Ohio Rallies Reveal Frightening Misconceptions about Barack Obama are Alive and Thriving

Morning News: Malia Obama Tells Dad 'Don't Mess With My TV'

Breaking News -- Obama Assassination Plot Thwarted

Babble Podcast for October 27th, 2008

Which Candidate Has The Best Name?

Flip Flopping on Palin's Kids

Palin Speaks Out On Special Needs Trusts

Joe the racist plumber?

Babble Talk: The Candidates Health Plans

Brett Singer — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Kim Mance breaks down some of the key points in the Obama and McCain health care plans. I have a few thoughts to add.

I didn't realize this, but the debate about a national health care system goes back much further than when Bill Clinton attempted to implement one when he was first elected way back in 1992. "Both Roosevelt and Truman called for health care to be an 'economic right.' Truman then proposed a single-payer health program to cover all Americans. But it was called a 'Communist plot' by a House subcommittee after the American Medical Association denounced it." Funny (not ha-ha funny) how one of the current digs at Obama is that he's a "socialist". I guess socialist is the new communist.

A key difference between their proposals is, "how to ensure that all Americans have access to health insurance. Both want there to be no 'state lines' as there are now, so families can shop around for the best plan. However, Obama will regulate and require insurance companies to cover patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, and McCain will not. McCain will instead work with Governors on (fifty separate) plans to optimize access to health care within each individual state."

One thing that I find very interesting, and encouraging, is that at least both sides are talking about getting more people covered. Back in the 1990's, it was much more of an "us against them" situation, with the Democrats wanting a national health care system and the Republicans wanting everything to stay the same.

To me, a sign that the McCampaign is out of touch on this particular issue is the notion that a family can purchase health coverage for $5,000, or even that they can purchase it at all. First, as Mance points out in her Babble article, $5,000 covers less than half of the typical family's yearly health insurance bill. Obama says that the cost is $12,000, Mance cites a study that puts the number at $12,680. Second, as someone who has run a small business and offered health insurance to employees, I can tell you that it is not that simple to just go buy a plan the way McCain says it is. For an individual, it is significantly more difficult. Health insurers simply don't want to talk to individuals about coverage, they prefer to deal with "groups", meaning employers. So while it sounds nice to say, "hey, here's five grand, you can buy whatever health plan works best for you", it's just not that simple.

There are more details discussed in Mance's article, which is very much worth a read. The bottom line? It's hard to tell what will happen no matter who gets elected, but they agree that the current system isn't good enough. "Neither presidential candidate's health care plan brings us anywhere near a true socialized medicine or single-payer system. But they do both point out the many ways our own health care structure can be improved." That's at least something.

Flip Flopping on Palin's Kids

They Say: More Children Have Allergies

New York Times Anthrax Update

Dr. Greene's Vitamins one way to get extra D

Woman leaves toddler in car while she goes to a bar

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Mom and son barbecue grandma's remains

Critical Health Information or Designer Babies? Where Will New Genetic Testing Lead?

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

As prenatal DNA tests become better and more widely available many worry that their benefits are outweighed by their dangers. A lengthy article in the Washington Post takes up this discussion in some depth. It seems that while new and better testing at the level of DNA is a great tool to help women carrying pregnancies in risky circumstances (advanced maternal age, previous history of genetically abnormal pregnancies or births, unclear ultrasound results, etc.) some ethicists still fear the tests could be misused. Says the Post:

"Some worry that the technique could be used to hunt for the rapidly growing list of genetic markers that merely signal an increased risk for cancer, diabetes, mental illness, obesity, addiction and other conditions later in life. Someday, similar tests could perhaps even vet fetuses for traits associated with beauty, personality or intelligence."

And in a broader look at concerns I expressed here recently, disabled rights groups worry that insurance companies may start refusing to cover treatment for conditions discovered through this testing, pressuring women to terminate pregnancies they might otherwise desire to continue:

"We want disabled children to be welcomed into the world. My fear is we're moving in the opposite direction," said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities. "If we decide to use prenatal testing to eliminate gene-based disabilities, that's what the Nazis were trying to do, in their own crude way. I think we're saying that certain types of lives aren't worth living."

The old anxiety about "designer" babies comes up again in the article. I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, I think this fear is overblown--most parents will probably not be interested in screening for eye color or other meaningless traits. But on the other hand, the grey area the article mentions--genetic markers for a "tendency" to traits like obesity, certain cancers or other health problems or socially undesirable features may make it to the routine list someday. And at this point the technology is a dull enough instrument that many gene "markers" leave much unknown about what exactly their effects are in a real, live person. As a lesbian, I personally worry about parents terminating fetuses with genetic markers for same-sex orientation--that holy grail so many gay rights acitvists hope for but that I hope fervantly against.

As with any tool, it is imperitive that people be properly educated and trained to use it. The answer is not to refuse such new technologies, but to step up the education people receive about how to understand what it tells us.

More bioethics from this writer:

In Which I Find Myself in Rare Agreement with Sarah Palin (sort of)

Redefining Death to Preserve Life

Bipartisan Group Says McCain Would Be Bad for Kids' Health

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:30:00 GMT

First Focus, a bipartisan children’s advocacy group, has released a statement warning voters that John McCain’s health care plan would result in millions of American children going without health insurance.

McCain’s proposal centers around a flat tax credit, which would be given to every family, regardless of size or income, to be used to buy health insurance. (The money for these credits would be raised, at least in part, by cutting Medicaid and Medicare.)

First Focus has warned that the tax credit is well below the amount of money required for the average family’s health care needs. Plus, since McCain wouldn't require insurance companies to cover children with pre-existing conditions, it's likely that many of these kids would be denied coverage.

Obama’s plan guarantees that every child will be covered, either privately or publicly, regardless of preexisting conditions.

For a comprehensive primer on Obama and McCain’s health care proposals, check out Kim Mance’s essay.

Photo: New York Times

Insurance Companies Still Trying to Claim Autism's Not a Medical Problem

JeanneSager — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:39:00 GMT

In case you were still under the assumption that health insurance companies were put on earth to help take care of our kids' health, don't worry. We thought that once too. But non-profit autism advocacy group Autism Speaks says just eight states in the nation have laws requiring group insurance plans to cover diagnosis and treatment of autistic kids. Insurance companies in the rest of the U.S. are still eager to debate whether treatment is "educational" or "medical."

Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, told the Associated Press this week that the industry is wary of laws that order a specific treatment because research may come up with something new around the corner. OK, that I get. But they'd rather we just don't treat the kids?

Well, according to Pisano, it's not necessarily a health issue. The insurance industry's passing the buck to the educational system.

Sounds a lot like the insurance companies we all know and love . . . to hate. Meanwhile, couples like Reza and Arzu Forough have had to move back in with Grandma to afford the cost of their 12-year-old's care. They both work full-time, both have health insurance. If son Shayan were to throw a tantrum, fall, break his leg and need a cast, chances are the insurance company would pay for it. But it won't pay for the treatment that the Foroughs credit with helping him learn to talk about his frustrations rather than throw a tantrum.

Bills are winding their way through the legislatures in a number of states, and Autism Speaks has begun campaigning in even more to get the topic into legislator's heads for 2009. The non-profit's goal is to have legislation on the books in all 50 states to help families of autistic kids.

Next step? Making those insurance plans affordable.

They Say: Parents Don't Know Kids are Too Fat or Too Thin

Father and Daughter Battle Breast Cancer Together

New Jersey Lays Down the Law: Vaccinate All Kids Against the Flu

Samples of Medicines Not Getting to Poor Kids

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:04:00 GMT

I was all set to object to this piece on a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics that essentially advises pediatricians NOT to give parents free samples of prescriptions. What about all the uninsured parents out there? What about the insured who have crappy coverage? What about poor starving writers' kids? Apparently, 80 percent aren't getting the loot anyway.

The study by the CDC found more than half a million kids received samples of drugs the FDA later issued safety warnings for. That included 38,000 parents of kids under 2 who received an eczema treatment the FDA later said was not recommended for children under 2 anyway. That's bad, yes, but I don't see how a sample handed to a family was any worse than a prescription. The child is still being exposed to potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals. Without the samples, they'd just be PAYING for that exposure. Thanks FDA!

What the study also uncovered was that 80 percent of the kids receiving samples had insurance. So a measly 20 percent of the samples were given to parents of kids who would have to cough up the entire cost of a prescription? Isn't the point of samples to give to people who can't afford the drug? Technically, no. A look at any release issued by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America defending the use of samples shows the benefits to the uninsured are third on the list. The other benefits are supposed to be for the physician and patients as a whole - by giving doctors a chance to see what medicine works for what patients.

Sadly, I'm not surprised to see few uninsured kids are getting samples. Because I know more than a few uninsured who don't take their kids to the pediatrician. Ever. My own physician and my daughter's pediatrican - regularly ask, how is your insurance? When I tell the truth - it sucks - they usually pony up. And I'm not afraid to ask for the prescription cards that some pharmaceutical companies are putting out these days to cover a portion of the copay. Which gives me hope that the figures are a little off - 80 percent of those kids may have had insurance, but how good was that insurance?

Image: ABC News

Five-Year-Old Catches STD From Dad's Towel?

Mob Mol Who Smuggled Sperm Says Prison System Hates Her Child for Being Born

New Coke: The New Birth Control?

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

They Say: Get Your Kid the Flu Shot

They Say: no cold medicine for kids 4 and under

We Know Some Toys are Infectious, but This Will Put a Pox on You

McCain's Anti-Family, Anti-Marriage Healthcare Plan

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:00:00 GMT

McCain's "healthcare plan" appears designed to punish both marriage and childbearing. And no, I don't just mean because it won't actually provide universal coverage or address the market failures of privatized health insurance. I mean even if you do it the courtesy of taking it on its own terms.

McCain's plan involves refundable tax credits that can be used to purchase health coverage—in the amounts of $2,500 for an individual and $5,000 for a family.

In other words, the McCain campaign thinks it doesn't cost anything to insure children.

The plan was announced back in April, but I haven't seen anyone do this apparently obvious math: The average cost for a family health insurance plan is nearly three times that of the cost for a single person's plan. It's definitely more than the double they're offering.

But McCain's plan would give families no additional resources beyond what a married couple (or an unmarried couple for that matter) get. Am I missing something?

It's even possible that if parents chose not to marry they could score $7,500, if the family rate also applies to unmarried parents with children. And here I thought Republicans were supposed to be trying to get rid of marriage penalties in the tax code.

But I suppose we shouldn't expect anything better from a guy whose (supposedly former) healthcare advisor thinks that no one in America can be called uninsured as long as they won't be turned away at the (government-subsidized) emergency room.

Photo, "One Stop Shopping," by swanksalot.

Australia Looks to Midwives to Handle Baby Boom

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Apparently birth rates are booming down under, and to handle the demand, Australia's federal government is looking to expand midwifery care, giving licensed midwives more access to insurance, prescribing rights, and ability to get paid through public health subsidies even if they aren't working directly under a doctor's supervision. The goals of the review will also include "how to cut medical interventions such as caesarean sections and forceps deliveries. Alternative birth options will also be examined, including the possibility for more home births."

Australian OBs aren't thrilled, but it seems that in a country that has a "chief nurse and midwifery officer," who is leading the overhaul, that they don't have quite as much power as they do stateside.

Photo by salimfadhley.

C-Sections Mean Higher Insurance Costs

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:14:00 GMT

If you’re a woman looking for individual health insurance and you’ve had a C-section, Canada is probably looking pretty good right about now. The New York Times reports that women who are in perfect health have been denied coverage by health insurance companies because they have delivered a baby by Caesarean section. And many insurance companies charge higher premiums for women who have had C-sections.

Health insurance companies’ clear preference for vaginal births is due to the fact that women who have a Caesarean once are more likely to have another one—and complication-free Caesareans cost, on average, $2,700 more than complication-free vaginal births. Some people blame this state of affairs on a system that allows health insurance giants to create their own rules of coverage, while others, like the International Caesarean Awareness Network, fault physicians for being too eager to perform C-sections.

But don’t worry, uninsured mothers: if you get yourselves sterilized, insurance companies will gladly overlook your racy, C-section-addled past.

Photo: New York Times