1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Maternal Mortality Rate Doubles In Texas, Highest in Developed World

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by crossover, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. crossover

    crossover Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    799
    While maternal mortality rates went up across the US, there are states where maternal mortality rates went down in the same period, including California.

    Also, this isn't just bad maternal mortality rates but worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world. Whatever combination of factors in Texas that is leading to this is downright unfortunate and embarrassing.
     
  2. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    3,479
    "Breaking News! : Fat people don't live long. More at 11. "

    All the information is out there. Fat activists hate it so much they print up and sell cards for counter arguments when your doctors suggests you lose weight. Telling someone to eat less doesn't require a clinic visit.
     
  3. sirbaihu

    sirbaihu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,517
    Likes Received:
    2,851
    About obesity: remember that the article is pondering a doubling of rates in two years. Unless you think obesity in Texas doubled over two years. . . .
     
  4. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Uh, what are you talking about? Please share.
     
  5. juicystream

    juicystream Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    29,287
    Likes Received:
    5,399
    The rate had been climbing, but fell in 2010, their base year, then shot way up in 2011, before the funding cuts would have likely been a problem. Meanwhile, infant mortality rate has decreased. The real explosion in MMR occurred prior to the law being passed when it had tripled in the past decade.

    http://dshs.texas.gov/chs/vstat/vs14/t05.aspx
     
  6. Yung-T

    Yung-T Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    24,403
    Likes Received:
    7,048
    The sample size seems way too low/insignificant to me, 148 in 2012 vs. 72 in 2010 can be completely random with such a small number of cases. If you have let's say 60-80 deaths for 20 years in a row and then 130-150 following for a decade or longer, it might be valid somehow, although a number within the high double digits/low hundreds still isn't reliable for a true conclusion.
     
  7. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,717
    Likes Received:
    18,918
    That's not the sample size - the sample size would be the number of births in texas each year. The results are statistically significant. They do medical trials with less people anyway.
     
  8. Yung-T

    Yung-T Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    24,403
    Likes Received:
    7,048
    I know the deaths are not the sample size, I'm talking about the results/outcome within the sample. A difference between 148 and 72, which are extremely low numbers digit-wise, and only two years compared isn't reliable data when it completely fails to provide context or a larger time period.

    PS: I looked it up and apparently the article in OP is extremely biased and misleading journalism.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/ryan...epic-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-n2210048

    You can find the data for each year in the link below, but I can't access the site right now:

    http://dshs.texas.gov/chs/vstat/vs14/t05.aspx
     
  9. crossover

    crossover Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    799
    Really?

    The article I posted is probably one of the most vanilla takes on the subject matter. It paraphrases MacDorman's 'modest increase' (which I address below) and said '...one possible reason...' with regards to Planned Parenthood . Suddenly that is enough for an article to become 'extremely biased'? Is that too much left-radicalism already?

    You linked to a columnist (Radiance Foundation) with a history of strong right-leaning writing and anti-abortionist views. Bomberger isn't 'debunking' the overall claim that MMR is high btw. He's doing a hackneyed job to refute the study and trying his best to remove the linkage to defunding Planned Parenthood.

    Bomberger doesn't mention at all is that the study used correlative factors to try and standardize MMR rates reported by 48 states throughout the country. With this standardization by a Maryland researcher, California MMR has decreased, Texas has sharply increased in the same period. These two states are of particular interest because of their population size. Likewise with this standardization, Texas showed 'moderate increase' from 2000-2010 but much sharper increase from 2011 onwards. That's where MacDorman's statement and the paraphrasing by the linked MedicalDaily article comes from btw.

    Instead of looking at the statistical methods in the study itself... he compares it with a set of sources given by Texas gov and Texas studies. I don't get why he didn't just link to the Table Yung-T provided actually; he hops from one source to another. Is he cherry picking?

    Let's say we don't believe in the study and look at only Table 5 for ourselves. For whatever reason, dshs.texas.gov uses only one significant digit in the MMR and rounds it... that's really poor and questionable statistical reporting. The MMR has increased from 2000-2014 roughly four times. There are periods when it seems more stable and other times when it rose more sharply. One of those sharper increases was from 2010 to 2013 when the MMR doubled and deaths rose by ~60. In the 'unbiased' article, Bomberger is criticizing MacDorman's statement:
    Sorry, what's wrong again here? Who is doing selective miseleading in their writing again?

    In the next section, Bomberger criticizes they aren't comparing apples to apples when alluding to California's MMR. California indeed uses 42-day MMR, defined by ICD-10 codes instead of the CDC/ACOG Definition which goes by 1-year (used in some of the studies he linked). Wow, but look on dshs.texas.gov, they clearly state this definition for the statistics provided on the site:
    Wait what? :rolleyes:

    But at the end of the day, can you and Bomberger be a little less myopic? Who cares about semantics of whether it's truly doubled in such and such years and if it's off by a certain degrees of 10% or whatnot and how strong the proven connection to Planned Parenthood is at the moment. You two are likewise trying too hard in supporting your biased agenda.

    The reality is this: Texas MMR has risen since 2000 and had a sharp rise from 2010 to present. Whether there is a connection with defunding Planned Parenthood remains to be investigated. But what is not being refuted is that the Texas MMR is the highest in the developed world. Whatever combination of factors lead to that is a major blemish for Texas and downright embarrassing.

    PS. I'm doing my best to stay cordial but the next time you Yung-T say something else is 'extremely biased', maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself the same question. What's scary is that a guy like Bomberger, with inappropriate usage of tools he learnt in his education, can convince you that his opinion piece has the most weight. In turn, it adds conviction to your own subjectivity. I'd have more respect for you and some other posters in D&D if you could admit to your own bias and actually apply some critical thinking, research, and analysis of these garbage pieces.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. juicystream

    juicystream Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    29,287
    Likes Received:
    5,399
    It hasn't had a sharp rise from 2010 to the present. That is incredibly misleading and why the article is very biased. It is on the trend it has been on.

    I agree the state chart needs more information

    Could de-funding PP be a partial cause for the continual climb? Sure. Is that the root of the problem? Probably not given the data prior to the move by the legislature.
     
  11. crossover

    crossover Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    799
    The study used correlative factors to adjust and standardize each state's statistics and showed that Texas actually has had moderate rise from 2000 to 2010 and sharply from 2010 to present. How is it misleading and biased for reporting what that study has published? If anything you can claim the study is biased.

    But if you claim the study is biased, I hope it's actually looking at their scientific method and statistics instead of what the one-perspective lens the article Yung-T posted. The Texas statistics should come under the same scrutiny.

    And then on top of that, regardless which view point you buy into, the increase from 2000 to present is staggering and highest in the modern world.

    My last post on this topic. I honestly do not believe it's worth the time posting here.
     
  12. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    14,468
    Yeah, it's got to be obesity...

    The Story Behind the Maternal Mortality Rate in Texas Is Even Sadder Than We Realize
    By Katha Pollitt

    Texans like to boast that their state is oversized on everything from job creation to cowboy hats, but its latest big news is nothing to be proud of. According to a just-released report from the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, maternal mortality doubled in the state from 2011 to 2014. Unbelievably, Texas now has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world. The United States as a whole is pretty shameful on that score, to be sure, with a rate that places it between Qatar and Bahrain. Moreover, the national rate has been rising in recent years—California is the only state that has managed to significantly lower maternal mortality. Even so, Texas is way out of line. What gives?

    Opinion writers have been quick to point the finger at the state’s assault on birth control and abortion. In 2013, Texas passed stringent regulations that forced half of the state’s abortion clinics to close. Previously, in 2011, Texas had pursued its jihad against abortion by slashing its family-planning budget (which includes care for pregnant and postpartum women) by two-thirds in order to defund Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that its network of clinics was the single largest provider of reproductive-health care for low-income women. At least 53 clinics—many of them not affiliated with Planned Parenthood—closed; others scaled back their hours and services. What remained of the family-planning budget went to general-purpose community clinics and other health-care providers who struggled to fill the gap. As a result, fewer women were able to access long-acting contraception, and more women had unplanned or unwanted pregnancies—including women already in poor health, for whom pregnancy was not advisable. More women couldn’t obtain an abortion, lacked an entry point into prenatal care, or started that care later.

    Even the state’s mammoth loss in the Supreme Court, which overturned its severe restrictions on abortion, has had little effect.

    It’s certainly ironic that Texas legislators claimed to be closing clinics to protect women’s health while ignoring the real public-health crisis of mounting maternal mortality. But the full story is more complex—and even sadder. “The closure of abortion clinics isn’t related to this reported increase in maternal mortality, which predated it by two years,” said Daniel Grossman, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, when we discussed the issue. He’s also the director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health and an investigator for the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. “The family-planning cuts may have been a contributing factor,” Grossman continued—a second study, released in July by the Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force and Department of State Health Services, suggests that they were—“but there had to be something else going on.” One is the opioid epidemic: Overdosing is the second-biggest cause of maternal mortality in Texas. Another is racism: In Texas, the maternal-mortality rate for white women is in step with their pregnancy rate; for Hispanic women, it’s actually lower. But black women are 11.4 percent of all pregnant women in the state and a whopping 29 percent of those who die.

    Before I started working on this column, I pictured maternal mortality as death during pregnancy or childbirth. In fact, the statistics include every form of death except non-pregnancy-related cancer and accidents for up to a year after the pregnancy’s end. (This would include deaths from abortion, but despite the concerns of Texas politicians, there seem to have been none of these.) Most Texas women who died post-pregnancy didn’t do so in the delivery room, but six weeks or more after childbirth. The three top causes: cardiac events, drug overdoses, and hypertension.

    Some of the women who died may have gotten pregnant because their family-planning clinic closed, and a few may have died because they stayed pregnant when denied access to an abortion. But as all the experts I interviewed stressed, we don’t know enough to state that for sure. We do know that most of them died because they were low-income women who lacked good medical care. A lot of them were on Medicaid—and in Texas, that means extreme poverty: Texas is one of 19 states that have refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. If the women were eligible for the state’s emergency Medicaid program, their coverage ended 60 days after the birth. Help with drug abuse is scarce, as is mental-health care (suicide was the seventh leading cause of maternal mortality). “Women need pre-conception care and continuity of care,” said Katrina Anderson, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “What they get is the opposite.”

    Joe Potter, principal investigator at the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, said that while we don’t have enough data to explain the deaths yet, “the report is a wake-up call. Cutting the budget to grind these clinics to a close did considerable damage to the women’s health-care safety net.”

    So is Texas woke now? Hardly. Even its mammoth loss in the Supreme Court, which overturned the state’s severe restrictions on abortion access, seems to have had little effect. Texas has just given $1.6 million in women’s health-care funding to Carol Everett, an anti-abortion activist who runs a chain of “crisis pregnancy centers.” Neither Everett nor her organization, the Heidi Group, has any experience providing medical services. Media Matters has compiled a long list of her wacky views, including that abortions are frequently performed on women who are not pregnant; that the disposal of fetal tissue could spread HIV or Ebola through the air or water supply; that abortion clinics routinely give women defective birth control to create more business; and that emergency contraception is “destructive to a woman’s reproductive system” and “a social experiment on children.”

    As I write, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission is poised to pass a rule requiring women seeking abortion or who have a miscarriage to arrange for the burial or cremation of their fetus, no matter how early the termination. What’s a little maternal mortality compared to keeping Ebola out of the water supply?
     
  13. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,831
    Likes Received:
    18,612
    ^ nope, it doesn't have to be obesity... clearly, they still don't know much about what causes the jump. Article is too lacking. But I think it's safe to said you don't double the rate in a very short period of time without introducing something into the system... I wouldn't rule out changes in medication and changes in procedures and practices... in fact, i would focus on looking carefully at all changes and see if they play any significant part. I also would also re-analyze the data of past and current to see if they are accurate.
     
  14. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,999
    Likes Received:
    12,870
    This isn't about racism. This is about poor health related policies (at the federal level and the state level) that coincide with a very obese population.
     
  15. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    14,468
    Y'all do realize I was being sarcastic about obesity having anything to do with this rise in mortality rates, right?
     
  16. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    For all you who viciously attacked me without warrant:



    You data-illiterates.
     
  17. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,831
    Likes Received:
    18,612
    Good to know that data error explain a big part of this. A few of us thought that as a possibility.
    I don’t recall you being one that questioned the data.
     
  18. crossover

    crossover Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    799
    It's good that you found this and shared it.
    Did you continue on to read the articles regarding the matter?

    The corrected amount is still very high compared to other 1st world countries. If you missed this, I guess you are either "data-illiterate" and/or lacking reading comprehension.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  19. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,831
    Likes Received:
    18,612
    That chart! Why is CA an exception. The nation need to do better. This also should put to rest that we have one of the best care in the world. Far from it, when something as common as giving birth is this bad relative to other developed nation.




    # of maternal deaths per 100k births:

    [​IMG]


    One exception in the U.S.: California, where safety experts and hospitals worked together to implement practices that are now endorsed by leading medical societies as the gold standard of care. Statewide, California’s maternal death rate has fallen by half, while deaths rose across most of the country.
     
    #59 Amiga, Jul 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
    Deckard likes this.
  20. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,760
    Likes Received:
    2,993
    In the entire country, i wonder if women are having their first child at a later age.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now