3 ms·

From your article: "However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' hi

From your article: "However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[34][35][dead link][36] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[36]" Your argument, will perhaps partially correct, fails to properly explain the disparity in infant mortality (mostly due to unnecessary premature births) between the US and similar industrial countries.

dantheman 13y ago
Yes it doesn't explain it away, there are other problems too that aren't related to health care: More teenage pregnancies (higher likely hood of low birth weight), more single mother pregnancies, more obese pregnancies). These are underlying cultural issues that while related to healthcare are different. In no way am I trying to blame the victim or excuse a bad system. I'm only pointing out that these comparisons are very hard to do correctly and can be misleading. We have an urge to compare so that we can make better decisions, but it can be tough to do this. From the stats originally posted it could be argued that we need to spend more money on the healthcare system, when in reality we just need to educate people to wait to have kids. Researchers from the NCHS found that low birthweight and short gestational age births—a leading cause of infant death internationally were more common in the United States than in Europe. Although outcomes for these births were similar, they found that the U.S. rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births was double that of Finland and Sweden.29 After adjusting for potential recording differences by excluding very short gestational age births, they found that the U.S. IMR would be 3.9 if the United States had the same rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births as Sweden. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf

dantheman 13y ago

Yes it doesn't explain it away, there are other problems too that aren't related to health care: More teenage pregnancies (higher likely hood of low birth weight), more single mother pregnancies, more obese pregnancies). These are underlying cultural issues that while related to healthcare are different. In no way am I trying to blame the victim or excuse a bad system. I'm only pointing out that these comparisons are very hard to do correctly and can be misleading. We have an urge to compare so that we can make better decisions, but it can be tough to do this. From the stats originally posted it could be argued that we need to spend more money on the healthcare system, when in reality we just need to educate people to wait to have kids. Researchers from the NCHS found that low birthweight and short gestational age births—a leading cause of infant death internationally were more common in the United States than in Europe. Although outcomes for these births were similar, they found that the U.S. rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births was double that of Finland and Sweden.29 After adjusting for potential recording differences by excluding very short gestational age births, they found that the U.S. IMR would be 3.9 if the United States had the same rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births as Sweden. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf