Infant mortality declines in the U.S., CDC report says, but problems still exist

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Europe Topeno, Finland
    May 5, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    ROK and knucklehead ... Sour grapes are sour, but the fact is, that the best country in the world has forgotten it's most vulnerable. As I said, you tie your maternity benefit programs with any/all assistance programs (they must see an MD before their 12th week) and offer the unborninfant a chance at life and you, too would see a drastic change in the figures. If you woud have a system. Like developed countries where pregnancy and delivery is covered for future tax payers (combined cost of pregnancy to delivery ... Including ultrasounds etc. Even 5 day hospital stay during delivery etc. Would cost you all together less than 500 for the nine months) you, too, would have what we have... And would not need .. Sometimes the sour is SOUR no matter how it tastes...

  • rok Boise, CA
    May 4, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    I wouldn't take those rankings at face value. Many of these other developed nations don't count it as a live birth if the baby dies in the first 24 hours of life and so it doesn't affect their infant mortality statistics. I guess it would affect their still born rates though.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    May 4, 2013 4:59 a.m.

    From the NYT article cited:

    "While improving, the nation’s infant mortality rate is still high compared with the rates in a number of other developed countries. In 2008, the United States ranked 27th in infant mortality among the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, according to the National Center for Health Statistics."

    One reason the U.S. has a worse rate than other affluent countries is that minority women often get inferior health care. For example, historically, black mothers are more than twice as likely to lose a child within a year of birth than white mothers. Until the racial disparities are fixed, the U.S. will continue to have a comparatively high rate of infant mortality.

  • Europe Topeno, Finland
    May 4, 2013 2:37 a.m.

    CIA world report puts the US at 50th in a list of countries.
    Yes, there may be different methods in counting, but this is an international rating that is an established data, so there is not much room for failure to register.
    Here are the real reasons - let's study Finland. Prenatal care (the key to prevent infant mortality) has been free and available for the last 70 years. (i a 65 yr old premature baby I struggled, but survived because of immediate expert care in March oh -48) today all financial assistance is stricktly tied/connected to the scheduled visits to MDs/nurses/midwives during the pregnancy.

    The truth about the US healthcare is that: you spend more per capita on healthcare in the world! Even with millions uninsured! But your system is not effective. Yes we pay our's in taxes, but we do not pay to insurance companies, nor private service providers.
    Sadly, Obamacare is NOT the answer, because it creates more costs than benefits, because it does not tackle the real cost issues.

  • knucklehead Anytown, AZ
    May 3, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    This is ludicrous - no way the US lags behind other developed nations. Most of these nations listed don't measure or report many premature deliveries as live births. Consequently their data is skewed in a favorable way when compared the US. We, in the the US, correctly and accurately report ALL live births. If a live birth occurs in many parts of Europe for example, and the infant doesn't survive, it's never even recorded as a live birth. Of course their mortality rate looks better on paper... Geez.