Infant mortality study shows U.S. lags other nations

istockphoto

(CBS/AP) Where is it best to be a baby? Not the U.S. Babies born here are more likely to die during the first month of life than babies born in Cuba, Poland, and dozens of other countries, a new study says.

"It's not that things are worse in the United States than before," said Dr. Joy Lawn, a pediatrician in South Africa. "It's that the U.S. isn't making progress like other countries."

The newborn death rate in the U.S. is now 4.3 per 1,000 live births. Because of improvements in infant care in some countries, newborns in Qatar, Croatia and the United Arab Emirates now die at about the same rate.

What's killing the world's babies? The study cited three primary causes: premature birth, asphyxia and severe infections. Each problem can easily be prevented with proper care.

"Training more midwives and other community health workers could save the lives of many more babies," said Dr. Lawn. "We know that solutions as simple as keeping newborns warm, clean and properly breast-fed can keep them alive."

The study, published on Tuesday in the journal PLoS Medicine, covers all 193 member countries of the World Health Organization over 20 years. It shows that from 1990 to 2009, annual newborn deaths decreased from 4.6 million to 3.3 million.

Globally, Afghan babies face the greatest risks, with one of every 19 dying in the first month of life, according to the statistics. India has the greatest number of newborn deaths overall - more than 900,000 annually.

[klw726]

On 8/31/11 8:30 AM, "Karen Lee Wald" <[e-mail]> wrote:
I'm saddened by the number of people who don't want to believe what the rest of the world already knows -- that we could be doing a lot better. Why is the wealthiest country in the world so low on the charts when it comes to health care?
The simplest answer to why this is happening is that the US, unlike almost every other country in the world, does not consider health care to be a fundamental human right -- or any kind of right. As long as the bottom line of all aspects of health care in the US is making a profit, the US will lag behind all those other countries. This is not something new and not a function of the current financial crisis in the US (which is affecting other countries around the globe, too. But depending on their priorities, other countries -- such as Cuba -- continue to fund health care because it is considered essential. Not so in the US). When I first went to Cuba as a journalist in the late 1960s, the country was elated to have brought infant mortality down below 20 per 1000 live births for the first time in its history. Although I'm bad at remembering figures, I remember that one because at the time Oakland, CA (where I was living, and which had a sizable Black, Hispanic and Asian population in what was known as the "Flatlands") had an infant mortality rate of 28/1000.[28 deaths--more than Cuba] Yet in the upper-class "hills" section of the same city, the infant mortality rate was only 7/1000.[Seven. Four babies died in the flatlands for every one that died in the hills.] I was struck by what an enormous difference wealth could make in a country where the attention you received was directly linked to your ability to pay for it. Research over the years convinced me that while the US had the best health care resources in the world, Cuba had the best health care delivery system in the world. This has proven increasingly true as Cuba has consistently brought its infant mortality rate down to (and below) the level of the wealthiest industrialized nations. Even during its enormous economic crisis of the 90s caused by the demise of its Eastern European and Soviet trading partners. The US could produce the same results as Cuba if it would simply change its priorities; if it were spending on health care what it is spending instead on war. klw

[rwm2020]

This is the worst piece of reporting I have ever seen from CBS. The Doctor in question was discussing the rate of decrease in infant mortality deaths not in the actual numbers. The report you site shows the US having one of the lowest infant mortality death rates in the world. Thus since we are already doing so well our ability to do even better is less than that of the other countries mentioned. Illustration #6 of the article shows how low we are compared tot he rest of the world. We are in the lowest category they listed. This is horrible reporting and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is exactly how "science myths" become "science facts" and then are used to sway public opinion. This is horrible journalism.

[phil8248]

African American babies die at a rate 2.4 times higher than white babies. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[Hazebux]

"Each problem can easily be prevented with proper care" Not really.. These numbers are skewed. The mortality rate is high in the US because we try to save preterm babies. Children that are born pre 26 weeks have a much greater chance of dying and many will have multiple problems throughout life. Countries like Poland and Cuba do not bring these high risk kids into life.

[TACTruth]

Most countries do not even count pre term babies in their stats. They also abort babies with complications at a higher rate. I would never choose Qatar over the USA. Would you?

[chetthor]

I think you have touched a sore spot... and the costs are astronomical during birth and in many cases forever.

[ParkyPundit]

Of course, our conservative leaders will deal with this issue in a professional manner, just like they always do when a world organization shows us for what we are. They will accuse the organization of "having an agenda" and "skewing the numbers."

http://******/qZlJ6u

[emcnally]

I would say that it has alot to do with drug abuse in carring mothers...lets get real 25% of all mothers are using either prescribed or non-prescribed medications taht cause fetal harm....