Looking for something? Start here.
Custom Search

 

Want The Unnecesarean in your inbox? Enter your email address:




 

   

« Quote of the Day: Doctors are Scared to Change Practice Patterns | And the Winner of the Anti-Doula Sign PhotoShop Contest is... »
Monday
Nov092009

Ralph Nader: Please Help Us Lower the Rate of Unnecessary Cesareans

Share on Facebook

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader embarked on a mission in 1987 to reverse the trend of unnecessary cesareans. His web site, Public Citizen, lists publishing the first edition of Unnecessary Cesarean Sections: Curing A National Epidemic as one of his top accomplishments in 1987.

 

 

The most current Unnecessary Cesarean Sections document is from 1994 and is summarized below.

 

Unnecessary Cesarean Sections: Curing A National Epidemic

How to Help Yourself or Your Friends/Family to Avoid an Unnecessary C-section

The United States cesarean section rate, which skyrocketed during the 1980s, has plateaued and begun a very slow reversal of this earlier dangerous trend. It appears that increased use of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) has been a major factor in bringing the increase in c-section rates to an end. This is the main conclusion of a report by Public Citizen’s Health Research Group on the use of cesarean section in U.S. hospitals, findings of which are summarized here. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the c-section rate nationwide increased more than four-fold in a little less than 20 years, rising from 5.5 percent in 1970 to 24.7 percent in 1988. Since then the rate has varied only slightly, actually decreasing modestly after 1990.

Meanwhile, between 1985 and 1992, the VBAC rate (the proportion of women with a previous c-section who deliver vaginally) has steadily risen from 6.6 to 25.4 percent. Our own data, collected mainly from state vital records offices, show a nationwide cesarean rate of 22.6 percent for 1992, slightly lower than the 1990 rate of 22.7 percent presented in our previous c-section report. Because of the large number of births used to calculate these cesarean rates, even this small decline was statistically significant. The challenge now is to encourage a much sharper reversal of the earlier trend and work toward a less extensive, more rational use of cesarean surgery.

The upward cesarean surgery trend has been of concern to the Health Research Group for several years. In 1988, we published our first report on this issue, for the first time making data on hospital and physician cesarean rates widely available. Since then, we have continued to expand the size of our state and hospital databases. The current report includes statewide c-section rates from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, statewide VBAC rates from 49 states (only Connecticut is missing) and the District of Columbia, and hospital-specific cesarean rates and VBAC rates from 3,159 hospitals in 41 states. These statistics are calculated from data on the method of delivery used in almost 4 million births occurring in U.S. hospitals in 1992, making our report the most comprehensive source of information on hospital and state cesarean section and VBAC rates available.

 

Delivery by Cesarean Section

Over most of the past 25 years, the average American woman expecting a child has been increasingly unlikely to deliver her baby vaginally. Nearly one in four pregnant women now have a cesarean section. This operation is similar in scope to an appendix or gall bladder removal in that it involves entering the abdominal cavity and surgically modifying an organ.

For years controversy raged in the United States over whether increased c-section use represented a gross and excessive danger to mothers, a new and more convenient way of delivering normal babies, the guarantee of a perfect baby, the root of the decline in infant deaths, or a knee-jerk response by physicians to problems of malpractice, or a source of added income for doctors and hospitals. At one point, an academic article went so far as to suggest that all women be offered a cesarean at their due date. The answers to most of these questions have become increasingly clear as research accumulates. C-section, while at times a life-saving intervention for both mother and child, can do significant harm to mothers without providing additional benefits to infants when performed outside of certain well-defined medical situations. We are beginning the long road back from an epidemic of unnecessary surgery.

 

Curing the Cesarean Epidemic

There are many strategies that hospitals, insurers and consumers can pursue in lowering cesarean section rates. Hospitals can address the problem by putting one or more of the following measures in place:

  • Develop and enforce clinical standards for obstetric care;
  • Require second opinions for all but emergency cesareans;
  • Audit and peer-review cesarean operations;
  • Develop mandatory, hospital-wide information forms which explain to women with previous cesarean sections why VBAC is recommended as the safest course for most women;
  • Use trained labor companions;
  • Incorporate midwives and their philosophy of care into labor and delivery care programs; and
  • Develop a perinatal database to track patient care and clinical outcomes.

 

Financial incentives driving our current insurance system favor cesarean surgery over vaginal delivery. There are six actions we feel insurance companies should take to correct this situation:

1. Equalize physician fees for c-section and vaginal delivery;

2. Pay hospitals through a refined “diagnostic related group” (DRG) compensation system that more closely reflects true cost differences among various types of deliveries;

3. Use such cost control tools as preadmission certification of elective repeat cesareans and retrospective review;

4. Select physicians and hospitals with low cesarean section rates as preferred providers;

5. Provide financial incentives for women to attempt VBAC; and

6. Use insurance coverage to promote less costly and less technology-driven forms of care.

 

The most important people to stop this epidemic are those who must undergo and live with the effects of unnecessary cesarean surgery — women. We suggest three steps women can take to lower the risk of unnecessary cesarean surgery:

1. Determine the cesarean section “track record” of available doctors and hospitals;

2. Discuss concerns about cesarean section and other forms of medical intervention during labor and delivery with their doctor;

3. Consider choosing a midwife for prenatal care and as the birth attendant.

 

In these ways, hospitals, insurers, and consumers can all take action to lower the incidence of expensive and dangerous unnecessary cesarean sections being performed today. This is truly an issue where the interests of good health and cost-containment coincide, creating common ground between health-care consumers and the insurers and employers who pay for this care. With regard to cesarean section, physicians have adopted a style of practice that is in the best interest of neither society nor the individual woman. By taking actions described above, those with a stake in this issue can be instrumental in reversing the 20-year trend that has caused “the c-section epidemic.”

 

When this report was published in 1987, it received widespread media coverage, including an article in the Chicago Sun-Times on November 3, 1987.

 

Nader group hits frequency of cesareans, is backed here

Consumer groups and medical researchers here support the findings of a national research group that there are too many cesarean sections performed in the United States.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s Health Research Group reported Monday that there were 485,000 unnecessary C-sections in the United States in 1986.

Phyllis Lakofka, a member of the Cesarean Section Experience of Northern Illinois, a consumer group, said, “They’re saying what we’ve said for five years: There are too many C-sections. And there continue to be more and more. The situation is out of control.”

In a study of C-section rates in the Chicago area in 1985, Lakofka and her colleagues found that about 22 percent of births here are by C-section, slightly less than the national average. Furthermore, the rates varied by hospital, from 14.5 percent in St. Bernard Hospital to 33.7 percent in Gottlieb Memorial.

Dr. Stephen Myers, a C-section researcher at Mount Sinai Medical Center, said the Nader group actually understated the problem.

His research has shown, he said, that more than $1 billion is wasted annually across the nation on hospital care for women who’ve undergone unnecessary C-sections - that’s $275 million a year more than estimated in the new study.

In Illinois, Myers, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Sinai, estimated that 20,000 women a year undergo unnecessary cesareans at a cost of $60 million. In addition to increasing medical costs, C-sections increase the risk of complications for the mother. These include infections, bladder damage and future fertility problems.

He said C-section rates can be reduced and that one step would be for doctors to advise women who previously have had C-sections to attempt to have vaginal deliveries and also by discouraging the use of C-sections for delivery of “breech babies.” Lakofka and Myers said they’ve been frustrated in their attempts to tell the medical profession how to lower the rate.

 

Public Citizen’s contact information page has e-mail addresses listed for anyone who wants to request that Ralph Nader and Public Citizen please readdress the out-of-control cesarean rates in the United States.

 

Bookmark and Share       


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Jill, I both love and hate when you take a walk down memory lane. It is interesting, but depressing. It almost leaves me wondering if maybe resistance really IS futile. I mean, it would be nice if Ralph Nader's group took up the cause again, (now that my local hospitals are cutting open HALF of pregnant women!) but what would lead to a different outcome this time?

November 10, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMegan

It is pretty depressing, isn't it? I guess if you look at the difference between our grandmothers' hospital birth and our hospital birth, we can see how far we've come?

November 10, 2009 | Registered CommenterJill

Wow, he took this on 22 years ago?? Incredible. I honestly had no idea!

November 10, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDou-la-la

Just a tidbit: I forwarded this to my sister, who is also interested in birth advocacy to a degree, and was heavily involved in Nader's campaign. She thought it was awesome, but also replied with this: "Public Citizen has totally & completely distanced itself from Nader. There is no actual link between them these days... I guess that's the price you pay for being honest in this cruel world. An organization YOU founded give you the boot."

Doesn't invalidate the idea that Nader might still be willing to take this on, but just thought I should clarify that you can't reach Nader *through* Public Citizen anymore; they are now two separate entities.

November 10, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDou-la-la

I had no idea!

November 10, 2009 | Registered CommenterJill
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.