Looking for something? Start here.
Custom Search

 

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




 

   

« Baltimore Activists Seek to Raise 'Cesarean Voices' to New Level | Anything else you'd like to destroy and repair for educational purposes? »
Saturday
Feb132010

Cesarean Delivery Rates by State, 2007

Bookmark and Share

Share 

1 New Jersey 38.3
2 Florida 37.2
3 Mississippi 36.2
4 Louisiana 35.9
5 West Virginia 35.2
6 Arkansas 34.8
7 Connecticut* 34.6
8 Kentucky* 34.6
9 Alabama 33.8
10 New York* 33.7
11 Texas* 33.7
12 Oklahoma 33.6
13 Massachusetts* 33.5
14 Virginia* 33.5
15 South Carolina 33.4
16 Tennessee 33.3
17 Maryland* 33.1
18 Nevada* 33.1
19 Rhode Island 32.2
20 California* 32.1
21 Delaware* 32.1
22 Georgia 32
23 Nebraska 30.9
24 New Hampshire 30.8
25 North Carolina 30.7
26 Michigan 30.4
27 Illinois* 30.3
28 Missouri* 30.3
29 Pennsylvania 30.1
30 Maine 30
31 Kansas* 29.8
32 Ohio* 29.8
33 Indiana* 29.4
34 Iowa* 29.4
35 Montana* 29.4
36 Washington 29
37 North Dakota 28.4
38 Oregon 28.2
39 Wyoming 26.9
40 Vermont 26.8
41 South Dakota 26.6
42 Hawaii 26.4
43 Arizona* 26.2
44 Minnesota* 26.2
45 Colorado 25.8
46 Wisconsin 25
47 Idaho 24
48 New Mexico 23.3
49 Alaska 22.6
50 Utah 22.2
  * Tie  

 

 

SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 57, No. 12.

 

2007 U.S. Cesarean Rate Posts:

Cesarean Delivery Rates by State, 2007

Map of Cesarean Delivery Rates by State, 2007

C-Section Rate Rises: 2007 U.S. Cesarean Rate Hit 31.8 Percent

 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (19)

Do you have any idea what the * next to some of the states means?

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDanielle

Yes. It means it was a tie.

February 13, 2010 | Registered CommenterJill

Has anyone figured out the national average for 2007?

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJen C

Nevermind, I just plugged it into a spreadsheet. It comes to 30.576... isn't that actually down (slightly) from 2006?

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJen C

WAHOO! I currently live in New Mexico which is number 48! But my home state is Utah which has the lowest rate which is shocking. Very cool. Although 22% is still too high.

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterbri

Jen C - did you weight the average by number of births per state? I notice that a few of the most populous states have some of the highest c-section rates.

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLaura

I always find these statistics very interesting. Can anyone out there who is good in statistics, compare these state percentages to infant and maternal mortality rates? I would be curious to see if a high C/S rate correlates with higher infant and/or maternal mortality rates. Maybe Jen C can do it!

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterReality Rounds

@ RR -- I can't say much for other states, but my state (Mississippi) is sadly #3, and we also have poor maternal and infant outcomes. Of course, that's *only* because we're all poor and fat and stupid and *nothing whatever* to do with the level of care (or lack thereof) that we receive. [I'm being sarcastic here, in case you couldn't tell.] And, sarcasm over, I'm sure that it *does* have *something* to do with it; but it would seem that if C/s were these great life/health-savers, then we would see better, not worse, outcomes for either or both women & children.

@ Jen C -- I think you'd have to weight them differently -- based on the # of births per state, because there is a wide disparity of population. Mississippi, for instance, only has about 2.5 million people in the entire state, whereas there are over 8 million people just in New York City alone. And just checking the CDC stats for 2005, NY state had about 4x as many births as MS, so even though NY is #10, it had about 65,000 *more* C/s than MS, and almost twice as many C/s as MS had births of any description.

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKathy

The national rate as of 2007 is 31.8 percent.

February 13, 2010 | Registered CommenterJill

@RR -- one problem with comparing maternal/infant outcomes with the C/s is that sometimes the bad outcome may be the *cause* of the C/s, rather than the *result* of it. For instance, a woman with eclampsia who has an emergent C/s may end up dying despite the C/s, rather than because it. Ditto for her child. And if the above C/s rates include births at all gestational ages, then there are going to be a lot of C/s done in a futile attempt to save a premature infant. You can play with different stats at the CDC query I linked to above.

For instance, about 40% of births from 20-36 weeks are by C/s, and 60% are vaginal. The death rates are 34% and 39% respectively. This looks like vaginal birth is more deadly for preemies (and it may be), but there are many other factors, including that some of these deaths may have been unavoidable, so doctors might be hesitant to put the mother at higher risk and perform a C/s for a baby who would have no chance of life anyway. Or, that the baby was born so premature that no matter what was done, it didn't save his or her life.

Then, doing a query from 2003-2005 on just 37-42+ weeks, by state & delivery method, it looks like it's all over the map. New Jersey, which has the highest 2007 C/s rate according to this chart, had a 32.4% C/s rate with a 2.1/1000 infant mortality rate, and 66.6% vag rate with a 1.28/1000 IMR (the remainder were "unknown"), and a total 1.54/1000 IMR. But Utah, which has the lowest C/s rate, 18% for this time period and gestational age, had IMRs of 2.94 C/s, 1.70 vag & 1.93/1000 total. So, not too different. And of course, Mississippi has the highest IMR at 4.09/1000 total, despite (or because of?) being so high on the list, with a 31.5% C/s rate (2003-2005, 37-42+ weeks).

Of course, the above is mixing two different time periods, and not taking into account **any factors** other than gestational age and delivery method, but just from what little I looked at, it appears that the above list of states is in a similar order even when excluding preterm births. But to get better and more accurate results, one would need to exclude unavoidable deaths, match for maternal risk factors, etc.

February 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKathy
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.