Health Care Ruling:

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Health Care Ruling:
79
Sat, 08-13-2011 - 4:11pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2004
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 12:42pm

"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 12:51pm
I couldn't tell you specifically how each country reports infant deaths. A difference is the parameters countries set.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:17pm
I found this report from the CBO, it focuses on the infant mortality statistic in the US vs other countries.
"SUMMARY

In the United States--as in other industrialized countries--the infant mortality rate has declined dramatically during this century. Yet, despite the high quality and widespread availability of neonatal intensive care technology in this country, the infant mortality rate remains higher than that of many developed nations.

Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.

Variations in infant mortality rates among the states and between different racial and ethnic groups in this country are greater than the differences between the United States and many other countries. Black infant mortality rates, in particular, are exceptionally high, and the relative gap between black and white infant mortality rates has been increasing over time.

Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.

Federal and state initiatives to lower infant mortality rates have focused on strategies to reduce financial barriers that limit access to prenatal care and on strategies to expand the supply of prenatal care services available to poor pregnant women. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these and other policies to reduce low birthweight and infant mortality are the focus of considerable debate. Recent expansions of the Medicaid program are enabling more low-income children and pregnant women to obtain the health care that they need. Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply. Hence, federal programs that provide direct support for maternal and child health services and primary care for low-income populations are also important. Some policy researchers believe, moreover, that the scope of strategies to reduce infant mortality should be broadened from a relatively narrow focus on pregnancy care to the more general issue of how to improve the health status of poor women and their families. "
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2004
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:29pm

A dead baby is a dead baby how ever you see it, how can that be different from country to country?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:40pm
Can't be that many are uninsured in the US & can't afford to seek medical care. Now that wouldn't be the reason would it?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:40pm

"we love a good paper trail"

As does the UK.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:49pm
Not a reason. I did follow up with a CBO report that details how the reporting differs. People just don't want to believe it, but statistics are not clear cut.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 1:55pm
No, a dead baby is not a dead baby how ever you see it. The CBO report I linked to in a follow up post, just before this one that you wrote, explains it.

I am telling the truth here. The stats that WHO used for their rankings are not an apple to apple comparison. There are many, many differences within reporting, monitoring, certifications, etc from country to country.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2004
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 2:04pm

Ours is better and more anal according to my husband, he lived in UK for 40 years before getting here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 08-17-2011 - 2:19pm
"Ours is better and more anal according"

I've no doubt. ;)

When I was living in England all records were kept at Somerset House.

>"Somerset House during the first half of the 19th century were the Poor Law Commissioners and the Tithe Commissioners; in 1837 the Registrar General of Births, Marriages and Deaths set up his office in the North Wing, establishing a connection that lasted for almost 150 years. This office held all Birth, Marriage and Death certificates in England and Wales; indexes to these are now at The National Archives. From its foundation in 1837 the Government School of Design, which was much later to become the Royal College of Art, was housed in the complex, until in 1853 the Registry needed to expand its space."<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_House#Government_use

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages