404 — Unnecesarean Link Update

For more information, read Jill’s latest post, but the Unnecesarean.com (and blog) is now TheUnnecesarean.com (and blog) Make sure you update your subscription to Google Reader or however you keep up with the blogs you read.

By the way… how do you keep up with your blogs? [see embedded poll]

I must admit that I don’t know very many ways to keep up with blogs, so if you click “other,” please let me know specifically what you use.

Also, as you read through posts, if you come across a link that is broken or dead, please drop me a line and let me know, so I can update the links, if possible. Since I’ve linked to Unnecesarean quite frequently in the past, I’ll have to find and update all of those links — unfortunately, I don’t know of an automatic way to do it, and I don’t always reference that I’m linking to the blog by name (many times I just link with “this blog post”). So, if you find a broken link that was supposed to go to Unnecesarean, leave a comment or shoot me an email, and in the meantime, just add “THE” to the URL before “Unnecesarean”. Quite simple, really.


A Terrible Dilemma

The government of Uzbekistan has forbidden doctors to perform C-sections without a serious indication. Apparently, doctors in the state-run hospitals have been performing unnecessareans because their salaries are “too low” for them to spend so much time labor-sitting. So, now the government has made a law to keep them from doing that, because it is damaging to women’s health. Yippee? Not quite so fast.

Apparently, these doctors are now turning to drugs which speed up labor (so that their main objective — as little time waiting on the baby’s birth as possible — is still reached), but of course these drugs carry threats to women’s health, as well as to the baby’s health and well-being as well! So, maybe these women aren’t getting cut open at the drop of a hat, but they’re being given Cytotec, or Pitocin at possibly dangerous levels, or some other drug which is causing fetal distress and/or uterine ruptures, and then possibly damaging both mother and child, or at least necessitating a C-section to save the baby and/or mother. And then if the C-section rate has been unnecessarily and artificially high, then there are probably a lot of women who will now be trying to have a VBAC, and we all know the much higher rate of complications from an artificially induced or augmented labor (especially with Cytotec, but even with the milder prostaglandins and Pitocin) of uterine ruptures in an already-scarred uterus! Sigh….

And to make matters worse, if a lot of women or babies become damaged or even die because of this “C-section ban,” then the anti-vaginal-birth folks will triumphantly point to the statistics that are to come from Uzbekistan and say, “SEE!! This is what happens when you try to reduce C-section rates! — women and children die!! We can’t know what a good C-section rate is, anyway, so it’s ridiculous to try to make it some arbitrary rate. And look at how many uterine ruptures there were when they forced VBACs on everyone!”

Um, no. While this may indeed happen, it will not be “VBAC” or “reduced C-section rates” per se that are the problem. The problem in Uzbekistan will be the same problem that currently exists in many hospitals in the United States — doctors unwilling to work with natural processes, and insisting on speeding up labor, or other interventions, that are not medically indicated. And of course, when medical processes are introduced without any indication for it, nor any medical benefit from it, medical risks are elevated for no good reason. And women and children are hurt, and may even die.

Some great articles

I hope you have The Unnecessarean blog on your blog roll or Google Reader or however you keep up with blogs you like to read. She’s had some really great stuff in recent days, and rather than just link to every article I like, you might as well just add her so you can read it when I do. 🙂

But the most recent one, on shoulder dystocia, in addition to being well-written and well-thought-out, has several great links. Including this one, which is so good, I just have to link to it myself!

It’s a birth story written by a doctor of a woman whose last two children both had shoulder dystocia, and what she (the doctor) learned between those births that made a difference. (Both babies were fine, but the births got understandably tense after the distinctive “turtling” of the heads indicating shoulder dystocia was remarked.) Apparently, the doctor discovered that natural birth advocates had picked apart the first baby’s birth story for the doctor not using the Gaskin maneuver (turning the mom to hands-and-knees) to resolve the shoulder dystocia, and she had replayed the baby’s birth in her head thousands of times and learned more about the Gaskin maneuver after that birth, and decided to use it the next time SD was apparent. Very cool story.

Update: I decided to read more of this doctor’s blog (having read a post from it some months ago — I’m pretty sure I recognized the name and design, anyway — I think it’s the kind of thing I’ll like, so added to my Google Reader), and the post immediately after the post I linked to indicated that apparently this doctor had been “Tuteured”! Not only did she link to the comment thread (I didn’t click, but I recognized the URL), but one of the comments she quoted was easily identifiable as coming from the keyboard of none other than Dr. Amy. If she didn’t write “Rural Doc…gives the impression of not knowing what she is doing sometimes,” then I’d be very much surprised. (I would say “I’d eat my hat”, but there is just a small chance that one of her comrades wrote it, and I don’t like the taste of velvet or straw — I have two hats, one black velvet and one cream-colored straw, and neither one looks particularly delectable, just on the off-chance that Suzanne or somebody else wrote such an arrogant, condescending sentence.) Knowing that she’s drawn the ire of Dr. Amy makes me like “Rural Doc” better than just about anything else could do. 🙂 So when you go to the blog, make sure you read the “next entry” as well.

Presto! Change-o!

A recent article in U.S. News and World Report, titled “Rate of Unnecesary C-sections Far Lower than Thought“, discusses an article in January’s Obstetrics and Gynecology which finds that “the real rate of unnecessary C-sections is 4%.” Huh?

First, I don’t have the study, so I can only go by this article, which was brought to my attention by The Unnecessarean Blog. My first thought is, define “necessary.” It appears that the study looked at women who were planning a vaginal birth and ended up with their first Cesarean (whether this was the woman’s first baby or not, I can’t tell). Now, it says, “The CDC researchers sifted through data on 565,767 births from women who were considered at low risk for needing a C-section.” So now, define “low risk.” How was their risk status determined? Would it not be determined by pre-labor factors known to her doctor and presumably herself? The article says that going on birth certificate data alone, 58.3% of these women had no risk factors for a C-section; but that based on hospital discharge data, nearly 90% had a risk factor listed. Ok, define “risk factor.” How is it that over 40% of “women who were considered at low risk for needing a C-section” actually had at least one risk factor for a C-section? Doesn’t having a risk factor move you from “low-risk” to moderate or high risk? Maybe not. Maybe you can have one risk factor for a C-section and still be considered low-risk, but that two or more risk factors bumps you out of “low” risk.

Besides, having a risk factor for a condition and having the condition are two widely different things. A man may “have risk factors” for a heart attack, but that doesn’t mean that he will definitely die from a heart attack if he is not hospitalized from now until he’s 80; nor does it mean that a bypass operation is necessary.

Kahn said there are several possible reasons for this discrepancy. One is that the main purpose of a birth certificate is simply to record the birth. Birth certificates aren’t completed by physicians, but instead rely on worksheets filled out by the mother. And, she said, hospital discharge data is used to bill the insurance companies and doctors must be very detailed on these reports to get paid, which might make them more accurate.

“Doctors don’t touch birth certificates,” said Dr. Miriam Greene, an obstetrician at New York University Langone Medical Center and author of the book Frankly Pregnant. “The person who writes up the birth certificate might not be knowledgeable about all the risk factors for C-section, and they see the baby is fine and may think there was no issue.”

Now here is an interesting factor — doctors rely on discharge data to get paid by the insurance companies. I used to work for a pharmacy, and I know some of the hoops we had to jump through to get a medication approved for a patient. A friend of mine also went through months and months of hassle trying to get her husband’s various treatments approved (or pre-approved) by the insurance company; and some of the rejections were because the pencil-pushers (at either the doctor’s office, hospital, insurance company, or anyone else involved in getting data from one person to another) wrote or typed the wrong code. As an example of a type of false rejection (which also happened to this same friend), her second son (who was named Andrew, obviously a masculine name) was entered as a “female” into the insurance company’s database; and then they refused to pay for his circumcision (this is years ago, when it was still covered by most insurance companies) because their insurance policy didn’t cover pregnancy-related expenses for dependent daughters. In other words, because of the mix-up, the insurance company people and/or computers considered that newborn Andrew had just given birth to her first child.

So, doctors and everyone else in the health-care field have to be careful about how they code things and how they enter data into the various computer systems because their livelihoods depend on it. Doctors who don’t get paid for attending C-sections won’t be very happy campers. It makes me wonder if they are, um, getting creative with women’s risk factors when it comes to hospital discharge data so that they will get paid. Insurance companies — like every other company — don’t like spending money, and especially don’t like spending it unnecessarily. I’ve previously blogged about a hypothetical future scenario in which doctors’ malpractice insurance won’t let them attend VBACs, so they force women to have “elective” C-sections; while women’s health insurance won’t let them have “elective” C-sections — what happens then? Does she have a medically unnecessary repeat C-section or a VBAC? If she has the surgery, and her insurance company won’t cover the surgery because it’s elective, will she have to pay the doctor out-of-pocket for her unnecessary surgery, or will he just “eat” the cost?

Is this scenario actually happening now? Are doctors “discovering” risk factors for women after the surgery so that they can be sure that they’ll be paid for the surgery?

Consider the following story, which actually happened to someone I know. A woman gave birth to her 4th child (planned hospital birth — she loves epidurals), and the doctor came in, ready to discharge her, and asked if she was ready to be home, and she replied quite honestly that she was rather enjoying the respite she had from the demands of being at home with her older children, and enjoyed being able to focus on the new baby. So, the doctor looked at the thermometer he had just taken her temperature with and said, “Hmm, it looks like your fever is a little high [it wasn’t — it was perfectly normal], so I think you should stay in the hospital an extra day, just to be on the safe side — to make sure you aren’t getting an infection.” Presto, change-o, she suddenly “qualified” for an extra day of R&R in the hospital, courtesy of her insurance company. Think this doesn’t happen every day in every hospital in the country?

This study presumes that hospital discharge data is accurate, while birth-certificate data is deficient. It may be. I certainly have read numerous things (studies, mentions in other studies, articles that talked about studies) that have shown that birth-certificate data is not very reliable when making certain judgments. But to go from “nearly 60% of women have no risk factors” to “just less than 4% of women have no risk factors”?? At what point do you start questioning the hospital discharge data’s accuracy? Especially when doctors have a monetary interest in making sure they and the hospitals get paid for everything that was done, so that they don’t lose any money.

I remember a joke Abraham Lincoln was reported as telling: How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg? Four — calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one!

In a similar way, suddenly discovering (after the birth) that a woman is obese, or has high blood pressure (you remember — that one time in that prenatal visit when her bp spiked?), or gained too much weight (we know how women lie about their weight), or had protein in her urine, or had edema, or had a headache (we’ll just forget it was because she knocked her head on the car door), or had a small pelvis (let’s just erase the previous “adequate pelvis” notation in her chart), or whatever the “risk factors” were that the doctors charted in order to get paid by the insurance company, doesn’t make them real.

Did the researchers take a cross-section sampling of these women to find out if the discharge data was accurate, or was it just assumed to be so? In the Johnson & Daviss CPM home-birth study published in the British Medical Journal, they said that in addition to the data gathering from the midwives and the birth certificates, that they took a sampling from the mothers and had them verify the details of what they had been told about the births, to make sure that there weren’t any errors. Was something like this done here? It might be interesting what women remember being told before the birth, and what they found out afterwards — like the woman who had a C-section for breech, only to find out that the baby had flipped sometime between the last ultrasound and the surgery, so she could have had a vaginal birth… but then the doctor came in and tried to justify the C-section by saying that “the baby was big [8 lb. something] and your pelvis was small [although it was previously noted to be the best pelvis shape], so you likely would have ended up with a C-section anyway.” That was bull. The parents didn’t buy it (but what could they do?); yet the doctor still got paid for his “necessary” C-section.