Tag: breastfeeding support

CHIP Must Be Funded – But Not At The Expense Of Other Public Health Programs

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Championing Healthy Kids Act (H.R. 3922). While 1,000 Days supports the legislation’s inclusion of funding for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Community Health Centers, and other health programs, we are deeply concerned about some of the offsets included in the bill. Specifically, the House bill cuts billions from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and jeopardizes families’ access to critical health coverage.

It has been more than a month since funding for CHIP expired. Without immediate Congressional action, health care for 9 million children and 370,000 pregnant women will remain in jeopardy. Additionally, funding for community health centers and other public health programs expired at the end of September. Congress is long-overdue in extending funding for these programs. However, by cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for these extensions, Congress is undermining the very health care system America’s families depend on. The Prevention and Public Health Fund provides funding for many critical initiatives, including breastfeeding support programs, strengthening the public health infrastructure, and reducing health disparities. Together, these programs ensure pregnant women, young children and their families have access to the health care and support they need to be healthy and thrive.

1,000 Days urges Congress to find a bipartisan path forward that ensures all children and their families will have access to quality health coverage, without threatening other important public health programs.

5 Reasons Why The Latest Effort To Repeal The Affordable Care Act Is Bad For Moms And Babies

While the future of the Senate Republican’s latest effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is uncertain, one thing is very clear – the Graham-Cassidy bill is bad for moms and babies.

Here’s why:

  1. Maternity, newborn and pediatric care are at risk.
    States would be able to waive the essential health benefits – like prenatal, maternity and pediatric care – currently covered under the ACA. That’s why even physician groups like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are strongly opposing the bill.

    Essentially, this bill could mean a return to a pre-ACA health system when 75% of plans on the individual market did not include maternity coverage. Women would be left to decide between going without needed health services or paying out-of-pocket. That’s a decision no women should be forced to make.

  2. Women could pay more for less health coverage.
    Health plans could charge more for comprehensive coverage. This means more women would be forced to choose between buying cheap bare-bones insurance packages that don’t cover their needs – and paying out-of-pocket for other services (like maternity care) – or paying exorbitant prices for health plans that provide the coverage they need.

    We’d be stepping back in time, before the passage of the ACA, when women could be charged more for their health insurance just because they are women.

  3. Pregnancy could become a pre-existing condition (again).
    Insurers would be able to decide what is – and is not – a pre-existing condition, and then charge more accordingly. Just like before the passage of the ACA, women could be denied coverage (or charged a lot more) for health insurance just for having given birth or being of child-bearing age.

    In fact, according to the Center for American Progress, insurers could charge pregnant women over $17,000 more, putting health insurance out of reach for millions of women – right when they need it the most.

  4. The Medicaid program would be gutted.
    About one TRILLION dollars in federal funding for Medicaid would be cut. Medicaid is a critical source of health insurance for millions of low- and middle-income people. As the largest insurance program for women, it covers the cost of nearly half of all America’s births.

    Without Medicaid, women would become uninsured and lose access to the comprehensive health coverage that they desperately need. For those who could keep their Medicaid insurance, their coverage would likely shrink as states replace comprehensive health services with bare-bones coverage for maternity and infant health services.

  5. It hurts working families the most.
    The bill would end the financial assistance that makes purchasing health insurance possible for millions of America’s middle-income families. It repeals subsidies within ACA – subsidies that currently 85% of people purchasing insurance coverage on the marketplace receive.Coupled with the proposed cuts to Medicaid, the Graham-Cassidy bill would leave millions of Americans without their health insurance, according to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Graham-Cassidy is not the health care plan that America’s moms and babies—and thus the country as a whole—need. It is time for all Members of Congress from both parties to work together to ensure women, infants and young children have access to comprehensive and affordable health care they need to thrive.

Guest Post: Playing Football with Infant Health: U.S. Breastfeeding as a Game of Inches

This week the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new data on breastfeeding rates from 2004 to 2014. The encouraging news is that more babies start breastfeeding and breastfeed for longer. The percentage of babies who start out breastfeeding increased to more than 82% surpassing the U.S. Government’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 81.9% initiation rate.

Yet while greater numbers of babies start out breastfeeding, there is still a sharp drop-off in the numbers of babies being exclusively breastfed (i.e. no other food or drink other than breastmilk) at 3 months and 6 months. The analysis of the CDC’s National Immunization Survey (NIS) data found that in 2014, children who were being exclusively breastfed for three months now stands at 46.6%— a big increase from the 36% rate in 2009—but still almost half the number that start out breastfeeding.

In addition, when it comes to six months exclusive breastfeeding —the gold standard of infant nutrition and the recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health organizations—the number of infants being fed at this standard drops to 20%.

In America only 1 in 5 babies is being fed in accordance with the health recommendations.

Breastfeeding does not occur in a vacuum-it is impacted by cultural views, structural barriers, supportive and non-supportive policies and the impact of commercial interests. In fact, the CDC release also showed that 1/3 of all babies were supplemented with formula before 6 months and 15% were supplemented with artificial milk before 2 days.

But perhaps the most sobering detail in the CDC release is the continuation of the racial disparities in breastfeeding rates. Among infants born during 2010–2013, 64.3% of non-Hispanic black infants started breastfeeding, compared to 81.5% of white infants, a gap of 17.2 percentage points.

In 14 states, primarily in the Midwest and South, the difference in breastfeeding initiation between white and black infants was greater than 15 percentage points and the disparity exceeded 25 percentage points in seven of these states. The percentage point differences between white and black infants in exclusive breastfeeding through 6 months ranged from −4.2 in Rhode Island to 17.8 in Wisconsin, and at 12 months duration, the difference ranged from −4.4 in Minnesota to 31.6 in DC, the report detailed.

These gaps show that even with increased support and awareness, black families are not receiving the multi-dimensional support needed to successfully breastfeed.

Given that the mortality rate for black infants is more than twice that of white infants, more needs to be done to ensure that all women can give their babies the powerful life-saving, brain-boosting and health-giving benefits of breastfeeding.

And what we are learning overall, is that women want and are willing to try breastfeeding but something gets in the way—no maternity leave? An unsupportive employer? Fear of being shamed while breastfeeding in public? Limited child care options that easily facilitate human milk feeding? The possibilities are varied. What we don’t have in place are structural solutions that don’t fully rest the weight and responsibility of breastfeeding squarely on the shoulders of mothers.

Until breastfeeding is properly supported systemically and structurally, breastfeeding will remain akin to football—a game of inches, with some women eking out small gains while pushing through and past monumental obstacles but rarely making it to end zone or scoring the collective touchdown.

We are pleased to see the inches, but mothers and babies deserve the whole nine yards.

Kimberly Seals Allers is an award-winning journalist and nationally recognized infant health advocate. Her fifth book, The Big Letdown—How Medicine, Big Business and Feminism Undermine Breastfeeding was released in January by St. Martin’s Press. Learn more at www.KimberlySealsAllers.com and follow her on Twitter @iamKSealsAllers.

Guest Post – Facts Not Fear: Protecting the One Place Where Fear Does Not Belong

We live in a world of fear. From the recent terrorist attacks in England to last year’s Orlando nightclub massacre. We have seen how the fear of outsiders has sparked powerful political movements around the world. As a frequent business traveler I sense my own anxiety as I sit on planes and trains, and as a mother I know the feeling that sweeps over me whenever I receive an incoming phone call from my children’s school.

Yes, we live in times of fear and anxiety—much of which is beyond our control.

But there is one place where fear should not exist. There is one area, where, as women and mothers, that we should insist that fear not enter—that is in the precious act of feeding our babies. From the time they are first placed in our arms, we are anxious that we will do our best. Yes, we are nervous that we will make mistakes. But we should not be made to dread our ability to mother—particularly when it comes to feeding our infants—one of our very first tasks.

That’s why a recent spate of fear-based marketing, particularly from the Fed Is Best Foundation, stoking fears that exclusive breastfeeding kills babies is both erroneous and irresponsible. But it is also the type of insidious marketing that preys on a mother’s existing insecurities that should make all women concerned. If the only way Fed Is Best can make its point is by sensationalizing infant deaths and undermining our confidence in our bodies—then maybe their point needs to be carefully considered.

Or, as women, we insist that they make it with valid facts and sans the fear mongering.

Let’s face it, women are sold fear and anxiety as a marketing tool every day. In fact, the strategy, officially known in business circles as FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt—was designed by an IBM executive decades ago to persuade buyers to feel “safe” with IBM products rather than risk a crash, virus or server disruption. By the early 90’s it was generalized to refer to any kind of misinformation used as a competitive weapon.

Today, weaponizing fear takes many forms. We fear our faces aren’t pretty enough, so we buy cosmetics. We worry that our body isn’t the right “type” so we are sold diet plans and surgical procedures. We are told our hair isn’t shiny, bouncy or thick enough so we are sold multitudinous hair products. And then we are told to fear that our bodies may not properly do what they are biologically made to do, and we are sold infant formula.

The truth is, our bodies were uniquely made to feed the infants we create. Decades of scientific research proves that formula is nutritionally inferior to breastmilk. Admittedly, societal pressures, structural barriers such as a lack of paid maternity leave, and physicians who receive little to no training in lactation science in medical school, make it very difficult for some women to fulfill their biological norm. Many women who want to breastfeed find undereducated physicians and nurses and limited post-natal support—particularly in the early days after discharge. We have much to overcome.

To be clear, infant formula is necessary. When a mother’s own breastmilk or human donor milk is not available, then infant formula is an important third option that can, at times, save lives. However, women should come to that decision fully informed, not because of marketing efforts designed to incite distrust in their own bodies or threatened with the fear of the death of their infant.

It’s no secret that, especially in the Western world, women already fear they will have insufficient milk. For some, this fear can become a self-fulfilling prophecy because fear and anxiety can literally limit lactation by stifling the letdown reflux that stimulates the milk glands. Feeding into this insecurity by promoting early formula supplementation “just in case” has been a go-to move by the formula industry for years.

As far back as the 1940s, the manufacturers of Borden KLIM evaporated milk ran a radio jingle in the Congo that stoked mother’s fears over insufficient milk. The song went:

The Child is going to die
Because the mother’s milk has given out
Mama o Mama the child cries
If you want your child to get well
Give it KLIM milk

So when Fed Is Best frequently promotes eerily similar headlines claiming, “One bottle would have saved my baby”—it seems to make early supplementation innocuous, while deploying a similar tactic used to spur sales of infant formula. The insidious message is that your breast cannot be trusted but a bottle can—this type of marketing should concern all women.

Instead of fear, we should demand the facts about why physicians and nurses don’t have more education to properly identify lactation dysfunction or failure. We should demand knowledge about other options to increase milk output such as hand expression, which can extract more milk than a pump. If formula must be used, it should be administered as a temporary bridge until a mother’s supply is established, not a breastfeeding killer for mothers who want to nurse. And we should demand standard home visitation immediately after discharge, as is the practice in the UK and other European countries.

Ultimately, women deserve facts not fear. Women have a right to guilt-free, confidence-building information and support. And it’s time that we demand it of everyone—including, and especially, from those claiming to support mothers. We cannot stand by while Fed Is Best insists that fear is best.

Kimberly Seals Allers is an award-winning journalist and nationally recognized infant health advocate. Her fifth book, The Big Letdown—How Medicine, Big Business and Feminism Undermine Breastfeeding was released in January by St. Martin’s Press. Learn more at www.KimberlySealsAllers.com and follow her on Twitter @iamKSealsAllers.