Well, this is from NPR; which, we all know is completely fair even though it leans left. Okay, so, CDC; which, we all know we can trust has been using misleading data to report on how horrible mortality rates are of expectant mothers in USA - essentially overstating by 300%. Shocked, I tell you. Shocked. I'm just grateful I don't get all the government I pay for. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/13/1238269753/maternal-mortality-overestimate-deaths-births-health-disparities#:~:text=The CDC's National Center for,NPR and other news outlets. TRUST (our) SCIENCE!!!
Article was pretty clear so even a Republican could understand it. They wrote it slowly so I could read it easier. Essentially, any death of a pregnant woman was thrown into the category of "Pregnancy mortality" even if it was a car crash, previously diagnosed w/ cancer, drowned, etc. Sound vaguely familiar? Two thoughts when people receive statistics: 1. Figures do not lie; but, liars do figure. 2. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Yes, business people do have the profit motive to shape, present and spin what they want folks to know; and, that is understood. People in large bureaucracies also have their motives (whether for profit, government, NGO, etc.) but that is rarely known nor understood. We are consumers of information. Caveat emptor.
Well… did you read it? Because I just did and the article warns to not have a flippant attitude about the “revised” numbers. The U.S. still needs to do a lot better in this area. Even the revised methodology still puts us pretty well last compared the rest of the 1st world. Not really a thing to spike the football over. Especially with certain states making things very much worse (the states driving out OBGYN’s). A revised academic methodology isn’t going to cover for that real world harm.
So it sounds like a flawed methodology for collecting the data (pregnancy check box). OP, are you suggesting the CDC was intentionally misleading the public on maternal mortality (the article mentions several times it was not intentional)? If so, why? What’s their objective in being dishonest about these numbers?
What would the motive be here to inflate pregnancy mortality? Make us look really bad instead of just bad?
I'm simply sharing the information seems to be way off. Generally, I vote in favor of incompetence, ignorance or indifference over some conspiracy. From what I read it seemed that the intake form became dated and when it used to be used simply to know if the woman was pregnant over time it became used to the cause of death and hence the increased mortality numbers. I'm old enough to remember "10 million homeless in the USA" and it was shouted, repeated, and emphasized all over the media. Later, even homeless advocates admitted the figure was 10X or more too high; but, hey, what's a few zeroes when there is an important issue to face? In the latter case I think someone was just pontificating about the problem...some news outlet ran with it...and then it became "THE" number and so people just accepted it without doing any critical thinking or challenging it. Except, of course, those evil, terrible, horrible "infamous" Republicans who stood with El Guapo while the women were stolen and the horses were raped.
Mo' money. "We need additional funding as we trail all other industrialized nations in this area." Rinse/Repeat. Student debt? Mo' money. Illegal entrants to USA? Mo' money. COVID? LOTS Mo' money. Education (K-12) struggling? Mo' money. I could be wrong but there seems to be a trend.
So would you make the case that crime is inflated because cops want bigger budgets? That the threat of China or whoever is overstated so the military gets their money? Also, I'm not sure things really play out that way. Instead of increasing budgets, they get offloaded to the private sector (in the form of privatization, outsourcing or vouchers) or nothing actually changes. Its not like we've increased healthcare funding to combat the problem of pregnancy mortality lol. Many people and state governments simply ignored the CDC on COVID too.
Solving problems does generally require expertise, and as people tend to not work for free ever since slavery was abolished, presumably it would cost “mo money” to hire more people. This is very astute of you.
Thank you. With the exception of the border I don't see where the other three issues I shared are the purview of the Federal Government. Want problems solved? In general: give folks autonomy and keep the government out of it. Sadly, we've come to this place in our history that government seems to be the answer to any and every thing.
they explain the flawed methodology in the article. Don’t be coy, Rick. Do you think they did it on purpose? If so, why?
I can't pretend that some agencies and sites fudge numbers for whatever reason/s, but assigning intent in everything they write just by reading one article is premature. However, I am no fan of the CDC over all... for reasons I will not divulge right now. Off subject....
This is why retrospective data mining studies are very suspect. I see so many errors in medical records, it’s only gotten worse with EMRs as boxes can get clicked by accident so easily. Particularly bad when they are checking diagnosis codes as they often check the first one that pops up and don’t scroll down to the more accurate one.
Even if a methodology is flawed, if it remains consistent (consistently flawed in the same way) from year to year and across states, it would still capture national trends and differences between geographical areas, so not totally useless. At some level even those who study things like this deeply are beholden to imperfect inputs. With the way our health system operates it shouldn’t be surprising data is all over the map.
We humans are fallible, but science is the best way to arrive at the truth. When one is anti-science, one wonders what one replaces it with.
If I didn't know who the respondent was, I couldn't begin to fathom why my post deserved a come on man. That is why I have her on ignore.
