CDC statistics on pregnancy mortality rate inflated - NPR

In before the libbies call the link bogus…or that you didn’t read the charts/graphs correctly.

 

Thanks for proving that NPR is a reliable data source in spite of its biases.

 

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?

 

beyond that, it appears that the pregnancy box could easily be checked by accident.

 

What would the motive be here to inflate pregnancy mortality? Make us look really bad instead of just bad?

 

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.

 

10 to 30 per 100K is a big swing in supposed statistical data... for sure.

 

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.