Elizabeth Warren Wants to Save Moms From Dying During Childbirth. Her Plan Is Pretty Half Baked.

For one, it doesn’t do anything to specifically support the most vulnerable women: black mothers.

Associated Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For American women, having a baby is becoming increasingly dangerous. Between 2000 and 2014, the rate of mothers dying during childbirth increased by more than a quarter. Black moms are especially vulnerable—they’re about four times more likely to die while having a baby than white women. This week, presidential contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren floated an idea to decrease our rising national maternal mortality rate: Pay hospitals that prevent moms from dying, and take money away from those that don’t.

“I want to see the hospitals see it as their responsibility to address this problem head on and make it a first priority,” she said at the She the People Presidential Forum in Houston on Wednesday. “And the best way to do that is to use money to make it happen.”

It’s an appealingly simple idea, and versions of it have worked in the past. For example, in 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stopped reimbursing hospitals for costs associated with avoidable problems—like falls in the hospital and infections from dirty IV lines. Over the next decade, hospitals cleaned up their acts: In 2018, the agency calculated that hospital improvements had saved 8,000 lives and $2.9 billion.

But the experts I talked to about Warren’s plan cautioned that her carrot-and-stick approach might be an overly simplistic solution to a vexingly complicated problem. On the most basic level, there isn’t enough data today to determine which maternal deaths can be prevented. Many states still don’t accurately track their maternal mortality rate, and not all hospitals code maternal deaths in a standard way, notes Jodi Abbott, a health disparities researcher at Boston University School of Medicine. This limitation would make it almost impossible to actually implement Warren’s plan fairly.

And, as Monifa Bandele, senior vice president of the maternal and family advocacy group MomsRising, points out, Warren’s proposal does nothing to specifically address the racial disparities of the issue. “Even at well-resourced hospitals, black women experience higher rates of complications, and even among well-resourced black women,” she says.

What’s more, the complications for black women often go far beyond hospitals. As I reported last year, mounting research suggests that the stress of experiencing racism in everyday life may contribute to poor outcomes both for black moms and their babies.

Bandele, who attended the She the People forum and who asked the question that prompted the senator to introduce her plan, also worries that Warren’s idea could take away resources—like doctor trainings and specialized equipment—from hospitals that need them most. “In penalizing hospitals that are doing poorly, we can make a bad situation worse,” she says.

Abbott believes that in order for Warren’s plan to work, it’d need to get states involved, to better support hospitals’ efforts to make childbirth safer. Several states have over the past several years found some success in curbing maternal mortality by forming special committees—called quality care collaboratives—that monitor and improve the quality of care and safety at hospitals. California’s QCC, for example, helped state hospitals implement standard protocols that were proven to treat the conditions—such as hemorrhaging and high blood pressure—that commonly endangered mothers during childbirth. The state cut its maternal mortality rate by 55 percent after it established its QCC in 2006.

So for a plan like Warren’s to succeed, says Abbott, states would need to figure out how to motivate hospitals to adopt these best practices. One idea: Agencies such as state medical boards and the federal Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, could make the practices a requirement for hospitals to be licensed. “But will these initiatives change the racial differences?” she asks. “That is a major question.”

Bandele says she sees Warren’s idea as the “beginnings of a plan” rather than a fully-formed solution. She notes that the proposal could benefit by pulling from a bill that presidential hopeful Kamala Harris introduced last year in the Senate; it included strategies aimed at making childbirth safer for black women in particular, such as funding racial bias trainings for obstetricians, midwives, and labor and delivery nurses.

For now, without clear incentives in place, it of course remains to be seen whether more states will step up to support hospitals. And the slow pace of progress frustrates Abbott. “If it was 50-year-old white men dying as frequently as black moms,” she says, “hospitals would be shut down until the best practices were implemented.” 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate