The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: health insurance rates
Maternal And Infant Mortality Are Highest In 'Pro-Life' Red States

Maternal And Infant Mortality Are Highest In 'Pro-Life' Red States

Valuing life is the official reason for abortion bans, but on measure after measure, the states banning abortion show just how little they really value life.

After Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves claimed that his state’s successful battle to overturn Roe v. Wade was “always about creating a culture of life,” we took a close look at Mississippi: Highest infant mortality rate. Highest homicide rate. Highest firearm mortality rate. Lowest life expectancy at birth.

But it’s not just Mississippi. The New York Times has a look at a range of ways states can support children and mothers, and states that are banning abortion come out worse on just about all of them than do states that are not likely to ban abortion.

Outcomes on which the 24 current or likely abortion ban states are worse than the 20 states unlikely to ban abortion:

  • The infant mortality rate in states banning or expected to soon ban abortion is 6.3 per 1,000 births. In states that aren’t going to ban abortion, it’s 4.7 per 1,000.
  • The maternal mortality rate in the ban states is 25.2 per 1,000, compared with 15 per 1,000 in states that won’t ban abortion.
  • 18.5 percent of children live in poverty in the ban states, compared with 14.8 percent in the no-ban states.
  • 15.7 percent of women of reproductive age are uninsured in the ban states, compared with nine percent in the no-ban states.
  • It’s 7.2 percent to 3.6 percent for uninsured children—that’s double.
  • 8.8 percent of babies in the ban states are born with low birth weights, compared with 7.7 percent in the no-ban states.
  • There are 21.2 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19 in abortion ban states, compared with 12.1 per 1,000 in no-ban states.

Alongside those outcomes are some striking policy differences: Not one of the states banning abortion has paid family leave. Eleven states that won’t be banning abortion have paid family leave. Every single one of the latter has expanded Medicaid, while just 15 of the 24 abortion ban states have done so. All but one of the no-ban states have minimum wages above the federal level of $7.25 an hour, while just eight of the ban states do. Both groups of states include six that have universal pre-K, though that’s a larger percentage of the no-ban states.

None of the state lawmakers who have pushed through and supported abortion bans can seriously claim that their states’ governance reflects a priority on life. The numbers are clear.

Even if every one of these states had 100 percent insurance rates and the lowest infant mortality and maternal mortality in the world, forcing people to carry pregnancies and give birth against their will would be a moral outrage. But there really should be a rule that anytime a lawmaker is quoted opposing abortion, they should be identified with the infant and maternal mortality rates of their states and with any votes they have made to support or oppose things like expanding health care or establishing paid family leave or reducing child poverty.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Arbitrary Premium Hikes Scrutinized In Key States

One of the critical components of the Affordable Care Act was new power for federal officials to review arbitrary insurance rate hikes. They are finally ready to use it:

The Obama administration will soon take over the review of health insurance rates in 10 states where it says state officials do not adequately regulate premiums for insurance sold to individuals or small businesses.

At least one state, Iowa, has protested the federal decision and asked administration officials to reconsider.

Several other states acknowledged that they lacked the power under state law to review health insurance rates. Several insurance commissioners tried and failed to get such authority from their state legislatures this year.

Starting Sept. 1, federal and state officials will begin to scrutinize proposed rate increases of more than 10 percent to determine if they are justified. White House officials say their ability to publicize excessive, unreasonable rates will be a major protection for consumers under President Obama’s health care law.

The states in question — Louisiana, Iowa, Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — seem to be a combination of conservative states with high poverty rates that desperately need insurance market reforms, and swing states: Iowa, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We cannot ignore the political implications of Obama making an aggressive play to publicize a popular component of his health law in advance of the 2012 elections in these states, as the more robust subsidies and insurance exchanges that will really boost the middle class will not kick in until midway through his second term.