Person:

Kotelchuck, Milton

Objectives: The maternal and child health (MCH) community, partnering with women and their families, has the potential to play a critical role in advancing a new multi-sector social movement focused on creating a women’s reproductive and economic justice agenda. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the MCH field has been planting seeds for change. The time has come for this work to bear fruit as many states are facing stagnant or slow progress in reducing infant mortality, increasing maternal death rates, and growing health inequities. Methods: This paper synthesizes three current, interrelated approaches to addressing MCH challenges—life course theory, preconception health, and social justice/reproductive equity. Conclusion: Based on these core constructs, the authors offer four directions for advancing efforts to improve MCH outcomes. The first is to ensure access to quality health care for all. The second is to facilitate change through critical conversations about challenging issues such as poverty, racism, sexism, and immigration; the relevance of evidence-based practice in disenfranchised communities; and how we might be perpetuating inequities in our institutions. The third is to develop collaborative spaces in which leaders across diverse sectors can see their roles in creating equitable neighborhood conditions that ensure optimal reproductive choices and outcomes for women and their families. Last, the authors suggest that leaders engage the MCH workforce and its consumers in dialogue and action about local and national policies that address the social determinants of health and how these policies influence reproductive and early childhood outcomes.

Objective: To compare costs of redetermining disability to direct savings in SSI payments associated with different strategies for implementing Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) among children potentially enrolled in SSI from 2012–2021. Methods: We reviewed publicly available reports from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) to estimate costs and savings. We considered CDRs for children ages 1–17 years, excluding mandated Low-Birth Weight and Age 18 Redeterminations that SSA has routinely carried out. Results: If SSA in 2012 performs the same number of CDRs for children as in 2010 (16,677, 1% of eligibles) at a cessation rate of 15%, the agency would experience net savings of approximately $145 million in benefit payments. If CDR numbers increased to the highest level ever (183,211, 22% of eligibles, in 1999) at the same cessation rate, the agency would save approximately $1.6 billion in benefit payments. Discussion: Increasing the numbers of CDRs for children represents a considerable opportunity for savings. Recognizing the dynamic nature of disability, the agency could reassess persistence of disability systematically. Doing so could free up resources from children who are no longer eligible and help the agency better direct its benefits to recipients with ongoing disability and whose families need support to meet the extra costs associated with raising a child with a major disability.

Introduction: Understanding patterns of diabetes prevalence and diabetes-related complications across pregnancies could inform chronic disease prevention efforts. We examined adverse birth outcomes by diabetes status among women with sequential, live singleton deliveries. Methods: We used data from the 1998–2007 Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System, a population-based cohort of deliveries. We restricted the sample to sets of parity 1 and 2 deliveries. We created 8 diabetes categories using gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and chronic diabetes mellitus (CDM) status for the 2 deliveries. Adverse outcomes included large for gestational age (LGA), macrosomia, preterm birth, and cesarean delivery. We computed prevalence estimates for each outcome by diabetes status. Results: We identified 133,633 women with both parity 1 and 2 deliveries. Compared with women who had no diabetes in either pregnancy, women with GDM or CDM during any pregnancy had increased risk for adverse birth outcomes; the prevalence of adverse outcomes was higher in parity 1 deliveries among women with no diabetes in parity 1 and GDM in parity 2 (for LGA [8.5% vs 15.1%], macrosomia [9.7% vs. 14.9%], cesarean delivery [24.7% vs 31.3%], and preterm birth [7.7% vs 12.9%]); and higher in parity 2 deliveries among those with GDM in parity 1 and no diabetes in parity 2 (for LGA [12.3% vs 18.2%], macrosomia [12.3% vs 17.2%], and cesarean delivery [27.0% vs 37.9%]). Conclusions: Women with GDM during one of 2 sequential pregnancies had elevated risk for adverse outcomes in the unaffected pregnancy, whether the diabetes-affected pregnancy preceded or followed it.