The population-level impacts of a national health insurance program and franchise midwife clinics on achievement of prenatal and delivery care standards in the Philippines

Objectives Adequate prenatal and delivery care are vital components of successful maternal health care provision. Starting in 1998, two programs were widely expanded in the Philippines: a national health insurance program (PhilHealth); and a donor-funded franchise of midwife clinics (Well Family Midwife Clinics). This paper examines population-level impacts of these interventions on achievement of minimum standards for prenatal and delivery care.Methods Data from two waves of the Demographic and Health Surveys, conducted before (1998) and after (2003) scale-up of the interventions, are employed in a pre/post-study design, using longitudinal multivariate logistic and linear regression models.Results After controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, the PhilHealth insurance program scale-up was associated with increased odds of receiving at least four prenatal visits (OR 1.04 [95% CI 1.01-1.06]) and receiving a visit during the first trimester of pregnancy (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.06]). Exposure to midwife clinics was not associated with significant changes in achievement of prenatal care standards. While both programs were associated with slight increases in the odds of delivery in a health facility, these increases were not statistically significant.Conclusions These results suggest that expansion of an insurance program with accreditation standards was associated with increases in achievement of minimal standards for prenatal care among women in the Philippines.Maternal health Prenatal and delivery care National health insurance program Social franchising Philippines

Inequities in Availability of Evidence-Based Birth Supports to Improve Perinatal Health for Socially Vulnerable Rural Residents

Rural residents in the United States (US) have disproportionately high rates of maternal and infant mortality. Rural residents who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) face multiple social risk factors and have some of the worst maternal and infant health outcomes in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to determine the rural availability of evidence-based supports and services that promote maternal and infant health. We developed and conducted a national survey of a sample of rural hospitals. We determined for each responding hospital the county-level scores on the 2018 CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The sample’s (n = 93) median SVI score [IQR] was 0.55 [0.25–0.88]; for majority-BIPOC counties (n = 29) the median SVI score was 0.93 [0.88–0.98] compared with 0.38 [0.19–0.64] for majority-White counties (n = 64). Among counties where responding hospitals were located, 86.2% located in majority-BIPOC counties ranked in the most socially vulnerable quartile of counties nationally (SVI ≥ 0.75), compared with 14.1% of majority-White counties. In analyses adjusted for geography and hospital size, certified lactation support (aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13–0.97), midwifery care (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12–0.99), doula support (aOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.84), postpartum support groups (aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09–0.68), and childbirth education classes (aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01–0.69) were significantly less available in the most vulnerable counties compared with less vulnerable counties. Residents in the most socially vulnerable rural counties, many of whom are BIPOC and thus at higher risk for poor birth outcomes, are significantly less likely to have access to evidence-based supports for maternal and infant health

What Is Rural? Challenges and Implications of Definitions that Inadequately Encompass Rural People and Places.

Monitoring and improving rural health is challenging because of varied and conflicting concepts of just what rural means. Federal, state, and local agencies and data resources use different definitions, which may lead to confusion and inequity in the distribution of resources depending on the definition used. This article highlights how inconsistent definitions of rural may lead to measurement bias in research, the interpretation of research outcomes, and differential eligibility for rural-focused grants and other funding. We conclude by making specific recommendations on how policy makers and researchers could use these definitions more appropriately, along with definitions we propose, to better serve rural residents. We also describe concepts that may improve the definition of and frame the concept of rurality. [Journal abstract