Photo by Roberto Westbrook, Getty Images.
Ohio and the United States have a big problem with infant mortality. But the state government can take measures to significantly lessen it, the vast majority of Ohio economists surveyed on the matter said.
When infants die at high rates, it isn’t just a tragedy for them and their families. It also is expensive and it saps economic growth, a group of researchers reported last year in the peer-reviewed Cureus Journal of Medical Science.
“The cost of infant mortality in the United States is estimated to be around $12 billion annually, with $7.4 billion in medical costs and $4.8 billion in lost productivity due to associated disabilities in survivors,” they wrote. “This economic burden has significant implications for policymakers and society. The long-term impacts of infant mortality on economic growth and development are significant. Studies have shown that infant mortality is associated with lower economic growth and development, as families who experience infant mortality may face significant financial strain and reduced access to education and employment opportunities. This (can have a) ripple effect on the broader economy, with reduced productivity and higher health care costs.”
Since per-capita health spending in the United States is 56% greater than the next-highest country — Switzerland — one might think that we should have the lowest rate of infant mortality. However, in the Central Intelligence Agency’s rankings of 227 countries, the United States comes in at 51st.
And Ohio is among the worst in the country. With 7.11 deaths per 1,000 live births, the rate in the Buckeye State was eighth-highest in 2022, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
To address the crisis, both houses of the Ohio General Assembly have passed House Bill 7. Called “The Strong Foundations Act,” it would spend $34 million over two years on programs aimed at assisting pregnant women and families with very young children.
In a survey published Monday morning, a panel of economists said such targeted spending would help. Asked if they agreed it “will significantly reduce infant mortality,” 18 said they did and the remaining two were uncertain.
In the comment section of the survey, Jonathan Andreas of Bluffton University said, “the US does poorly on infant mortality and it is partly due to poor prenatal care for women who are uninsured or who have health insurance that discourages care through high-deductibles or by randomly denying coverage for routine care (like has happened to my family on a number of occasions!).”
Bob Gitter of Ohio Wesleyan University said he wanted to see a program even bigger than the one passed by the General Assembly.
“Ohio has a very high infant mortality rate, especially for minority women,” he wrote. “This will help but I wish it was even larger.”
But Michael Jones of the University of Cincinnati said he was uncertain if government programs significantly reduce infant mortality.
“Some of these programs do appear to improve the percentage of preterm births and number of low birthweight children,” he said. “I’m not sure if they significantly reduce infant mortality though.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.