This article is from the New York Times:
It is about the same study that I referenced yesterday on the politics of public health funding.
It’s a good article – again, it lists the same things we’ve been talking about that make the difference.
The study cited a number of reasons for the improvement: lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which improves nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and the increasing availability of “skilled attendants” — people with some medical training — to help women give birth. Improvements in large countries like India and China helped to drive down the overall death rates.
I can understand the fuss over funding – in today’s short-attention span world, people worry that if numbers improve, it implies that it no longer needs funding and focus moves on to the next crisis – as if the problem is solved. It isn’t solved. But the good news is, women’s (and babies’) health can be affected positively with funding and worldwide attention toward maternal health.
Dr. Horton contended that the new data should encourage politicians to spend more on pregnancy-related health matters. The data dispelled the belief that the statistics had been stuck in one dismal place for decades, he said. So money allocated to women’s health is actually accomplishing something, he said, and governments are not throwing good money after bad.