news-record.com

NEWS

Maternity programs may be cut

Article
Comments (12)

Friday, July 10, 2009

(Updated 5:43 am)

By Gerald Witt
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — A pregnant woman who can’t afford prenatal health care would have one less option under the proposed budget from the state.

An expected $53 million statewide cut to public health in 2009-10 would trim programs offered through local health departments to care for poor mothers and poor or disabled children on Medicaid.

“These are the most vulnerable populations that we’re serving,” said Felicia Reid, manager of the Guilford County Department of Public Health’s Community Health Services unit.

Nurses from the health department connect about 2,400 mothers and infants with the care, information and resources to help prevent premature births, birth defects and babies with low birth weight. Guilford County in 2008-09 had an infant mortality rate of 9.5 per 1,000, higher than the statewide infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1,000.

“These are the women that tend to have poor pregnancy outcomes,” Reid said.

During a budget year with a $4 billion shortfall, legislators say something has to go.

And it appears that Raleigh isn’t interested in restoring funding for the health programs, according to Lynette Tolson, director of the state association of local health directors.

Tolson said that the cuts would also eliminate nurses who help health departments fill in during other emergencies.

“They step in and roll up their sleeves,” Tolson said, “and it’s going to be a huge loss to the community and when the hurricane comes, or when H1N1 comes around.”

Guilford County has had a brush with swine flu this year, logging the state’s first two deaths linked to the virus.

“I’m seeing that they’re still having to cut budgets, and it’s making me very nervous,” Merle Green, Guilford County’s health director, said of the state legislature.

Green on Thursday wrote in an e-mail that she was afraid of what the state would cut from its budget and how the spending gap could be bridged.

She and others say that spending money on prevention for the mothers and children in the program here saves money from treatment costs later — which are covered by Medicaid.

And ultimately, those are tax dollars that are saved.

“For every dollar that’s spent on maternity care coordination,” Reid said, “it saves $2 from Medicaid.”

Contact Gerald Witt at 373-7008 or gerald.witt@news-record.com

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Doug Johnson

July 10, 2009 - 4:59 am EDT

This is the way the Raleigh Mafia works, cut programs that stick out.
Pure pork, never cut.
Have any of you read the story on the crap pots?
Not likely seems the MSM over look this.
Perdue using tax payers funds to buy votes already.

Paul J

July 10, 2009 - 7:12 am EDT

What is the crap pots story. I searched the N&R and found nothing.

tuffi

July 10, 2009 - 8:25 am EDT

Did he mean crab pots?

Paul J

July 10, 2009 - 7:09 am EDT

Some of these programs need to be cut. Naturally the health dept. will cry foul because they and the welfare system employ people and have budgets to maintain. If you don't spend it you loose it.
Last year on one of the news channels did a story about a woman on welfare going in for a ultrasound to determine the sex of her baby. What a crock. What did it matter. This was not in conjunction with any other procedure it was to determine the sex only. Tax money being wasted and administered by our health dept. this is only one example. Multiply it many times. Hell my niece got a free eye exam and glasses to attend prenatal classes. Did not matter she could not read she got them anyway. We have total ignorance and incompetence running all aspects of government.

mickeysgurl26

July 10, 2009 - 7:23 am EDT

I disagree with you! Do you know how many drug addicted babies are being born? Do you know who's going out to check on these mothers to offer assistance so that the babies can remain in their homes and not go into foster care? Do you know how much it cost to maintain a baby or child in foster care? It's easy for those who don't have a clue of what happens when a baby is born drug addicted to make assumptions.

mickeysgurl26

July 10, 2009 - 7:19 am EDT

I can't believe this! There are so many pregnant mothers who are drug addicted and need additional support. Some only qualify for Medicaid if they are pregnant.Cutting this programs that assist pregnant mothers will eliminate a resource and thus will lead to more babies coming into the custody of the states foster care system, which will cost more money. In addition it will mean that some mothers who are pregnant and drug addicted may not seek prenatal care. Which may lead to more fatalities. Why not front load services(Maternity Care) to eliminate the need for more babies to come into foster care. It seems that the priorities are being left by the way side. I see different areas receiving stimulus money for this and that. Where's the stimulus money for this program? If this program is cut a lot of nurses will be left without jobs and the support that is needed for the addicted mothers will be gone.In addition what about the nurses's families? Come on! I didn't think things would be this bad with the choice that I made on election day. I haven't heard or read anything about the governor’s salary being reduced or her taking a furlough.

Paul J

July 10, 2009 - 8:47 am EDT

So you want mothers to be addicted so nurses won't lose their jobs. You must be one of the crack heads thinking this way. Never did I say do away with the programs. Read it again when you sober up.

greatisourgod

July 10, 2009 - 9:19 am EDT

Paul, I believe he is responding to the article ,not to your post. We should be able to disagree with civility. It's amazing that when we enter into public debate we seem to reach a point where name calling and finger pointing becomes the order of the day. It is through intelligent debate that we reach new and innovated ideas and ideals. The point of negative reaction seem to be reached earlier as time passes.

mickeysgurl26

July 10, 2009 - 11:22 am EDT

No I'm not an addicted crack head or addicted to anything else for that matter. What I was saying is that the programs help those who are addicted by providing extra resources for them. I also meant that if the programs are cut that the nurses will lose their jobs. That's all that I meant! I work and have been working all of my life.
Thanks!

lovetoall

July 10, 2009 - 10:17 am EDT

Last year my husband and I had some hard times (as everyone) and I was expecting and could not afford health insurance. I was able to have a nurse assist me during my prenatal visits, and she came a week and a half after my baby was born to check on its health and mine. During this post-natal visit, she just happened to check my blood pressure: it was 170 over 102. She was so concerned she immediately contacted my doctor's office, checked my pressure again, and stayed with me until my doctor's office called her back, sending me to the ER at The Women's Hospital. The result: I had post partum preeclampsia and extremely high blood pressure and stayed in the hospital, including extensive testing, monitoring, and a trip to the ICU, for 5 days. I was always healthy, had a healthy pregnancy, and delivery, and had absolutely no clue that I was sick once I got home. But the nurse, Judy Walker, did such of an excellent job, she was able to catch my illness before any seizures, or worse, stroke, occurred. What a gift to my family, and Guilford County. I would hate for such wonderful nurses and programs to be cut, putting so many in jeopardy.

theroadrunner

July 10, 2009 - 1:07 pm EDT

I agree to cut where neccessary. Unfortunatly, the article doesn't say "a struggling, out of work couple" it merely say "a pregnant woman". I'll bet that this is a welfare-recipient, who has been "knocked up" and we fit the bill for it. Of course all children are a blessing, but often in this society, their parent are a curse and thorn in the side of the hardworking families that work day in and day out to make ends meet.

Gerald Witt

July 10, 2009 - 3:37 pm EDT

roadrunner-

We attempted to contact people actually receiving the services provided by the county, but clients by mid-afternoon were unable to be reached and we were butting up against a deadline here.

Though I haven't reported on the martial status of the women who receive the services, and am unsure if the county keeps that information (and even then, if it's publicly available) I'm willing to bet that some of the pregnant women who receive some services are part of "struggling, out of work couples", just as there are pregnant women receiving the services who are single, or those who were abandoned by their lover/husband/boyfriend or are in any other of numerous possible status situations with significant others.

On another note, I was sitting in a DSS meeting a month ago that explained how welfare disbursements work for mothers, and though I don't remember the figure off the top of my head, it's not as high as one would think. I'll see if I can dig that out of my notes when I have a moment some other time.