United States and Illinois Fall Behind Other Countries in Infant Death Rates: What Does This Say About Quality of Health Care?
Even though a recent study showed infant death rate declining by 2% in the United States and Illinois declined recently, the percentage of decline is much less than in prior years. In fact, this is the smallest decrease since we first began recording the infant death rate in 1907. This trend is compounded by the fact that Illinois and the U.S. have more infant deaths than most other industrialized countries, a trend that has worsened with each passing year.
Each year more than 28,000 infants under one year-old die in the United States. Two-thirds of these infant deaths are preterm babies. In 2006, 6.71 infants died in the United States for every 1,000 live births. In 2006, Illinois was well above the national average with 7.2 infants deaths for every 1,000 births. Illinois's death rate seems even more startling when compared with that of other countries. In 2004, twenty-two countries had infant mortality rates below 5.0 infant deaths for 1,000 live births, and many Scandinavian and Asian countries posting rates below 3.5.
The infant death rate is important because it is used as an international indicator of a nation's health and quality of medical care. So even though individuals in the United States spend a much larger portion of its income on health care than those in other industrialized nations, we continue to fall short of the international standard. In 1960 the United States had the 12th lowest rates of infant mortality in the world. But by 2004 we had dropped to 29th lowest, the same rank as Slovakia and Poland.
If we are spending so much more than these other countries, why are we falling further and further behind the world-wide standard? Some look towards recent trends in preterm births, Cesarean deliveries, and other types of birth injury as the source of this problem. Others feel the problem is due to cultural issues, like drug use and obesity. And yet another group feels that the decentralization of our health care system is to blame.
Health care providers have teamed up with credit card companies to create a 'medical credit card', which is essentially a credit card that can only be used on medical purchases. You can fill out an application in your doctor's office and get approved while sitting in the waiting room. From a doctor's perspective this is ideal because they receive instant payment for their services. But oftentimes the patient is the one who loses. 
Chicago and Illinois hospitals have initiated programs advocating that medical providers wash their hands frequently to prevent spreading infection to their patients. And while this is a proven measure to stem the spread of diseases, physicians' clothes and scrubs can still carry infection from patient to patient. Not to mention that when medical providers continue to wear their hospital clothes outside of the hospital, whether their scrubs or own clothes, then they can carry and spread infections to other areas. 
Perhaps the most well-known of these is methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (MRSA), a type of "staph" infection that is resistant to the broad spectrum antibiotics typically used to treat it. However, unlike many of the other superbugs coming to light, MRSA can be treated with alternate antibiotics. But the fear is that in time MRSA will also become resistant to these alternative antibiotics. 
The new study was done by researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital, Columbia University and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In it they tried to duplicate prior findings that showed the MMR vaccine caused autism, but were unable to do so. As has happened with many other medical studies, this recent one found no evidence that the MMR vaccine caused harm or was in any way linked to autism.
But now immunologists are coming forward with new studies reporting that the vaccine doesn't work very well for those over 70. Yet the over 70 age bracket accounts for 75% of all the flu deaths. 
The legal advice comes from top doctors and editors of the New England Journal of Medicine who have submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. The doctors state that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “is in no position” to guarantee drug safety. The doctors went on to to say that lawsuits can serve as “a vital deterrent” and protect consumers if drug companies don’t disclose risks. 
But what can we do to force our doctor to focus on us? To assert our visit is important and demands his or her full attention and expertise? Do we need to lobby for different rules governing the system? Do we need to pay by the minute so that a physician will review our case until we are satisfied? 
