Neonatal morbidity and mortality in birth centers in the United States 2018-2021: An observational study of low-risk birthing individuals.

BACKGROUND: Many studies reporting neonatal outcomes in birth centers include births with risk factors not acceptable for birth center care using the evidence-based CABC criteria. Accurate comparisons of outcomes by birth setting for low-risk patients are needed. METHODS: Data from the public Natality Detailed File from 2018 to 2021 were used. Logistic regression, including adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios, compared neonatal outcomes (chorioamnionitis, Apgar scores, resuscitation, intensive care, seizures, and death) between centers and hospitals. Covariates included maternal diabetes, body mass index, age, parity, and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 8,738,711 births (8,698,432 (99.53%) in hospitals and 40,279 (0.46%) in birth centers). There were no significant differences in neonatal deaths (aOR 1.037; 95% CI [0.515, 2.088]; p-value 0.918) or seizures (aOR 0.666; 95% CI [0.315, 1.411]; p-value 0.289). Measures of morbidity either not significantly different or less likely to occur in birth centers compared to hospitals included chorioamnionitis (aOR 0.032; 95% CI [0.020, 0.052]; p-value < 0.001), Apgar score < 4 (aOR 0.814, 95% CI [0.638, 1.039], p-value 0.099), Apgar score < 7 (aOR 1.075, 95% CI [0.979, 1.180], p-value 0.130), ventilation >6 h (aOR 0.349; [0.281,0.433], p-value < 0.001), and intensive care admission (aOR 0.356; 95% CI [0.328, 0.386], p-value < 0.001). Birth centers had higher odds of assisted neonatal ventilation for <6 h as compared to hospitals (aOR 1.373; 95% CI [1.293, 1.457], p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Neonatal deaths and seizures were not significantly different between freestanding birth centers and hospitals. Chorioamnionitis, Apgar scores < 4, and intensive care admission were less likely to occur in birth centers.

An alternative model of maternity care for low-risk birth: Maternal and neonatal outcomes utilizing the midwifery-based birth center model.

OBJECTIVE: To assess key birth outcomes in an alternative maternity care model, midwifery-based birth center care. DATA SOURCES: The American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry and birth certificate files, using national data collected from 2009 to 2019. STUDY DESIGN: This observational cohort study compared key clinical birth outcomes of women at low risk for perinatal complications, comparing those who received care in the midwifery-based birth center model versus hospital-based usual care. Linear regression analysis was used to assess key clinical outcomes in the midwifery-based group as compared with hospital-based usual care. The hospital-based group was selected using nearest neighbor matching, and the primary linear regressions were weighted using propensity score weights (PSWs). The key clinical outcomes considered were cesarean delivery, low birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding, and neonatal death. We performed sensitivity analyses using inverse probability weights and entropy balancing weights. We also assessed the remaining role of omitted variable bias using a bounding methodology. DATA COLLECTION: Women aged 16-45 with low-risk pregnancies, defined as a singleton fetus and no record of hypertension or cesarean section, were included. The sample was selected for records that overlapped in each year and state. Counties were included if there were at least 50 midwifery-based birth center births and 300 total births. After matching, the sample size of the birth center cohort was 85,842 and the hospital-based cohort was 261,439. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Women receiving midwifery-based birth center care experienced lower rates of cesarean section (-12.2 percentage points, p < 0.001), low birth weight (-3.2 percentage points, p < 0.001), NICU admission (-5.5 percentage points, p < 0.001), neonatal death (-0.1 percentage points, p < 0.001), and higher rates of breastfeeding (9.3 percentage points, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports midwifery-based birth center care as a high-quality model that delivers optimal outcomes for low-risk maternal/newborn dyads.

Race, ethnicity, and indications for primary cesarean birth: Associations within a national birth center registry.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in cesarean rates in the United States are well documented. This study investigated whether cesarean inequities persist in midwife-led birth center care, including for individuals with the lowest medical risk. METHODS: National registry records of 174,230 childbearing people enrolled in care in 115 midwifery-led birth center practices between 2007 and 2022 were analyzed for primary cesarean rates and indications by race and ethnicity. The lowest medical risk subsample (n = 70,521) was analyzed for independent drivers of cesarean birth. RESULTS: Primary cesarean rates among nulliparas (15.5%) and multiparas (5.7%) were low for all enrollees. Among nulliparas in the lowest-risk subsample, non-Latinx Black (aOR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), Latinx (aOR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32-1.73), and Asian participants (aOR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.85) remained at higher risk for primary cesarean than White participants. Among multiparas, only Black participants experienced a higher primary cesarean risk (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02-2.18). Intrapartum transfers from birth centers were equivalent or lower for Black (14.0%, p = 0.345) and Latinx (12.7%, p < 0.001) enrollees. Black participants experienced a higher proportion of primary cesareans attributed to non-reassuring fetal status, regardless of risk factors. Place of admission was a stronger predictor of primary cesarean than race or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Place of first admission in labor was the strongest predictor of cesarean. Racism as a chronic stressor and a determinant of clinical decision-making reduces choice in birth settings and may increase cesarean rates. Research on components of birth settings that drive inequitable outcomes is warranted.

The birth center model of care: Staffing, business characteristics, and core clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Interest in expanding access to the birth center model is growing. The purpose of this research is to describe birth center staffing models and business characteristics and explore relationships to perinatal outcomes. METHODS: This descriptive analysis includes a convenience sample of all 84 birth center sites that participated in the AABC Site Survey and AABC Perinatal Data Registry between 2012 and 2020. Selected independent variables include staffing model (CNM/CM or CPM/LM), legal entity status, birth volume/year, and hours of midwifery call/week. Perinatal outcomes include rates of induction of labor, cesarean birth, exclusive breastfeeding, birthweight in pounds, low APGAR scores, and neonatal intensive care admission. RESULTS: The birth center model of care is demonstrated to be safe and effective, across a variety of staffing and business models. Outcomes for both CNM/CM and CPM/LM models of care exceed national benchmarks for perinatal quality with low induction, cesarean, NICU admission, and high rates of breastfeeding. Within the sample of medically low-risk multiparas, variations in clinical outcomes were correlated with business characteristics of the birth center, specifically annual birth volume. Increased induction of labor and cesarean birth, with decreased success breastfeeding, were present within practices characterized as high volume (>200 births/year). The research demonstrates decreased access to the birth center model of care for Black and Hispanic populations. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Between 2012 and 2020, 84 birth centers across the United States engaged in 90,580 episodes of perinatal care. Continued policy development is necessary to provide risk-appropriate care for populations of healthy, medically low-risk consumers.

Strong Start Innovation: Equitable Outcomes Across Public and Privately Insured Clients Receiving Birth Center Care.

INTRODUCTION: The Birth Center model of care is a health care delivery innovation in its fourth decade of demonstration across the United States. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the model's potential for decreasing poverty-related health disparities among childbearing families. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2017, 26,259 childbearing people received care within the 45 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Strong Start birth center sites. Secondary analysis of the prospective American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry was conducted. Descriptive statistics described sociobehavioral, medical risk factors, and core clinical outcomes to inform the logistic regression model. Privately insured consumers were independently compared with 2 subgroups of Medicaid beneficiaries: Strong Start enrollees (midwifery-led care with peer counselors) and non-Strong Start Medicaid beneficiaries (midwifery-led care without peer counselors). RESULTS: After controlling for medical risk factors, Strong Start Medicaid beneficiaries achieved similar outcomes to privately insured consumers with no significant differences in maternal or newborn outcomes between groups. Perinatal outcomes included induction of labor (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.86; 95% CI 0.61-1.13), epidural analgesia use (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68-1.48), cesarean birth (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87-1.53), exclusive breastfeeding on discharge (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.48-2.56), low Apgar score at 5 minutes (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.86-1.83), low birth weight (aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.64), and antepartum transfer of care after the first prenatal appointment (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.97-2.40). Medicaid beneficiaries who were not enrolled in the Strong Start midwifery-led, peer counselor program demonstrated similar results except for having higher epidural analgesia use (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.53) and significantly lower exclusive breastfeeding on discharge (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.81) than their privately insured counterparts. DISCUSSION: The midwifery-led birth center model of care complemented by peer counselors demonstrated a pathway to achieve health equity.

Adoption of Consensus Guidelines for Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery by Freestanding Birth Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Slow or arrested progress in labor is the most frequent (64%) indication for nonemergent transfer of laboring people from freestanding birth centers to the hospital. After the 2014 publication of the Consensus Statement on Safe Prevention of Primary Cesarean Delivery (Consensus Statement), many freestanding birth centers changed their clinical practice guidelines to allow more time for active labor in the birth center prior to hospital transfer. The result of these changes has not been evaluated in birth centers. Evaluation of adoption of guidelines based on the Consensus Statement in hospitals has shown inconsistent results. METHODS: Birth centers were contacted to determine whether they changed clinical practice guidelines in response to the Consensus Statement. A before-after analysis compared outcomes for the 2 calendar years before and the 2 calendar years after adoption of new guidelines with a retrospective analysis of deidentified client-level data collected in the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry. RESULTS: A third of responding birth centers (11 of 33) changed their clinical practice guidelines, mostly redefining the onset of active labor as beginning at 6 cm cervical dilatation and allowing 4 hours of arrest of dilatation in active labor before transfer to the hospital. These changes were associated with fewer diagnoses of prolonged first stage of labor (13.8% vs 8.0%, P < .01) but not with fewer intrapartum transfers (14.0% vs 14.7%, P = .55) or cesarean births (5.0 vs 4.1%, P = .26.) DISCUSSION: We found no evidence that making these practice changes was associated with better outcomes. Two hours of a lack of documented cervical change in active labor is likely long enough to diagnose arrested progress in labor. Research on proportion of morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged labor could inform practice guidelines for transfers.

Progesterone and Preterm Birth: Using Empirical Research to Explore Structural Racism Within Midwifery-Led Care.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone has been the standard of practice for the prevention of preterm birth for decades. The drug received expedited Food and Drug Administration approval, prior to the robust demonstration of scientific efficacy. METHODS: Prospective research from the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2007-2020. Two-tailed t tests, logistic regression, and propensity score matching were used. RESULTS: Midwifery-led care was underutilized by groups most at risk for preterm birth and was shown to be effective at maintaining low preterm birth rates. The model did not demonstrate reliable access to progesterone. People of color are most at risk of preterm birth, yet were least likely to receiving progesterone treatment. Progesterone was not demonstrated to be effective at decreasing preterm birth when comparing the childbearing people with a history of preterm birth who used the medication and those who did not within this sample. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the body of research that demonstrates midwifery-led care and low preterm birth rates. The ineffectiveness of progesterone in the prevention of preterm birth among people at risk was demonstrated.

Place of Birth Preferences and Relationship to Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Within the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2007-2020.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe sociodemographic variations in client preference for birthplace and relationships to perinatal health outcomes. METHODS: Descriptive data analysis (raw number, percentages, and means) showed that preference for birthplace varied across racial and ethnic categories as well as sociodemographic categories including educational status, body mass index, payer status, marital status, and gravidity. A subsample of medically low-risk childbearing people, qualified for birth center admission in labor, was analyzed to assess variations in maternal and newborn outcomes by site of first admission in labor. RESULTS: While overall clinical outcomes exceeded national benchmarks across all places of admission in the sample, disparities were noted including higher cesarean birth rates among Black and Hispanic people. This variation was larger within the population of people who preferred to be admitted to the hospital in labor in the absence of medical indication. CONCLUSION: This study supports that the birth center model provides safe delivery care across the intersections of US sociodemographics. Findings from this study highlight the importance of increased access and choice in place of birth for improving health equity, including decreasing cesarean birth and increasing breastfeeding initiation.

Associations between prolonged second stage of labor and maternal and neonatal outcomes in freestanding birth centers: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for second stage management do not provide guidance for community birth providers about when best to transfer women to hospital care for prolonged second stage. Our goal was to increase the evidence base for these providers by: 1) describing the lengths of second stage labor in freestanding birth centers, and 2) determining whether proportions of postpartum women and newborns experiencing complications change as length of second stage labor increases. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of de-identified client-level data collected in the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, including women giving birth in freestanding birth centers January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016. We plotted proportions of postpartum women and newborns transferred to hospital care against length of the second stage of labor, and assessed significance of these with the Cochran-Armitage test for trend or chi-square test. Secondary maternal and newborn outcomes were compared for dyads with normal and prolonged second stages of labor using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Second stage labor exceeded 3 hours for 2.3% of primiparous women and 2 hours for 6.6% of multiparous women. Newborn transfers increased as second stage increased from < 15 minutes to > 2 hours (0.6% to 6.33%, p for trend = 0.0008, for primiparous women, and 1.4% to 10.6%, p for trend < 0.0001, for multiparous women.) Postpartum transfers for multiparous women increased from 1.4% after second stage < 15 minutes to greater than 4% for women after second stage exceeding 2 hours (p for trend < 0.0001.) CONCLUSIONS: Complications requiring hospitalization of postpartum women and newborns become more common as the length of the second stage increases. Birth center guidelines should consider not just presence of progress but also absolute length of time as indications for transfer.

Salary and Workload of Midwives Across Birth Center Practice Types and State Regulatory Structures.

INTRODUCTION: Expansion of the midwifery-led birth center model of care is one pathway to improving maternal and newborn health. There are a variety of practice types among birth centers and a range of state regulatory structures of midwifery practice across the United States. This study investigated how those variations relate to pay and workload for midwives at birth centers. METHODS: Data from the American Association of Birth Centers Practice Survey and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report on occupational employment and wage statistics were analyzed to explore how midwife salaries and workload at birth centers compare within and beyond the birth center model. RESULTS: Survey results from 161 birth centers across the United States demonstrate wide variation in nurse-midwife salaries and are inconsistent with nurse-midwife salaries across all settings as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The reported number of hours worked by midwives within the birth center model is high. Salaries of midwives who work in birth center-only practices were consistently lower than salaries of midwives who worked in blended birth center and hospital practices, independent of the midwife's level of experience, geographic region of the country, and state regulatory structure. DISCUSSION: Further research is needed to understand how to bring salaries and workload for midwives at birth centers into alignment with national averages.

Birth Outcomes of Women with Obesity Enrolled for Care at Freestanding Birth Centers in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Current US guidelines for the care of women with obesity generalize obesity-related risks to all women regardless of overall health status and assume that birth will occur in hospitals. Perinatal outcomes for women with obesity in US freestanding birth centers need documentation. METHODS: Pregnancies recorded in the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry were analyzed (n = 4,455) to form 2 groups of primiparous women (n = 964; 1:1 matching of women with normal body mass indices [BMIs] and women with obese BMIs [>30]), using propensity score matching to address the imbalance of potential confounders. Groups were compared on a range of outcomes. Differences between groups were evaluated using χ2 test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. Paired t test and McNemar's test evaluated the differences among the matched pairs. RESULTS: The majority of women with obese BMIs experienced uncomplicated perinatal courses and vaginal births. There were no significant differences in antenatal complications, proportion of prolonged pregnancy, prolonged first and second stage labor, rupture of membranes longer than 24 hours, postpartum hemorrhage, or newborn outcomes between women with obese BMIs and normal BMIs. Among all women with intrapartum referrals or transfers (25.3%), the primary indications were prolonged first stage or second stage (55.4%), inadequate pain relief (14.8%), client choice or psychological issue (7.0%), and meconium (5.3%). Primiparous women with obesity who started labor at a birth center had a 30.7% transfer rate and an 11.1% cesarean birth rate. DISCUSSION: Women with obese BMIs without medical comorbidity can receive safe and effective midwifery care at freestanding birth centers while anticipating a low risk for cesarean birth. The risks of potential, obesity-related perinatal complications should be discussed with women when choosing place of birth; however, pregnancy complicated by obesity must be viewed holistically, not simply through the lens of obesity.

Rural resilience: The role of birth centers in the United States.

PURPOSE: To explore the role of the birth center model of care in rural health and maternity care delivery in the United States. METHODS: All childbearing families enrolled in care at an American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data RegistryTM user sites between 2012 and 2020 are included in this descriptive analysis. FINDINGS: Between 2012 and 2020, 88 574 childbearing families enrolled in care with 82 American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data RegistryTM user sites. Quality outcomes exceeded national benchmarks across all geographic regions in both rural and urban settings. A stable and predictable rate of transfer to a higher level of care was demonstrated across geographic regions, with over half of the population remaining appropriate for birth center level of care throughout the perinatal episode of care. Controlling for socio demographic and medical risk factors, outcomes were as favorable for clients in rural areas compared with urban and suburban communities. CONCLUSIONS: Rural populations cared for within the birth center model of care experienced high-quality outcomes. HEALTH POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A major focus of the United States maternity care reform should be the expansion of access to birth center models of care, especially in underserved areas such as rural communities.

Improving the Experience of Care: Results of the American Association of Birth Centers Strong Start Client Experience of Care Registry Pilot Program, 2015-2016.

In 2018, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the United States (US) released report demonstrating birth centers as the appropriate level of care for most Medicaid beneficiaries. A pilot project conducted at 34 American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) Strong Start sites included 553 beneficiaries between 2015 and 2016 to explore client perceptions of high impact components of care. Participants used the AABC client experience of care registry to report knowledge, values, and experiences of care. Data were linked to more than 300 process and outcome measures within the AABC Perinatal Data Registry™. Descriptive statistics, t tests, χ analysis, and analysis of variance were conducted. Participants demonstrated high engagement with care and trust in pregnancy, birth, and parenting. Beneficiaries achieved their preference for vaginal birth (89.9%) and breastfeeding at discharge through 6 weeks postpartum (91.7% and 87.6%). Beneficiaries reported having time for questions, felt listened to, spoken to in a way they understood, being involved in decision making, and treated with respect. There were no variations in experience of care, cesarean birth, or breastfeeding by race. Medicaid beneficiaries receiving prenatal care at AABC Strong Start sites demonstrated high levels of desired engagement and reported receiving respectful, accessible care and high-quality outcomes. More investment and research using client-reported data registries are warranted as the US works to improve the experience of perinatal care nationwide.

The Experience of Land and Water Birth Within the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry, 2012-2017.

Consumer demand for water birth has grown within an environment of professional controversy. Access to nonpharmacologic pain relief through water immersion is limited within hospital settings across the United States due to concerns over safety. The study is a secondary analysis of prospective observational Perinatal Data Registry (PDR) used by American Association of Birth Center members (AABC PDR). All births occurring between 2012 and 2017 in the community setting (home and birth center) were included in the analysis. Descriptive, correlational, and relative risk statistics were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes. Of 26 684 women, those giving birth in water had more favorable outcomes including fewer prolonged first- or second-stage labors, fetal heart rate abnormalities, shoulder dystocias, genital lacerations, episiotomies, hemorrhage, or postpartum transfers. Cord avulsion occurred rarely, but it was more common among water births. Newborns born in water were less likely to require transfer to a higher level of care, be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit, or experience respiratory complication. Among childbearing women of low medical risk, personal preference should drive utilization of nonpharmacologic care practices including water birth. Both land and water births have similar good outcomes within the community setting.

Strong Start in birth centers: Socio-demographic characteristics, care processes, and outcomes for mothers and newborns.

BACKGROUND: A recent Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation report evaluated the four-year Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which sought to improve maternal and newborn outcomes through exploration of three enhanced, evidence-based care models. This paper reports the socio-demographic characteristics, care processes, and outcomes for mothers and newborns engaged in care with American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) sites. METHODS: The authors examined data for 6424 Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries in birth center care who gave birth between 2013 and 2017. Using data from the AABC Perinatal Data Registry™, descriptive statistics were used to evaluate socio-behavioral and medical risks, and core perinatal quality outcomes. Comparisons are made between outcomes in the AABC sample and national data during the study period. RESULTS: Childbearing mothers enrolled at AABC sites had diverse socio-behavioral risk factors similar to the national profile. The AABC sites exceeded national quality benchmarks for low birthweight (3.28%), preterm birth (4.42%), and primary cesarean birth (8.56%). Racial disparities in perinatal indicators were present within the Strong Start sample; however, they were at narrower margins than in national data. The enhanced model of care was notable for use of midwifery-led prenatal, labor, and birth care and decreased hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Birth center care improves population health, patient experience, and value. The model demonstrates the potential to decrease racial disparity and improve population health. Reduction of regulatory barriers and implementation of sustainable reimbursement are warranted to move the model to scale for Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide.

Screening for postpartum anxiety: A quality improvement project to promote the screening of women suffering in silence.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum anxiety is a mental health problem that has largely been ignored by maternity care providers despite an estimated incidence as high as 28.9%. Though postpartum anxiety may or may not be accompanied by depression, and while screening for postpartum depression has become more common place, postpartum anxiety is often not assessed or addressed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot quality improvement project was to implement a screening, treatment and referral program for postpartum anxiety in the birth centre environment. PROCEDURES: Midwives from 10 geographically diverse birth centres, and all members of the American Association of Birth Centres, were recruited to participate in the project. An online video was developed which detailed postpartum anxiety, screening through use of the anxiety subscale of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and a toolkit for treatment and/or referral for screen positive patients. Participants entered patient scores into the Perinatal Data Registry of the American Association of Birth Centres. Individual interviews of midwives were conducted following the 10-week pilot period. MAIN FINDINGS: There were a total of 387 participants across 9 participating sites. Among all screened participants with follow-up data, (n = 382), 9.69% (n = 37) were lost to follow-up. Among all participants screened with the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale -3A and Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (n = 318), 12.58% (n = 40) had a positive Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale -3A score of greater than six. Of all screened participants with an Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale score, 15 (6.98%) had a Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale score of less than 12 and an Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale -3A score greater than six, and would have not received follow up care if only screened for postpartum depression. Midwife participants expressed heightened awareness of the need to screen and felt screening was easy to integrate into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale -3A is a valid, easy-to-use tool which should be considered for use in clinical practice. Modification of the electronic health record can serve as an important impetus triggering screening and treatment. It is important that clinicians are educated on the prevalence of postpartum anxiety, its risk factors, symptoms and implications.

Outcomes of childbearing Medicaid beneficiaries engaged in care at Strong Start birth center sites between 2012 and 2014.

BACKGROUND: Variations in care for pregnant women have been reported to affect pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This study examined data for all 3136 Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled at American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Strong Start sites who gave birth between 2012 and 2014. Using the AABC Perinatal Data Registry, descriptive statistics were used to evaluate socio-behavioral and medical risks, and core perinatal quality outcomes. Next, the 2082 patients coded as low medical risk on admission in labor were analyzed for effective care and preference sensitive care variations. Finally, using binary logistic regression, the associations between selected care processes and cesarean delivery were explored. RESULTS: Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled at AABC sites had diverse socio-behavioral and medical risk profiles and exceeded quality benchmarks for induction, episiotomy, cesarean, and breastfeeding. Among medically low-risk women, the model demonstrated effective care variations including 82% attendance at prenatal education classes, 99% receiving midwifery-led prenatal care, and 84% with midwifery- attended birth. Patient preferences were adhered to with 83% of women achieving birth at their preferred site of birth, and 95% of women using their preferred infant feeding method. Elective hospitalization in labor was associated with a 4-times greater risk of cesarean birth among medically low-risk childbearing Medicaid beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: The birth center model demonstrates the capability to achieve the triple aims of improved population health, patient experience, and value.

Cesarean Outcomes in US Birth Centers and Collaborating Hospitals: A Cohort Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: High rates of cesarean birth are a significant health care quality issue, and birth centers have shown potential to reduce rates of cesarean birth. Measuring this potential is complicated by lack of randomized trials and limited observational comparisons. Cesarean rates vary by provider type, setting, and clinical and nonclinical characteristics of women, but our understanding of these dynamics is incomplete. METHODS: We sought to isolate labor setting from other risk factors in order to assess the effect of birth centers on the odds of cesarean birth. We generated low-risk cohorts admitted in labor to hospitals (n = 2527) and birth centers (n = 8776) using secondary data obtained from the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC). All women received prenatal care in the birth center and midwifery care in labor, but some chose hospital admission for labor. Analysis was intent to treat according to site of admission in spontaneous labor. We used propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression to control for cohort differences and measured effect sizes associated with setting. RESULTS: There was a 37% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.79) to 38% (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.79) decreased odds of cesarean in the birth center cohort and a remarkably low overall cesarean rate of less than 5% in both cohorts. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that low rates of cesarean in birth centers are not attributable to labor setting alone. The entire birth center care model, including prenatal preparation and relationship-based midwifery care, should be studied, promoted, and implemented by policy makers interested in achieving appropriate cesarean rates in the United States.