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.

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.

Freestanding Birth Centers: An Evidence-Based Option for Birth.

Every childbearing person has the right to learn about all options for perinatal care provider and birth setting. To ensure an informed decision about their preferred birth plan, information should be provided either preconceptionally or in early pregnancy. Personal preferences and risk status should be considered in decision-making. Numbers of births in birth centers have doubled over past decade to almost 20,000 births per year. The evidence shows that childbearing people who participate in birth center care, even if they have only birth center prenatal care, experience better outcomes including lower rates of preterm birth, low birth weight births, and cesarean birth, and higher rates of breastfeeding when compared to people with similar risk profiles who receive typical perinatal care.

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.

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.

Neonatal Outcomes in the Birth Center Setting: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review investigates the effect of the birth center setting on neonatal mortality in economically developed countries to aid women and clinicians in decision making. METHODS: We searched the Google Scholar, CINAHL, and PubMed databases using key terms birth/birthing center or out of hospital with perinatal/neonatal outcomes. Ancestry searches identified additional studies, and an alert was set for new publications. We included primary source studies in English, published after 1980, conducted in a developed country, and researching planned birth in centers with guidelines similar to American Association of Birth Centers standards. After initial review, we conducted a preliminary analysis, assessing which measures of neonatal health, morbidity, and mortality were included across studies. RESULTS: Neonatal mortality was selected as the sole summary measure as other measures were sporadically reported or inconsistently defined. Seventeen studies were included, representing at least 84,500 women admitted to a birth center in labor. There were substantial differences of study design, sampling techniques, and definitions of neonatal outcomes across studies, limiting conclusive statements of the effect of intrapartum care in a birth center. No reviewed study found a statistically increased rate of neonatal mortality in birth centers compared to low-risk women giving birth in hospitals, nor did data suggest a trend toward higher neonatal mortality in birth centers. As in all birth settings, nulliparous women, women aged greater than 35 years, and women with pregnancies of more than 42 weeks' gestation may have an increased risk of neonatal mortality. DISCUSSION: There are substantial flaws in the literature concerning the effect of birth center care on neonatal outcomes. More research is needed on subgroups at risk of poor outcomes in the birth center environment. To expedite research, consistent use of national and international definitions of perinatal and neonatal mortality within data registries and greater detail on adverse outcomes would be beneficial.

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.

Maternal Outcomes in Birth Centers: An Integrative Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: The birth center, a relatively recent innovation in maternity care, is an increasingly popular location of birth. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to assess the research on maternal outcomes from birth center care. METHODS: Using methods by Whittemore and Knafl, we conducted an integrative review of studies of birth centers published in English since 1980. Twenty-three quantitative sources and 9 qualitative sources describing maternal outcomes of birth center care were reviewed and synthesized. RESULTS: Outcomes for women receiving birth care were positive. Spontaneous vaginal birth rates and perineal integrity were higher for women beginning care in a birth center compared to women in hospital care. Rates of cesarean birth were also lower for women planning birth center care. Transfer rates are difficult to compare across studies, but antepartum transfer rates ranged from 13% to 27.2%. Intrapartum transfer rates ranged from 11.6% to 37.4%, and from 11.6% to 16.5% in studies published from 2011 to 2013. Nulliparous women had higher rates of transfer than multiparous women. Few severe maternal outcomes and no maternal deaths were reported in any studies. Women were satisfied with the comprehensive, personalized care that they received from birth centers. DISCUSSION: Quantitative studies reviewed included more than 84,300 women. The heterogeneity of the studies and variations of practice limit generalization of findings. However, even with multisite studies enrolling a variety of birth centers and practice changes over time, the consistency of positive outcomes supports this model of care. Policy makers in the United States should consider supporting the birth center model as a means of improving maternal outcomes.

The American Association of Birth Centers: history, membership, and current initiatives.

The American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) is a multidisciplinary membership organization dedicated to the birth center model of care. This article reviews the history, membership, and current policy initiatives of the AABC. The history of AABC includes the promotion of research, education, and national and state policies that are supportive of birth center care. Current AABC priorities address three main pressures to birth center sustainability: high malpractice insurance rates, the lack of a federally mandated birth center facility fee, and low rates of certified nurse-midwife/certified midwife reimbursement. The AABC is addressing these concerns through lobbying, collaborating with other national organizations, and the promotion of birth research.