America might finally make childbirth free—and moms could be the biggest winners
'This is how much it costs to give birth in America: $44,318.41.' That was the now-viral TikTok from a mom just days postpartum, scrolling through the itemized bill at home. Her insurance only covered $20,353.62—despite paying $2,500 a month for coverage for her family of five.
This mom's story isn't an outlier. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, privately insured families in the U.S. pay an average of $3,000 out-of-pocket for childbirth on average—just for having a baby.
By 'choosing' to have a baby with a midwife in a birth center, I personally had to pay a $10k fee upfront. (Wanting midwifery care in a calm setting for my super fast labors didn't feel like a choice, but in America, it is.)
Moms bear so many burdens for having babies. And one devastating cost that sets so many families back financially when they're just beginning life together is the price of childbirth, even with insurance. We're talking million-dollar NICU bills. $50k c-section charges. A financial punishment for doing the most critical work in a country: bringing the next generation of citizens into the world.
But that may soon change.
A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill that could be a game-changer for millions of American families. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act (S.1834) was announced on May 21, 2025, and aims to eliminate all out-of-pocket costs related to prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum services for those with private health insurance.
The bill's sponsors—Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—say the legislation is about protecting families from being buried in medical debt at one of the most vulnerable times in life.
'Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt,' Sen. Hyde-Smith said in a statement announcing the legislation. 'By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood.'
A companion bill is expected in the House, led by Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who told Vox,
'This idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life. So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost—not stick people with huge medical bills.'
While the average out-of-pocket cost is around $3,000, the financial burden can be far worse for many:
17% of privately insured moms face bills over $5,000
1% are hit with bills exceeding $10,000
17.5% of women with private insurance report problems paying medical bills
Nearly 9% say they couldn't pay them at all
These numbers are not just statistics—they represent real parents delaying care, going into debt, or struggling to recover financially in the fragile weeks after childbirth.
If passed, the bill would expand the list of 'essential health benefits' under the Affordable Care Act to include full-spectrum maternity care. Medicaid already covers these services in full, and that's how 41% of births in the U.S. are paid for. But for the 178 million people on private insurance plans? Birth is still a budget-buster.
The new legislation would require private insurers to pick up the tab. That means:
Prenatal care (including appointments and ultrasounds)
Labor and delivery
Hospital stays
Postpartum recovery and mental health care
Neonatal and perinatal services
Lactation support
The estimated premium hike to cover it all? About $30 per year, according to Lawson Mansell, policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, who conducted the cost modeling for the bill.
Mansell told Vox this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free.
Related: Too many U.S. moms are in debt from giving birth. They deserve better.
Beyond the financial relief, this bill has the potential to improve health outcomes for moms and babies.
Research backs this up: A report by the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner found that eliminating cost-sharing for prenatal services is associated with improved maternal and infant outcomes, including fewer preterm births and higher birth weights. So in addition to relieving the stress families face, covering prenatal care fully makes it more likely that moms actually get it.
Another study published in BMC Public Health linked removing financial barriers under the Affordable Care Act to increased use of preventive care, such as mammography and Pap tests. While the study focused on these services, the findings suggest that eliminating financial barriers can encourage timely and consistent healthcare utilization.
The bill's sponsors come from across the political spectrum—and so do its supporters. Everyone from the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to anti-abortion groups like Americans United for Life and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have voiced support.
Even Planned Parenthood Action Fund commented they 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.'
Related: The cost of giving birth is getting more expensive—and some families are getting hit with childbirth debt
If the bill becomes law, the financial landscape of pregnancy would change dramatically—especially for those in the 'missing middle': families who earn too much for Medicaid but not enough to easily afford thousands in delivery fees.
It would also offer immediate relief for parents managing multiple financial burdens at once: high rent, unpaid leave, child care costs, student loans. You know, new motherhood.
Call your representatives. Especially if you have private insurance and have ever been slammed with a delivery bill. You can find contact info at house.gov and senate.gov.
Share your story. Lawmakers have said constituent birth bill stories played a big role in shaping this legislation.
Talk about it on social. If your childbirth costs shocked you, say so. Use hashtags like #MakeBirthFree and tag your reps.
This moment is historic not just because it's bipartisan, but because it signals a new kind of family policy thinking: one where moms aren't expected to 'figure it out' in isolation, one giant bill at a time.
As Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute put it in a policy brief,
'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies.'
Whether you're pregnant now or years past it, you probably remember your hospital bill—and you definitely remember how it made you feel. Exhausted. Angry. Maybe even ashamed.
This new bill says: No more.
And moms deserve that.
Sources:
Family-Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress. February 2025. AEI. Family-Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress.
America might finally make childbirth free. May 2025. Vox. America might finally make childbirth free.
Americans United for Life Applauds Bipartisan Innovative Policy Proposal. May 2025. America United for Life. Americans United for Life Applauds Bipartisan Innovative Policy Proposal to Make Maternal Healthcare More Affordable.
AMA advocacy to improve maternal health. May 2025. AMA. AMA advocacy to improve maternal health.
Impact of removing cost sharing. 2019. BMC Public Health. Impact of removing cost sharing under the affordable care act (ACA) on mammography and pap test use.
New bipartisan proposal would remove childbirth costs. May 2025. Niskanen Center. New bipartisan proposal would remove childbirth costs and confusion for parents.
Characteristics of Mothers by Source of Payment for the Delivery. May 2023. CDC. Characteristics of Mothers by Source of Payment for the Delivery: United States, 2021.
About the Affordable Care Act. Us Department of Health an Human Services. About the Affordable Care Act.
Out-of-pocket medical bills childbirth. National Library of Medicine. Out-of-pocket medical bills from first childbirth and subsequent childbearing.
The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt. National Library of Medicine. The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt in the USA, 2019–2020.
Sentators introduce bill to ease financial burden of pregnancy. Cindy Hyde-Smith. SENATORS INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN BILL TO EASE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH.
Women who Give Birth Incur Nearly $19,000 in Additional Health Costs. KFF. Women who Give Birth Incur Nearly $19,000 in Additional Health Costs, Including $2,854 More that They Pay Out of Pocket.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is ‘tech neck' and how can you fix it?
With nearly 86 percent of full-time American workers spending long, unhealthy hours sitting at their desks, leaning over computers, or staring down at their phones, many have found themselves suffering from 'tech neck.' The condition, sometimes also referred to as 'text neck," is used to describe pain and discomfort in the neck that can happen when someone bends their head down. The problem is pressure, with experts saying that holding your head at a 45-degree angle can feel like 50 pounds of weight. "That's like having an 8-pound bowling ball as your head. Then you have 72 pounds at your elbow and 96 pounds on your shoulder," Brian Langenhorst, industrial and ergonomics specialist at Wisconsin's La Crosse Mayo Clinic Health System, said. "I probably see tech neck on a weekly basis at businesses, schools and industry." There has been an increase in cases in recent years, but there are ways to prevent the condition. Here's how to fix it. Stretches should be done frequently for the best benefits, according to sports medicine Dr. Jeffrey Peng. "Five minutes is really all you need to stretch out the neck," he said. "But the key is to do these stretches frequently — ideally, three times per day. That way, you are slowly increasing mobility and range of motion of the neck muscles that often get tighter and tighter throughout the day.' He recommends touching your ear to your shoulder to stretch the upper trapezius, a large shoulder muscle. For further pressure, put gentle pressure on your head using your hand. Hold it for 30 seconds. You can also stretch the levator scapula: a neck muscle that runs along the upper back on neck on either side of the spine. With the head turned diagonally, pull down on it with one hand and guide the other hand to rest on the base of the neck. To target the anterior scalene — which helps to flex the neck and elevate the first rib — pull the ear toward the shoulder, look up, and lean back. Adjust your monitor to the right level, with eye height about a half inch to one and a half inches higher than the top characters on your screen. Sit with your head, hips, and spine stacked, and keep your wrists straight and elbows bent at a 90-degree angle. Your feet should be flat on the floor and your knees should be aligned with your hips. When using a phone, place pillows on your lap to support your forearms and try to hold the phone or tablet in an upright and angled position. By looking straight ahead, your muscles get a chance to relax, preventing uneven pressure. "It's not great, but it's better than not being supported," said Langenhorst. Take frequent screen breaks and get up and move! That will get blood circulating and it will get your neck in a different position. Or, even just stand. 'Humans are upright creatures, and our bodies aren't designed to look down for long periods of time, which puts extra pressure on the cervical spine,' Dr. Kavita Trivedi, an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bernie Sanders, Angus King Propose Drug Advertising Ban in Consumer Marketing
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King have introduced new legislation that would ban prescription drug advertising on television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. The bill, known as the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act, would apply to all drugs and biologics, including those currently on the market. 'With the exception of New Zealand, the United States is the only country in the world where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs on television. It is time for us to end that international embarrassment,' Sanders said in a statement. 'The American people don't want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.' The lawmakers note that the 10 largest drug companies made more than 100 billion in profits last year, with the pharmaceutical industry spending over $5 billion on television ads. They added that prescription drug commercials account for more than 30% of commercial time on major networks' evening news programs and that Big Pharma spent over $725 million advertising just 10 drugs in the first three months of 2025. Additionally, the pair noted that the prices for drugs in the U.S. are among the highest in the world, with one in four Americans not able to afford the costs of the medicine their doctors prescribe. For example, Novo Nordisk charges nearly $1,000 a month for Ozempic in the United States, compared to $59 in Germany, $71 in France, $122 in Denmark, and $155 in Canada, and $1,349 a month for Wegovy, compared to $92 in the United Kingdom, $137 in Germany, $186 in Denmark and $265 in Canada. 'The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier,' King added. 'The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements.' The introduction of the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act follows repeated calls from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling for a ban on prescription drug advertising. The Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing estimates that prohibiting pharmaceutical advertising could increase federal tax revenues by $1.5 to $1.7 billion annually from 10 of the largest pharmaceutical companies operating in the U.S. In addition to Sanders and King, cosponsors of the legislation include Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy, Peter Welch, Jeff Merkley and Dick Durbin. More to come… The post Bernie Sanders, Angus King Propose Drug Advertising Ban in Consumer Marketing appeared first on TheWrap.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill Backing RFK Jr., Elon Musk Priority
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders is leading a new bill to address a key priority of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Why It Matters Sanders, a Vermont independent, alongside Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, introduced the "End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act," which, if passed, would ban prescription drug advertising on TV, radio, print and digital platforms as well as social media. Critics say these ads contribute to the high price of healthcare while doing little to improve care in the United States, though proponents say the advertisements can improve patients' knowledge of healthcare. Most wealthy countries, with the U.S. and New Zealand being two notable exceptions, ban pharmaceutical drug advertisements. The bill also represents an issue where Sanders, viewed as perhaps the most progressive senator, has found common ground with Kennedy inside the Trump administration, though the secretary has not commented on this bill specifically. What to Know Sanders and King announced the legislation on Thursday, highlighting that the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $5 billion on TV ads in 2024 and that many of these drugs cost more in the U.S. than in other countries that do not allow drug companies to run ads on TV. "The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said, describing the fact that the U.S. stands mostly alone in allowing pharmaceutical ads as an "international embarrassment." vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C. vSenator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, questions U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing on May 14, 2025 in Washington, director of communications Anna Bahr confirmed to Newsweek his office has reached out to Republicans to join the bill. Bahr pointed to lobbying from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries as to why the U.S. has not joined other countries in bannign the ads. "Over the past 25 years, the drug companies have spent $8.5 billion on lobbying. Today, they have some 1,800 well-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C. – including former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties," she said in a statement to Newsweek. "Unbelievably, that is more than three lobbyists for every member of Congress. During that same period, they have provided over $700 million in campaign contributions. And they are equal opportunity contributors. They contribute heavily to both Republican and Democratic candidates." Secretary Kennedy—as well as Elon Musk, who previously served in Trump's administration—have expressed support for ending pharmaceutical advertising. "Let's get President Trump back in the White House and me to DC so we can ban pharmaceutical advertising," Kennedy wrote in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on November 3, 2024. During his own presidential campaign, Kennedy said he would have issued an executive order ending the advertisements on his first day in office. Newsweek reached out to DHS for comment via the department's press contact form. Caleb Alexander, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek that while a potential ban's impact on drug prices remains uunclear, there would be benefits to ending these advertisements. Pharmaceutical advertisements can drive up "inappropriate demand" for prescription drugs in settings where they may not be needed, he said. "In terms of the potential benefits of banning [direct-to-consumer advertisements], the most immediate and likely is that it would temper demand for products in settings where they may not be needed," Alexander said. The U.S. has "evolved to believe" the benefits of the ads, such as empowering patients to identify health concerns, outweigh the risks, though much of the research on the topic indicates that the benefits may not be worth the drawbacks, he said. What People Are Saying Alexander told Newsweek: "Direct to consumer advertising has been a lightning rod for controversy, and it remains a curious and unique feature of the U.S. marketplace. While a ban on direct advertising may be welcomed by many, it's not going to fundamentally transform the marketplace for prescription drugs in the United States, simply because DTCA is highly concentrated among a small number of products. It may be a reasonable political and public health target, but I think that if you just look at the way the dollars flow, there's vastly more money spent on marketing drugs to prescribers." Senator Angus King wrote in a statement: "The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn't necessarily make patients healthier. The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements." Elon Musk wrote to X in November 2024: "No advertising for pharma." What Happens Next It's unclear whether a majority of senators are also in support of the bill. So far, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Peter Welch of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Dick Durbin of Illinois have co-sponsored the bill, according to Sanders' office.
