logo
‘Am I going to give birth on the side of the road?' In rural NH, hospital closures lead to ‘maternity deserts.'

‘Am I going to give birth on the side of the road?' In rural NH, hospital closures lead to ‘maternity deserts.'

Boston Globe18-04-2025

'That definitely added more anxiety,' Ingerson said.
Since 2002, 11 of the 26 labor and delivery units in
the state have closed, creating what the state has deemed 'maternity deserts' in parts of rural New Hampshire. To help fill the gaps, the state is training emergency first responders who say they are increasingly coming to the aid of women in labor.
Advertisement
'This is a service that people desperately need, that people will literally die if they don't have,' said Daisy J. Goodman, a nurse-midwife at Dartmouth
Health who works with the
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Many of the hospitals that have closed their labor and delivery units faced financial pressure to do so, according to the latest
The units that closed had fewer births, and more mothers who
were insured by Medicaid, which traditionally doesn't reimburse as well as private insurance, Goodman said.
Advertisement
New London Hospital had been operating at a loss for three years when it closed its birthing unit as a way to control cost, a hospital spokesperson told the
Statewide, the birth rate has declined 33 percent, dropping from 12.67 births per 1,000 people in 1995 to 8.51 per 1,000 people in 2023, the latest data available. In the state's most-populous county, Hillsborough, the rate is still at 10 births per 1,000, while it's the lowest in more-rural parts of the state like Carroll County, where the rate has dipped to 6.6 births per 1,000.
Before the closures, about 7 percent of the state's population lived more than half an hour away from a hospital with labor and delivery services; now, about 19 percent do, according to Sanam Roder-DeWan, a primary care physician at Dartmouth Health who works with the North Country Maternity Network.
Nationally, a typical drive to the nearest hospital takes about 16 minutes, according to the
Roder-DeWan said that for about 14,000 people, the drive to the nearest hospital with such services is over an hour away. For people who live in Pittsburg, N.H., it can take nearly two hours to drive to Littleton, N.H., where there is a hospital with a labor and delivery unit.
Advertisement
'If you're in labor, that's a huge distance,' said Goodman. 'In the winter, it's an almost insurmountable distance. It's life-threatening to drive in a car in certain kinds of snowstorms up there.'
Roder-DeWan said the distance can add anxiety to an already intense process.
'There's a ton of fear,' she said. Women wonder: 'Am I going to give birth in an ambulance? Am I going to give birth on the side of the road?' she said.
That was the concern for Brianna Lareau, who lives in Piermont, a 45-minute drive from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, where she gave birth to her two youngest children, now 4-months old and 2-years old.
She had experienced placental abruptions in her first three pregnancies, a complication when the placenta separates from the wall of the uterus before delivery. It can decrease the baby's oxygen supply and cause
'There was always an anxiety that if something did happen while I was at home or on the road, the fear of bleeding out or the baby not getting the care she would need right away,' Lareau said.
Neighboring states are seeing access to maternal care diminish, too. In Maine, 42 percent of its community hospitals have closed their birthing units because of
financial challenges, according to Roder-DeWan.
Advertisement
'We're looking at a trend that is going in the wrong direction,' said Roder-DeWan.
The further people have to travel for care,
the less likely they are to receive the recommended number of prenatal care visits, and the more likely they are to give birth enroute to the hospital or have an unplanned home birth, the
Nick McNally holds his daughter Annalise McNally, standing next to his wife Keelin Shea, with their 2-year-old daughter Audrey Rose McNally. The family got to meet the 911 dispatcher who helped guide their childbirth over the phone in January.
Amanda Gokee/Globe Staff
That's what happened to Keelin Shea, 32, last January. Shea, who lives in Tuftonboro, , was planning to give birth at Memorial Hospital in North Conway, about 40 miles away. Huggins Hospital in Wolfeboro is just 15 minutes away, but it closed its labor and delivery unit in 2008.
'Anywhere we were going to go would be an hour or more because there's no local birthing centers,' said Shea.
When she was 38 weeks pregnant, Shea felt contractions but didn't leave for the hospital. Her thinking was: 'I don't want to drive the whole hour to the hospital if I'm going to get sent home,' she said.
Shea was still at home when her water broke. With a 911 dispatcher on the phone, she ended up having an
Giving birth in an unintended location can come with
Advertisement
Varanka, who is leading efforts to train first responders, said there's an acute need for labor and delivery training.
'There were some knowledge gaps,' Varanka said, especially around the initial postpartum stage, which is also called the third stage of labor, after the newborn is out and before the placenta is delivered.
North Country Maternity Network, the group Goodman and Roder-DeWan work with, is addressing the lack of maternal care in the North Country by hiring and deploying doulas, training nurses on high-risk pregnancy management, and helping hospitals implement better billing practices to improve their bottom lines.
Still, the closures are a devastating loss for the communities that are left behind, according to Julie Bosak, a nurse-midwife at Dartmouth
Health. And the longer a hospital has been closed, the harder it is to bring care back to the community after the workforce has moved away.
'We can't risk allowing more to close,' she said.
Jessie Ingerson is one of the women who had to drive over an hour from her home in Jefferson, N.H., to the nearest labor and delivery unit. She gave birth to her son, Wesley, pictured here, at Memorial Hospital in Conway, N.H.
Jessie Ingerson
Ingerson, who faced the 42-mile journey through the mountains to Memorial Hospital, gave birth to a healthy baby boy about six hours after her water broke at home. She had made the trip to the hospital at least 10 times during her
But, she said, in the North Country, 'We don't have a lot of options.'
Amanda Gokee can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law

SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office
Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Activists protest possible Medicaid cuts outside KS Rep. Derek Schmidt's Topeka office

TOPEKA (KSNT) — Kansans are speaking out against lawmakers who are voting to cut Medicaid. The GOP-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the US House by a razor thin margin. 215 House members voted to pass it, while 214 voted against it. Local Kansas activists are calling out Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican who voted to pass the bill. A group of protesters gathered outside of Schmidt's office in Topeka Thursday afternoon and expressed concerns about cuts to Medicaid. 'Today is life or death,' protester Dillon Warren said. 'We voted someone in there that we shouldn't have. He doesn't support us.' The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the bill passes, at least 7 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. For that reason, many Kansas voters are making their voices heard. Chiefs and Royals stadium bill deadline approaching as Kansas and Missouri fight for the teams 'We need Medicaid for medical equipment,' protester Rick Macias said. 'These chairs are $200,000 if not more. So, it's very important that Medicaid sticks around.' 27 News reached out to Schmidt, who was unavailable for comment. A spokesperson for the congressman provided 27 News with a written statement. 'Congressman Schmidt is a strong supporter of Medicaid for people the program is designed to help: those who are disabled, in nursing homes, pregnant, raising small children, or otherwise in need. Unfortunately, some states have abused the program by providing benefits to illegal aliens, millions of healthy young adults who choose not to work, or people who are not eligible to receive taxpayer-funded benefits from the program. That is the main reason why Medicaid spending has exploded by more than 50 percent since just 2019: an unsustainable rate of growth that puts benefits for Americans who need them most at risk. By addressing this abuse of the program, Congressman Schmidt is protecting both the traditional Medicaid recipients who rely on benefits and the taxpayers who pay the bills.' Spokesman for Rep. Derek Schmidt For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1

The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store