Latest news with #SupportingHealthyMomsandBabiesAct
Newsweek
02-08-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Real Reason Behind Birth Rate Decline
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. Countries all over the world are facing declining birth rates, sparking fears there will one day be more elderly people than working-age people to support them. For example, in the United States, the fertility rate (the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime) is now projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. That is below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. Financial struggles are often cited as the reason for people having fewer or no children, but recent research has focused on cultural changes. Newsweek has pulled together the main reasons birth rates are declining to build a detailed picture of the issue many governments are trying to tackle. The Real Reason Behind The Birth Rate Decline The Real Reason Behind The Birth Rate Decline Newsweek Illustration/Canva/Getty Financial Worries The 2008 financial crisis and its impact on housing, inflation and pay is generally cited a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. In June, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) found that 39 percent of the 14,000 people across the 14 countries it surveyed said financial limitations prevented them from having their desired family size. "Young people overwhelmingly report worries and uncertainty about their futures. Many expect to experience worse outcomes than their parents did," the report said. "Their concerns about climate change, economic instability and rising global conflicts will be reflected in the choices they make about raising families." U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has taken steps to try to tackle the concerns, including the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April report in The New York Times. The country could also make childbirth free for privately insured families, with the bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, which was introduced in the Senate in May. Family Policies Policies around child care and parental leave come up just as often as financial struggles—and the two are often connected. "Countries that have sustained or moderately increased birth rates—like France or the Nordic nations—have done so by investing in affordable child care, paid parental leave, gender-equal workplaces and housing support," said Poonam Muttreja, executive director of the Population Foundation of India. "These create an enabling environment where people feel secure in having children," she told Newsweek. "Fertility decisions are shaped by long-term confidence, not one-off cash handouts." Similarly, Theodore Cosco, a research fellow at The Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, told Newsweek that "addressing declining birth rates would require comprehensive support mechanisms, such as affordable child care, paid parental leave, health care access and economic stability." Gender Inequality Another linked aspect to this is gender inequality—a cause often stressed by Muttreja. While speaking about the situation in India, where the fertility rate is 1.9, according to World Bank data, she called gender inequality a "critical challenge." "No country has become economically advanced without a substantial participation from women in the economy," she previously told Newsweek. "The burden of caregiving, whether for children or elderly family members, falls disproportionately on women, and policies must enable women to balance work and caregiving effectively." Tomas Sobotka, deputy director of the Vienna Institute of Demography, told Newsweek: "Recent research emphasizes that fertility tends to be higher where gender equality is stronger, and where institutional support helps reduce the cost and complexity of raising children." He cited France and Sweden as examples. While their fertility rates have still plummeted in the past decade (1.66 and 1.45, respectively, according to World Bank data), they are higher than the European Union (1.38). This is "partly thanks to generous family policies with affordable child care, well-paid parental leaves and generous financial benefits to families," he said. "These, together with high levels of gender equality, make it easier especially for the better educated women and couples to achieve the number of children they planned." Cultural Shifts Another major, albeit more difficult to measure, contributor is a shift in cultural values. A new study conducted by academics affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) published last month found that "short-term changes in income or prices cannot explain the widespread decline" in fertility but rather there has been a "broad reordering of adult priorities with parenthood occupying a diminished role." Authors Melissa Schettini Kearney, an economist from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, and Phillip B. Levine, an economist from Wellesley College in Massachusetts, found there have been "changes in how much value people place on different life choices, generally reflecting a greater emphasis on personal fulfillment and career." These include the fact that most women in high-income countries now work, while it was previously "reasonable to consider having children as a widespread priority for women." But they do not attribute this to "whether women work at all after they are married or have had their first child" but rather "the tension between a lifetime career and the way motherhood interrupts or alters that lifetime career progression." Kearney and Levine also spoke about changes in preferences in general, citing several surveys they reviewed that showed that more people say having a career they enjoy and close friends is extremely or very important than those who say the same about having children. They also mentioned changes in parenting expectations, with it becoming "more resource- and time-intensive" than before, a reduction in marriages, access to effective contraception, abortion policies, fertility and infertility treatments. These reasons became clear when Newsweek looked at Norway, which is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, with the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranking it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children age 1 or older in 2008. Yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped drastically from 1.98 in 2009 to 1.44 in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest recorded fertility rate in the country. Newsweek spoke with several local experts about Norway and all cited recent cultural changes, including lower rates of couple formation for those in their 20s, young adults being more likely to live alone and the demands of modern parenting. What Is The Solution? "The short answer is that there are no easy fixes," Kearney and Levine said in their report. "There is no single policy lever that will reliably boost fertility." Kearney and Levine's main call to action is to "widen our lens" when discussing fertility. "There is still so much more we need to know before we can provide something resembling a definitive answer," they said. "Policies like parental leave, child care subsidies, baby bonuses, etc., are much easier to implement and have the potential to affect fertility more rapidly, if they were effective," Levine told Newsweek. "Changing the social conditions that encourage family formation is more difficult and takes longer to accomplish.
Miami Herald
14-06-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley. Related Articles Warning Of Global Birth Rate 'Crisis' After Study Of 14 CountriesChina Makes Childbirth Change Amid Falling Birth RateTrump Administration To Give $1,000 Boost to All Newborn BabiesMore Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
14-06-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
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. America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Would Making Childbirth Free Help Birth Rates in America? Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Is It Just About Money? The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
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 and 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.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
America might finally make childbirth free
As politicians grapple with declining birth rates, the financial burden of giving birth in America — where privately insured families face out-of-pocket costs of nearly $3,000 on average — has captured widespread attention. Last month, when news broke that the Trump administration was considering $5,000 baby bonuses for new parents, comedian Taylor Tomlinson captured the national frustration: 'That's like spritzing a volcano with a water gun.' A recent viral TikTok showing one mother's $44,000 hospital bill shocked viewers worldwide, underscoring the uniquely brutal pressures facing American families. Now, a rare bipartisan solution could directly address at least the problem of expensive childbirth. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, introduced in the Senate last week, would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses — from prenatal care and ultrasounds to delivery, postpartum care, and mental health treatment — without any co-pays or deductibles. (Medicaid, which insures roughly 41 percent of American births, already covers these costs.) The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Josh Hawley (MO), and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (VA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A companion bipartisan version is expected in the House soon, with Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (ME) among the forthcoming cosponsors. Perhaps most striking are the bill's endorsees: organizations that typically find themselves on opposite sides of reproductive health debates. Supporters include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, alongside prominent anti-abortion groups including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action. While the White House has not yet weighed in, Vice President JD Vance championed the idea during his Senate tenure. He publicly called the free childbirth proposal 'interesting' in January 2023, and his office had been preparing bipartisan legislation on the issue last year before being tapped to join the Trump campaign. Notably, Vance's former Senate staffer Robert Orr, who led the childbirth bill initiative, now works for Hawley. Some abortion rights advocacy groups, too, have expressed approval. Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director at Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told me her organization 'proudly supports' the bill. Dorianne Mason, the director of health equity at the National Women's Law Center, said they are 'encouraged' to see the bipartisan effort. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund said the group is still reviewing the bill but 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Reproductive Freedom For All declined to comment. While questions remain about whether eliminating childbirth costs would actually boost birth rates or reduce abortions — as various supporters hope — there's little doubt it would provide crucial relief to families who have already chosen to have children. The unlikely alliance behind the bill traces back to an unexpected source: a journalist's challenge to the anti-abortion movement. The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover essential health benefits, like birth control and cancer screenings, at no cost to patients. This new bill would expand the list of essential health benefits to include prenatal, birth, and postpartum care, and require these services also to be free. The costs would be paid by insurance companies and modest increases in premiums for the 178 million people primarily covered by private plans. On average, premiums would go up by approximately $30 annually, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center think tank. Lawson Mansell, the Niskanen policy analyst who ran the cost modeling, told me he thinks this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. The trade-off, though, is instability: employer-sponsored coverage can disappear just when families need it most, since people often lose their jobs during pregnancy. The bill to cover childbirth costs under private health insurance has an unusual origin story compared to most pieces of legislation in Washington, DC, and reflects evolving factions within the anti-abortion movement. In early July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer at the Atlantic, published a piece urging the anti-abortion movement to take up the cause of making birth free. 'It's time the pro-life movement chose life,' Bruenig, who identifies as pro-life but opposes criminal bans on abortion, wrote. She recommended expanding Medicare to cover the costs, just as Medicare was expanded to cover dialysis and kidney transplants in the early 1970s. Her article cited examples of staggering medical bills, such as one couple charged $10,000 for delivering in Texas and another $24,000 in Indiana. The piece made waves within an anti-abortion movement that was grasping for its next move after the Supreme Court struck down Roe. 'She was really challenging the pro-lifers on this issue, and we found the idea super interesting,' said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Catherine Glenn Foster, then the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, responded a week after publication, praising Bruenig's piece and adding, 'Making birth free should be table stakes as a political matter. I'll work to advance this.' Democrats for Life and Americans United for Life teamed up, and in January 2023 the two organizations released a white paper, fleshing out the 'Make Birth Free' policy in more detail. The authors thanked Bruenig in the acknowledgements for pushing them to take on the idea, and it was this white paper that caught the eye of Vance in the Senate. John Mize, who succeeded Glenn Foster as CEO of Americans United for Life in January 2024, said the Bruenig article arrived at exactly the right moment. He acknowledges his movement 'missed the mark' by being so singularly focused on banning abortion for so many years. 'I think there's been a little bit of paradigm shift in some of the movement — not by all, by any means — but certainly by some parts' to better support women and families. He pointed to the Blueprint for Life coalition which launched in June 2024 to promote more holistic family policies, and he noted that some anti-abortion groups are newly advocating for policies like expanding the Child Tax Credit and paid family leave. Still, many leading anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers have been leading the push to cut federal spending on programs like child care, food assistance, and maternal health care. The Heritage Foundation called the original proposal to make childbirth costs free an 'unjust wealth transfer' and others protested the risk of more 'socialism' in health care as too great. When Bruenig's piece was originally published, she faced fierce pushback from the left. Critics felt the article was insensitive, implicitly endorsing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe, and offering 'fanfic' for a right-wing movement historically opposed to a robust welfare state. Political science professor Scott Lemieux called the piece 'cringe' and 'embarrassing' and 'deluded.' Others said she was pitching 'forced birth but make it free.' The left-wing backlash ultimately prompted Bruenig to quit Twitter. Bruenig says she never expected much uptake on the idea, but is encouraged by recent changes. 'For the last 10 years or more I have contended that the best way to deal with abortion is on the demand side, by creating a welfare system that gives people an honest choice,' she told me. 'There's been, for better or worse, a shift in the way Republicans are thinking about these kinds of things…and in the center, and I'm very impressed to see some uptake on the idea.' She says she's not surprised there was criticism, but was writing for 'people who are persuadable when it comes to what the pro-life movement should be about.' She added that she embraces the 'pro-life' label despite opposing abortion bans because 'I don't think the pro-ban people should get to decide what counts as pro-life policy or philosophy.' Bill supporters are cautiously hopeful about the road ahead for the legislation. The timing reflects converging forces that have created an unusual window for bipartisan family policy. President Donald Trump's election, combined with growing concerns about declining birth rates, has coincided with a shift among some conservatives toward more proactive family policies. Meanwhile, Democrats see an opportunity to advance maternal health goals. The legislation also benefits from political cover on both sides. Republicans can champion it as pro-family policy that potentially reduces abortions, while Democrats can support it as expanding health care access. Crucially, because it doesn't require new government spending but instead redistributes costs through the existing private insurance system, it sidesteps typical fights over federal budget increases. But challenges remain. The upcoming reconciliation process will test whether Republicans prioritize fiscal restraint or family policy when forced to choose. And while Vance previously supported the free birth idea, the administration faces pressure from fiscal conservatives who view any insurance mandates as market interference. Not all conservatives will be thrilled at the idea of tinkering with the Affordable Care Act or facing accusations of supporting socialized medicine. Bill supporters hope the momentum for pronatalist policies might help to combat those kinds of criticisms, though other conservatives have pointed to falling birth rates in places with single-payer health care, too. Still, the legislation has attracted support from heavyweight conservative intellectuals. Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a policy brief earlier this year urging Congress to embrace making childbirth free, even if it doesn't affect birth rates. '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,' he wrote. Patrick Brown, a family policy analyst at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center tells me he thinks it's 'the right instinct' to share the costs of parenting more broadly across society, though he hopes it does not 'distract from more broad-based efforts to help parents' such as a larger Child Tax Credit. Mize, of Americans United for Life, has been in 'the planning phases' of working with the White House on family policy. He thinks once the reconciliation bill is done, Republicans and Democrats could either retreat to their camps ahead of the midterms or decide to work together on achievable wins. 'You could see level-headed people say, 'Hey, this is one opportunity for us to put a feather in our cap and say that we're working on a bipartisan basis with our constituents,'' he said. A Senate staffer working on the bill, who requested anonymity to more candidly discuss their plans, said their intention is to move the bill through normal order and attach it to a must-pass legislative package. Both Hawley and Kaine sit on the Senate HELP committee, which holds jurisdiction over the bill. Rep. Golden, who is working on preparing the House version, said they're hoping to introduce their bill within the next week or two. 'While some debates over what [family policy] should look like can be complicated or contentious, this idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life,' he told Vox. 'So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost, not stick people with huge medical bills. That's the kind of simple, commonsense reform that anyone can get behind. '
