Books You Should Buy

  

« A Tale of Two Cities: Unwarranted Variation in Tonsillectomy Rates in Vermont | Massachusetts Cesarean Rates, 2008 »
Saturday
Apr162011

Cesarean Rates by State, 2009

Bookmark and Share

 

By Jill Arnold

 

Percent of babies born by cesarean delivery, each state: preliminary 2009

1

Louisiana

39.6

2t

New Jersey

39.4

2t

New York

39.4

4

Florida

38.1

5

Mississippi

37.8

6

West Virginia

36.0

7

Kentucky

35.9

8

Delaware

35.7

9t

Alabama

35.6

9t

Connecticut

35.6

11t

South Carolina

35.3

11t

Texas

35.3

13t

Arkansas

34.6

13t

Oklahoma

34.6

15

Virginia

34.3

16t

Nevada

33.8

16t

Tennessee

33.8

18

Georgia

33.6

19

Maryland

33.5

20

Massachusetts

33.4

21

California

33.0

22

Rhode Island

32.8

23

Michigan

32.1

24

Pennsylvania

31.8

25t

Missouri

31.7

25t

Nebraska

31.7

27

Illinois

31.5

18

North Carolina

31.2

19

Ohio

31.1

30

New Hampshire

30.8

31

Indiana

30.5

32

Iowa

30.3

33

Kansas

30.1

34t

Maine

29.6

34t

Montana

29.6

36

Oregon

29.4

37

North Dakota

29.3

38

Washington

29.2

39

Wyoming

28.1

40

Vermont

27.9

41t

Arizona

27.4

41t

Minnesota

27.4

43

Hawaii

27.0

44

Colorado

26.4

45

South Dakota

26.3

46

Wisconsin

25.8

47

Idaho

24.5

48

Alaska

23.8

49

Utah

22.9

50

New Mexico

22.8

United States 

32.9

SOURCE:  National Vital Statistics System

 

From Births: Preliminary Data for 2009 (pdf):

The cesarean delivery rate rose to 32.9 percent in 2009, an increase of 2 percent and another record U.S. high.  The percentage of births delivered by cesarean has been rising steadily for over a decade, and is up nearly 60% since 1996.  

Between 2008 and 2009 cesarean delivery rates rose among women of all age groups 20 years and older, and all race and ethnicity groups.  The largest increase was among  non-Hispanic black women (up 3 percent); rates rose 1-2 percent among non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, AIAN and API women. In 2009, women 40 years and  older were as likely to have a cesarean as a vaginal delivery, that is, ½ of all births to women in this age group were in a cesarean delivery (data not tabulated).

 

 

Read more:

U.S. Cesarean Rate Reaches Record High, Rises for 13th Consecutive Year

United States Cesarean Rate, 1970 to 2009 

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

*smh*

I'm still looking for DC rates-- anyone got 'em?

April 18, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDreamy

D.C. is a no-go so far, unfortunately.

April 18, 2011 | Registered CommenterJill

I really wonder what makes the difference between the merely shamefully high states and those whose rates are astronomical. (There are no states with low rates.) I wondered if there were a correlation with the red state/blue state map, but my preliminary investigation finds highest rate states among both red and blue, and relatively speaking low rate states also among both red and blue. It woiuld be interesting to plot these against , say, midwifery laws in each state, average age of first and last birth by state, obesity rates by state, educational levels by state, and so on, and see if one can find a correlation.

Among the NYS hospitals list you printed a little while ago, the only hospital which had a WHO acceptable C section rate was one where 78% of the babies were delivered by CNM's. Within a state one ought to be able to get stats for the population of the draw area of each hospital to be able to plot them against maternity stats of the hospital. You would be able to say things like, no, Hospital X, it is not because your patients overwhelmingly come from low socioeconomic groups with higher rates of obesity and comorbidities that you have a high C section rate and high infant morbidity/mortality because Hospital Y draws from a very similar population , and their rates are much better.
Stuff like that.

April 18, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSusan Peterson

Dreamy: Anywhere in particular you're looking for? I have a friend living right near there, and she found a few random places in the area, but nothing cohesive.

April 18, 2011 | Registered CommenterANaturalAdvocate

@Susan: That would be interesting, but as to the correlation between c-sections and midwifery laws, you would need to first determine the status of midwifery laws (legal v. illegal v. alegal; mandatory licensure v. no or open licensure; other various restrictions on practice and acceptance of patients) and somehow quantify and rank them. Some of these areas (legal v. alegal, and mandatory licensure) are areas of debate even supporters of midwifery practice. It would certainly make for an interesting, if convoluted, exercise.

April 20, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDana
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.