By Leah Shepard / Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

In Ohio, 13 of 88 counties are maternity care deserts, affecting approximately 97,000 women, according to data provided by March of Dimes. 

A county is classified as a maternity care desert if there are no hospitals providing obstetric care, no birth centers, no OB-GYN’s and no certified nurse midwives, according to March of Dimes. Bianca Zarders, maternal and infant health manager for the Cleveland Market Branch of March of Dimes, said 4,118 babies were born last year to Ohio mothers who live in maternity care deserts.

“In Ohio and on a national scale, a lot of the research shows that a lot of these women may have to drive 30, 40, 50 minutes to get to their nearest birthing hospital,” Zarders said. “And that is so problematic too, because if they’re struggling to pay for gas, or they have multiple kids who are at day care or in school, finding just the time to actually go to a prenatal appointment or to give birth and having to drive 50 minutes to get somewhere is insane.”

The dearth of maternity care in the state is getting worse, said Natasha Takyi-Micah, public policy and external affairs associate at the nonprofit Center for Community Solutions in Cleveland.

“And a few weeks ago, University Hospitals in Ashland announced that they were closing their maternity department,” Takyi-Micah said. So pretty much, that county does not have any hospitals that offer labor and delivery services unfortunately.”

The closing of the maternity department at Ashland comes eight months after University Hospitals closed their maternity department in Portage County in order to consolidate labor and delivery services at UH Geauga Medical Center in Geauga County. 

In a press release, University Hospitals said that declining birth rates and staffing shortages are both reasons for the closing the maternity department in Portage County. They said in July that the Ashland branch is closing for the same reasons. 

“The reason why a lot of hospitals are closing their labor and delivery departments or maternity wards is because of what happened during the pandemic,” Takyi-Micah said. “It seems the pandemic exacerbated many problems that came to staff shortages in the hospitals, and also there was a decline in births.”

Dr. Maria Phillis, an OB-GYN and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said maternity care deserts force some patients to travel unusually far for appointments, especially if they need specialized care.

“One of our notable things we have to fill gaps for is higher-level care,” she said. “So for example, at one of the institutions that I’ve worked at, we had a patient with significantly poorly controlled diabetes who was coming essentially more than an hour and a half for high-risk appointments and wasn’t able to routinely travel that distance.”

Phillis said that many of these patients travel from very rural areas where obstetric care is unavailable.

Zarders, who works in research, policy and legislation for the March of Dimes as well as community outreach, said the lack of maternity care coupled with chronic health conditions, like diabetes, hypertension and smoking, often lead to poor childbirth outcomes and preterm births.

She said other widespread issues affect whole communities. 

“Another overarching theme is community level issues,” Zarders said. “Like socioeconomic status or environmental factors. Those also fuel the disparity when it comes to receiving adequate prenatal care, especially in communities of color.”

Zarders said that at some hospitals, women are turned away entirely because of lack of care, and that this is something that happens on a national scale.

“I recently heard a story where a woman ended up in an emergency room because she was in labor,” Zanders said. “And the nearest hospital just had an emergency room. And she was actually denied care because they didn’t have an OB person present. And so they actually asked her to go to another hospital.”

Takyi-Micah said the Center for Community Solutions is working to influence policy at the state level to alleviate this problem. 

“We just wrapped up the state budget,” she said. “We have been advocating for doulas to be reimbursed through Medicaid so more people have access to them, since they are one of the solutions to reduce the infant and maternal mortality crisis. So, that language is now included in the budget.”


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Experts warn health insurance premiums could rise an average of $1,000 a year for more than 2 million Californians who buy coverage on the individual marketplace, unless Congress extends subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act.

The nonprofit Health Access California has federal data by congressional district.

Rachel Linn Gish, director of communications for the advocacy group, said for example, 140,000 people in the Central Valley alone benefit from the subsidies.

"As Congress is considering taking action to make these federal subsidies permanent, we want to make sure that Congress members know just how their constituents are going to be impacted by these health care decisions that they're about to make," Gish emphasized.

Linn Gish wants Congress to take up the issue soon because CoveredCA is working now to set rates for 2026. At a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, criticized the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed without a single Republican vote and said permanently extending the subsidies would contribute $325 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

A recent report from the University of California-Berkeley and the University of California-Los Angeles found enhanced tax credits through the Inflation Reduction Act save Californians $1.7 billion per year.

Gish pointed out the federal dollars have allowed state funds to flow toward programs to zero out deductibles and eliminate copays on many CoveredCA plans.

"If we lose the federal support for the premium help, then we may need to shift state dollars to backfill that," Gish cautioned. "Therefore consumers could also see spikes in their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for health care."

A recent study from UC Berkeley and UCLA predicted an additional 69,000 Californians could become uninsured due to increased premium costs if federal subsidies are allowed to expire next year.

Montana's expanded Medicaid program is set to expire next year. People who rely on it are calling on lawmakers for an extension but opponents argued Medicaid was never meant to be a long-term option for most people.

The Montana Legislature voted during its last session to expand the state's Medicaid program to cover an additional 85,000 people.

Megan Martin, a small-business owner and mother in Helena who relies on Medicaid, said she is out of health care options if the state does not extend it.

"I have looked and have been told that I could get health care off of our federal marketplace, which I don't qualify for," Martin explained. "That's terrifying because I don't make a ton of money, being a small-business owner. So, not having any other option is scary."

Gov. Greg Gianforte has not been clear on whether he supports an expansion but has said Medicaid should be a temporary program to help people get back on their feet. Data from KFF Health News show 9% fewer Montanans are covered under Medicaid now than before the pandemic.

Montana's Medicaid expansion is largely funded under the federal Affordable Care Act but is administered by the state, which is why expansion takes a legislative vote. Martin pointed out like many Montanans, she is working multiple jobs just to keep up with her family's cost of living, let alone being able to afford health care.

"How many more jobs do I have to get? How much more hustling do I have to do? How much more money do I have to put in my pocket, in order to make sure that we're all healthy?," Martin asked. "Nobody should have to worry about that, at the end of the day."

The Legislature is scheduled to consider extending the Medicaid expansion when lawmakers convene in January.


get more stories like this via email

A recent foodborne illness outbreak linked to deli meats is putting the spotlight on how these foods are regulated.

The listeria outbreak in Boar's Head products has led to 10 deaths and at least 59 people sickened across the country.

Jovana Kovacevic, associate professor of food science and technology at Oregon State University, said it is important to know listeria is prevalent in the natural environment. Kovacevic pointed out the United States has a zero-tolerance testing system for listeria, which is different from other countries and, counterintuitively, might do more harm than good than a system testing for certain levels of the bacteria.

"It would encourage industry to sample more," Kovacevic asserted. "And once they find positives, it would help them act before the food becomes contaminated and before any contaminated foods end up in the commerce."

Kovacevic pointed out listeria is most harmful for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant people, older people and those with compromised immune systems. Members of Congress recently wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its concern that the agency wasn't able to prevent the outbreak.

But Kovacevic noted there has been progress on how the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration, which also monitors food safety in some situations, prevent foodborne illnesses. Still, she argued there is room for improvement.

"Standardizing our approach to listeria probably we would benefit from it," Kovacevic contended. "Consumers would benefit and the industry would benefit in terms of having the ability to look openly for listeria as opposed to fearing if they find any positive what's going to happen."

Kovacevic added there are ways consumers can prevent outbreaks, such as storing meats at the proper temperatures and cooking them thoroughly.

"There's just certain foods that are higher risk foods," Kovacevic explained. "If you're in that vulnerable group, you want to avoid those foods. So, we really need to do better to engage consumers in these discussions."


get more stories like this via email