Reply turned post: The nightmarish vision of a baby-friendly hospital

Feministe, along with a few other things I've seen around the interwebs, has a hand-wringing post about New York City encouraging hospitals to adopt baby-friendly practices such as limiting staff access to formula, not advertise formula, not give free formula samples, etc. Caperton at Feministe describes this state-controlled gulag:

Starting September 3, baby formula will be a controlled substance at some New York City hospitals. Under the health department’s voluntary Latch On NYC program, 27 hospitals are literally hiding the baby formula under lock and key, tucking it away in distant storerooms and locked dispensaries like legitimate medications that need to be tracked. Nurses will be expected to document a medical reason for every bottle a newborn receives, and mothers will get a breastfeeding lecture every time they ask for a bottle of formula.

Cue lots of upset in the comments about how babies will go hungry.

My first response:

So many of these comments are ridiculously overdramatizing an already overdramatized issue. “Babies will be forced to wait an hour for a bottle!” No. I work as an LC at a hospital with these policies so let’s clear some things up:
1) You don’t want to breastfeed, you don’t. You get your bottles on admission and that’s the end. The LC doesn’t see you unless you ask to be seen for some reason, like engorgement.
2) You want to breastfeed, you breastfeed. Nurses can’t sneak formula behind your back. Before we started documenting the mother’s consent, there was a lot of “she said/she said” after the night shift left. The nurse claimed the mom asked for a bottle, the mom claimed the nurse gave it without permission. Now if there’s a bottle, everything is documented and no one can say they didn’t know.
3) You need a bottle, the nurse or NA brings it to you. There’s no “queue” and no one is waiting for an hour. The formula is in the cabinet with all the other supplies. (That is totally staff-facing by the way – it’s not like the parents ever know it’s locked up. So is the Tylenol and that’s not shaming people with headaches.) We limit the amount of formula we give per feeding in part because people will give insanely inappropriate amounts. A newborn has a stomach made to hold about a third of an ounce at birth. I have seen people give over two ounces at one feeding!! It’s considered an accomplishment by grandma that she got the baby to eat so much, but it is not good for the baby.
4) If you are asking for formula for personal reasons, we document the reason. If the baby needs it for medical reasons, we document that too. Again, this is not to shame anybody or demand they give us a good excuse, it is to push the medical/nursing staff to acknowledge that “the baby cried some” is not a reason to tell the mother “you need to formula feed or your baby will starve”. (You think people don’t do that? You are wrong.) Medical reasons to supplement include excessive weight loss, jaundice associated with poor feeding, etc.
5) No one gets lectured. The consent they sign does say that giving bottles may interfere with their STATED plan to breastfeed. That is the truth, so I don’t think there’s a big problem with it. I work with a lot of moms who choose to formula feed for various reasons, usually because they believe they don’t have enough milk. I disagree, and I explain why I don’t think that there is a medical need for supplementation. I say that while there is no medical need, it is their baby and they can decide whatever they want. Some parents hear my explanation, feel reassured, and keep breastfeeding exclusively. Some decide they want to go ahead and supplement. Their baby, their choice. So much for the heavy-handed police state – sorry if real life disappoints. I feel like so many of these comments are like a Tea Party vision of Obamacare.


My second comment:

@Caperton: “On top of that, we have arguments of Nurses are good and supportive and helpful and so this policy won’t have negative side effects vs. Nurses sneak formula and bottle-feed your baby behind your back and don’t honor your wishes, so they need extra rules. Whether it’s either or both…” It is both, and also Nurses can be pushy jerks about both breast and formula feeding (and a million other topics as well “stop picking up the baby when it cries!”) They do need extra rules. These are some of the rules.

 “…Whether it’s either or both, we still have a policy that’s based on locking up baby formula and dispensing it bit by bit like feeding a baby bird, rather than on treating new mothers like adults: educating them about breastfeeding, letting them know that support is available, and then trusting them to make their own choice. And then honoring that choice.” But see this is where I don’t get it. How does the status quo honor people’s choices? We DO have breastfeeding moms getting the runaround and staff disrespecting them. This policy is meant to address that. In the meantime, everyone still gets what they want. This obsession about the locking up is still so puzzling to me. No mother could ever go and help herself to the formula cabinet. She always had to call the nurse to get formula brought to her. The lock is for the STAFF. And actually, feeding a baby human IS like feeding a baby bird (except for the worms part). They only need very small amounts. And they are OK if you bring them one meal at a time; they don’t know or care where the next meal is stored.

Finally, I am ALL FOR maternity leave. This is a HUGE and important component of breastfeeding support. And you better believe breastfeeding advocates know it and talk about it A LOT. It doesn’t mean that the hospital isn’t important too, and is a place where public health officials can actually make a concrete, immediate difference. People who are sabotaged in the hospital don’t ever make it to 2-3 months out as it is. I did some number-crunching for a WIC office and 50% of their moms who initiated breastfeeding stopped in the first two weeks. There is a huge drop-off after the much-vaunted 90% initiation, and that actually starts in the hospital for many people.


In response to continued upset about the locked formula: 

@Lauren: “That’s a staff education issue, not a mother education issue. It’s not resolvable by locking up baby food.” Again, locking up the formula is PART of what they are doing for staff. When you call for a bottle, do you know if the nurse has to deal with a lock or not? Nope. But she can’t be snagging bottles left and right for moms who don’t want them. Staff education is also part of that; it’s still just so puzzling to me that people are acting like the baby itself will have to open a bank vault to get fed.

Now this evening an update to the original post: 

*Update 8/1, 6:30 p.m. According to Samantha Levine, deputy press secretary in Mayor Bloomberg’s office, the information on the Latch On NYC site was wrong, and hospitals will not be expected to keep formula locked away (although they’re free to do so). She says they’re correcting the FAQs to reflect that. It seems like a rather a strange thing to get so diametrically incorrect, but removing the lock-and-key element of the Latch On NYC initiative does help things immeasurably.

---

 ??? I do not get it. This is what our scary locked formula storage looks like. It's in the nursery.

You type your login, hit a few buttons, and open the door. FYI, the breast pump kits, nipple shields, etc. are in this too. It helps the people who restock track the par levels so they can keep any supplies from running out. No one is upset that because those things are locked up, they're discouraging breastfeeding.

Can anyone help me understand all the drama over the locked cabinet requirement, which once removed has "helped things immeasurably"? I'd say out of all the things commenters were concerned about (shaming, lecturing) it is the least relevant. Ask any of our patients who use formula whether we keep it behind a lock (besides the lock on the nursery door) and I guarantee not a single one will know. Is it just some kind of gut feeling?

GE ad shows NICU baby's first breastfeeding

I'm an Olympics junkie, so when I went out with some friends this evening we still had our eyes on NBC. This ad caught my eye, of course, because it showed babies in a NICU; when I saw the end I started hitting the friend sitting next to me with excitement (not hard. I think.) How wonderful that the happy ending to this commercial is...breastfeeding!


(If the embed doesn't work, click here for the direct link.)

How a pro-life, homebirthing, staunchly conservative mom lost her fear of universal healthcare

By living in Canada, where she is at first concerned and disturbed by having to participate in a universal health care system:

When I moved to Canada in 2008, I was a die-hard conservative Republican. So when I found out that we were going to be covered by Canada’s Universal Health Care, I was somewhat disgusted. This meant we couldn’t choose our own health coverage, or even opt out if we wanted too. It also meant that abortion was covered by our taxes, something I had always believed was horrible. I believed based on my politics that government mandated health care was a violation of my freedom. When I got pregnant shortly after moving, I was apprehensive. Would I even be able to have a home birth like I had experienced with my first 2 babies? Universal Health Care meant less choice right? So I would be forced to do whatever the medical system dictated regardless of my feelings, because of the government mandate. I even talked some of having my baby across the border in the US, where I could pay out of pocket for whatever birth I wanted.

Read more here about her experiences with the health care system, maternity care, and her feelings on abortions in a universal care system. I only hope we can move closer to living this reality in the U.S. quickly enough for others to lose their fears as well.

ACA upheld!

I am happy and relieved that the Affordable Care Act was upheld today - for both public health and doula-related reasons! To illustrate just a few of the reasons why, I point you to this article from the American College of Nurse-Midwives:

Before implementation of the new health care reform provisions, many uninsured young women have not been eligible for Medicaid or other insurance coverage until becoming pregnant. For example, a nine-state study found that from 17 to 41 percent of childbearing women lacked insurance prior to pregnancy, with 13 to 35 percent transitioning to Medicaid at some point during pregnancy (3). Lack of insurance before pregnancy has limited the ability of a large segment of childbearing women to use health services to plan a successful pregnancy. ...Three PPACA provisions will dramatically change this situation.

Preconception care is a huge issue. Many pregnant women end up getting access to coverage via Medicaid, but there is only so much prenatal care do when you already had poorly controlled diabetes and high blood pressure prior to pregnancy.

In the past, uninsured pregnant women have largely been ineligible to purchase private insurance or, if they could purchase insurance during their pregnancies, the coverage generally did not include maternity care for the present pregnancy. More recently, some insurers have deemed women who had a previous cesarean birth to be ineligible for maternity care coverage (6), and there are anecdotes of similar practices, such as excluding coverage of pelvic floor problems among women who have had an episiotomy. Such practices will be illegal in 2014.

This is huge! It is essentially impossible for pregnant women to buy health insurance; if you don't qualify for Medicaid, you are totally out of luck. The denial of coverage to women who have had prior c-sections is hugely problematic, and will be banned along with other "pre-existing conditions".

In recent years, Medicaid beneficiaries in some states have lost access to birth center coverage, and many freestanding birth centers have been threatened with closure due to loss of Medicaid reimbursement. Although birth centers have traditionally been reimbursed within Medicaid programs, some state Medicaid programs had recently begun to deny birth center claims and legislation had not mandated such coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. A PPACA provision requires coverage of care in freestanding birth centers that meet state regulatory requirements, beginning in 2010.

Straightforward and much-needed. Birth centers are part of making care more effective and affordable!

Beginning in 2010, all new health plans are required to offer, at no extra cost to the patient, all services and screenings recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. For childbearing women, the recommended services include folic acid supplementation, breastfeeding counseling before and after birth, tobacco use counseling, and screening for several conditions

This includes reimbursement for lactation consultants!

The act directs employers to provide new mothers with a reasonable break time to express milk for a nursing infant for 1 year after the birth and a private place that is not a bathroom for doing so.

This is one of the provisions that very few people outside the breastfeeding advocacy community paid a lot of attention to, but one of the things that will make a HUGE difference for pumping moms in the workplace. People I know who work with universities who are building out their campuses say that they are hearing more and more about making sure that every building has a mother's room. There is so much more - some that not even I was aware of. Read it here!"

"The only good abortion is my abortion"

I may not be writing much, but I can link! And I really wanted to share a post from BoingBoing. The posts there range from technology, science, art, and culture to unicorns and funny cats, and occasionally more personal posts from the group of authors who contribute.

This post is very personal, and that's why I think we should be grateful that it's being made very public: "The only good abortion is my abortion":

The heart hasn’t sped up. The fetus hasn’t grown. The egg yolk is now bigger than the fetus, which usually indicates a chromosomal abnormality. Basically, this fetus is going to die. I am going to have a miscarriage. It’s just a matter of when.

Because of these facts—all these facts—I get special privileges, compared to other women seeking abortion in the state of Minnesota.

Nobody has to tell my parents. I am not subject to a 24-hour waiting period. I do not have to sit passively while someone describes the gestational stage that my fetus is at, presents me with a laundry list of possible side-effects (some medically legit, some not), lectures me on all the other options that must have just slipped my mind, or forces me to look at enlarged, color photographs of healthy fetuses.

Because I have health insurance, I can afford a very nice OB/GYN whom I chose and who does not exercise her right to deny me this option. Thankfully, I don't live in a state where she can legally lie to me about the status of my fetus, to dissuade me from having an abortion.

Most importantly, from my perspective, I have the privilege of a private abortion in a nondescript medical office. I will not have to go to an abortion clinic. I will not have to walk by any protesters—not even Charlie, the one guy who is paid to protest every day outside Minneapolis’ abortion clinic, where I have volunteered as an escort in the past.

Most of these privileges boil down to the fact that, as far as my doctor and my medical billing are concerned, this is not an elective procedure.

But here’s the thing. It is elective.

The comments, from both men and women who have experienced a pregnancy loss of their own or of their partners, are almost universally compassionate and often share very difficult stories of their own. I think it's important reading.

IBCLC vs CLC - which is better? Why are we asking?

Emily at Anthro Doula just completed her Certified Lactation Counselor (CLC) course (congratulations!) and in her post on what she learned, she pointed to a link to a position paper by the organization that runs CLC training, Healthy Children. The position paper essentially argues that the CLC and IBCLC are equal credentials and that there is no "hierarchy" in lactation credentialing. I have seen this as a hotly discussed topic among IBCLCs, CLCs, and doulas recently - online and in person - and reading the position paper made me really want to get my thoughts down on this.

There are a lot of arguments about which training/exam/experience turns out better lactation professionals, or whether one is guaranteed to turn out better professionals that the other. There are CLCs out there arguing that CLCs can be just as qualified as IBCLCs to help breastfeeding moms. There are IBCLCs who argue that the training and credentials of IBCLCs are superior and that mothers should not count on CLCs for certain kind of breastfeeding help. The comments sections of the second post engages in some debate, so read up if you want to familiarize yourself with some arguments on either side.

On the question of who is the more advanced support for breastfeeding and who receives the more advanced training, my answer is unequivocally IBCLCs. I did a training very, very similar to the CLC training when I was training as a doula. It was a slightly shorter course, but otherwise it had many of the features that the CLC's position paper favorably compares to IBCLC training - competencies testing, written exam, dozens of hours of classroom teaching, etc. It was a FANTASTIC training! I learned so much, and still use some of the skills I learned there today. I went on to help a lot of mothers and babies breastfeed; I think I did about 40 hands-on consults in the following year. I had what some CLCs feel makes them comparable to IBCLCs: training and experience. I puttered along happily with that training for years, feeling capable of handling a lot of breastfeeding questions.

Then I did IBCLC training. I am here to tell you that there is no comparison between a CLC-level course, and a Pathway 2 IBCLC course. How can there be, when in Pathway 2 you spend hundreds of hours hands-on with a clinical mentor? There was so much I learned from my mentors, a lot of mistakes I made that they were able to correct, and a lot of time to soak up knowledge and techniques. Could I have gotten there on my own by trial and error, via experience as a green CLC? Probably - I had to make some mistakes on my own anyway when my training was over, because making mistakes is an inevitable part of learning, in any profession. But let me point out that when we make mistakes to get experience, we are making them by working with mothers and babies who may have more difficulty breastfeeding, health issues, and emotional pain because of our mistakes. Shouldn't we do our best to minimize the number and impact of these errors by setting up mentor relationships, much as other health professions like medicine, midwifery, and nursing do for their trainees and new graduates?

(The one place where the CLC might get traction with me in this argument is in the issue of Pathway 1, which I have also written about before. I think this is an area that IBLCE will need to address in the near future - the fact that individuals with another clinical degree do NOT need mentored hours - although they do have many hours of hands-on experience. I think it's problematic that someone with no other qualifications can become a CLC without ever doing hands-on clinical work and then promote their services. I think it's also very problematic that someone with clinical qualifications can become an IBCLC without ever MEETING another IBCLC. Those IBCLCs are missing out the same thing that a CLC is - mentorship and hands-on training.)

So no, I don't think Healthy Children, or CLCs - especially new CLCs - should say that IBCLCs and CLCs have equal experience and training to offer to mothers. Does this mean that if I took the best CLC in the world and compared her to the worst IBCLC, that individual IBCLC would still be better? Probably not. As this post points out, there are some really bad IBCLCs out there, and great CLCs. There are likely also CPMs out there who give better, more evidence-based counseling and treatment to their clients for gestational diabetes than do some OBs, even though OBs are supposed to be the experts in high-risk pregnancy. Anybody can be good or bad at something, regardless of the letters next to their name. But I will certainly argue that the overall average experience and range of IBCLCs exceeds that of CLCs, and I base this in large part on the fact that I've done both kinds of training and lived the difference. There is no way that new CLCs can handle 95% of breastfeeding problems and that the rest require advanced, non-lactation interdisciplinary support as this post claims - I can't handle every breastfeeding problem without calling on more experienced IBCLCs for help and guidance, and I've already been an IBCLC for two years (and no, it doesn't need to rise to the level of needing outside specialties to need some extra guidance.) In fact, I felt MORE confident and independent BEFORE I did the IBCLC training - because I didn't know what I didn't know.

BUT - until we get IBCLC licensing in the U.S. (which I am excited about and seems to be moving forward on many fronts) the question is to some extent academic. Anyone can advertise their services, and any CLC can say she's equal to an IBCLC without legal repercussions. The debate is mostly lactation-world infighting and it's questionable whether, apart from potentially convincing CLCs not to advertise their services, it will really benefit consumers (unless there are a lot of sleep-deprived new mothers out there researching the issue on the internet before they decide whom to hire). I think the more interesting issue raised here is access. I've written about how financially and logistically impossible IBCLC training is for many people to attain. People who get bitten by the breastfeeding bug fall hard - I know, I got bitten myself. You end up searching and searching for ways to do what you love - helping moms and babies - and all the routes to an IBCLC seem closed. I would brainstorm ways to make it work at various points in my life, before giving up again upon realizing there was no way I could get the clinical hours. The CLC, on the other hand, has brilliantly positioned itself as a way to be "like an IBCLC" without all the impossible requirements, not to mention the financial investment in IBCLC training that is so difficult to recoup. It is unleashing a group of people who so deeply want to do this work by giving them a credential they can feel is "close enough" to enable them to pursue that passion. Should we be surprised that CLCs are such vocal defenders of the certification, that Healthy Children is investing so much in legitimizing it, or that people sign up in droves?

But it is troubling to me, because what we need is not to make a lactation consulting credential that is more accessible because it's quicker and cheaper. We need to make a credential that is accessible because lactation consulting becomes a profession that will pay off in the long run through reimbursement and greater recognition, and because it is offered through formal educational programs. This would enable the credential to become more rigorous, not less, which I believe is the way the field needs to go.

In short, I think in a better world, we wouldn't be asking which is better, IBCLC or CLC. No one would be battling to prove that they could do consults with a CLC credential, because the people who wanted to do consults would be able to become IBCLCs. The CLCs could happily go on doing basic breastfeeding support, education, etc. - which is a great role for that credential to play.

Thoughts? Any IBCLCs and/or CLCs out there want to give their perspectives?

Baby-Friendly rap

Words cannot express how much I love this video!



Via Kellymom's Facebook page, which is basically a neverending stream of greatness.