Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › These c-section numbers can't be right
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

These c-section numbers can't be right  

post #1 of 15
6/22/07 at 1:09pm
Thread Starter 
I was looking for something and this website showed up.

http://www.calhospitalcompare.org/re...spx?l=&c=7&v=3

According to that site - the California state average for c-sections is 15%??? I'm sure it's closer to 30% so I don't know where they are getting their figures from. At first I got very excited because my hospital showed a 11% rate but then I started thinking that the numbers seemed WAY too low....

Anyone know of another site that shows the breakdown like this - I have c-sections on the brain right now with everything that's going on.

eta - I did find another site - and I was wondering whats the difference between a primary c-section and a plain old fashioned c-section?

I googled - and this link is a spreadsheet- but google opened it as an html for me...

http://www.oshpd.cahwnet.gov/Charts/...l/2004Util.xls
post #2 of 15
6/22/07 at 1:23pm
CA's rate is 30.3% according to ICAN.

http://www.ican-online.org/resources/statistics.php
post #3 of 15
6/22/07 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mely View Post
eta - I did find another site - and I was wondering whats the difference between a primary c-section and a plain old fashioned c-section?
A primary c-section is a first c-section. Primary rates wouldn't include "elective" repeats or any other sections subsequent to the first one a woman had.

So, if my hospital were counting its total primary c-sections, they'd score "1" for me...but if they were counting their total c-sections, it would be "3".
post #4 of 15
6/22/07 at 2:05pm
Here are the first time numbers for Utah...
http://health.utah.gov/myhealthcare/...y/cSection.htm

VBAC http://health.utah.gov/myhealthcare/...ality/vbac.htm

Main Utah page http://health.utah.gov/myhealthcare/...006/index.html

The don't give the total percentage of c/s.
post #5 of 15
6/22/07 at 2:09pm
Someone was looking at that lately. That site has all bogus numbers. I don't know where they come up with them, or how old they are, but they are clearly totally wrong.

-Angela
post #6 of 15
6/22/07 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Someone was looking at that lately. That site has all bogus numbers. I don't know where they come up with them, or how old they are, but they are clearly totally wrong.

-Angela
Are you talking about the CA or UT numbers or both?
post #7 of 15
6/22/07 at 6:59pm
The CA website in the OP. Totally bogus numbers.

-Angela
post #8 of 15
6/22/07 at 7:03pm
The CA website took their numbers from the California Department of Health statistics - the OSHPD link the OP posted. Obviously the Cal Compare website only shows first-time section rates. So not necessarily bogus, but misleading since they don't tell you that up front.
post #9 of 15
6/22/07 at 7:14pm
Well, it's not truthful, it's not acurate, the numbers are flat-out wrong.

-Angela
post #10 of 15
6/22/07 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Well, it's not truthful, it's not acurate, the numbers are flat-out wrong.

-Angela
I'm not understanding why you think they are wrong. The CDC numbers seem to match up to the OSHPD numbers if you look at c-sections overall. The only difference occurs when you break them down into primaries and repeats.
post #11 of 15
6/22/07 at 9:44pm
Thread Starter 
OK I think I understand. The numbers shown on the first link are the numbers for first time c-sections. The second link breaks them down by repeat vs first time - and also shows the rates for VBAC. I like being able to see it all laid out like that.

There's some hospitals on that list I'd make a major point to avoid - El Centro - YIKES - primary rate of 30% repeat rate of 44% and a 1% vbac. Might as well draw the line on your stomach when you check in there :
post #12 of 15
6/23/07 at 1:14pm
Could they be solely numbers for medicare (medicaid?)? I was poking around in the health dept website for our state, and they only published the c section statistics for women on public assistance. It was 15% (they also didn't have anything more recent than 2005). The section rate for women with private insurance is much higher here in WI. It's sickening and makes me think more than anything else that sections truly are largely based on profit. Medical assistance in our state does not reimburse very well so if you want to make money you do the section on the woman with private insurance.:
post #13 of 15
6/23/07 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcgirl View Post
I'm not understanding why you think they are wrong. The CDC numbers seem to match up to the OSHPD numbers if you look at c-sections overall. The only difference occurs when you break them down into primaries and repeats.
The problem is that what that site lists as c-section rate, both for individual hospitals AND for the state is NOT the c-section rate. It well may be the first time section rate, but it is NOT the c-section rate as it says it is.

Therefore it's false, misleading, lying, poor reporting - whatever you want to call it.

-Angela
post #14 of 15
6/23/07 at 8:02pm
right. it's one thing to say "this is the primary c-section rate" as opposed to saying "this is the c-section rate." in this case, it is the primary, and therefore correct as the primary. but it doesn't state that it's the primary, it asserts the primary rate as the total rate.

misrepresentation of a statistic.
post #15 of 15
6/25/07 at 12:19am
here is the link I have -- other states can be found at the CDC site- there is always a time delay-- so you can read peliminary data from 2004-05

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/da...rofile_CAL.htm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › These c-section numbers can't be right