By Tony Leys for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

Rural regions like the one surrounding this southern Iowa town used to have a lot more babies, and many more places to give birth to them.

At least 41 Iowa hospitals have shuttered their labor and delivery units since 2000. Those facilities, representing about a third of all Iowa hospitals, are located mostly in rural areas where birth numbers have plummeted. In some Iowa counties, annual numbers of births have fallen by three-quarters since the height of the baby boom in the 1950s and ’60s, when many rural hospitals were built or expanded, state and federal records show.

Similar trends are playing out nationwide, as hospitals struggle to maintain staff and facilities to safely handle dwindling numbers of births. More than half of rural U.S. hospitals now lack the service.

“People just aren’t having as many kids,” said Addie Comegys, who lives in southern Iowa and has regularly traveled 45 minutes each way for prenatal checkups at Oskaloosa’s hospital this summer. Her mother had six children, starting in the 1980s, when big families didn’t seem so rare.

“Now, if you have three kids, people are like, ‘Oh my gosh, are you ever going to stop?’” said Comegys, 29, who is expecting her second child in late August.

These days, many Americans choose to have small families or no children at all. Modern birth control methods help make such decisions stick. The trend is amplified in small towns when young adults move away, taking any childbearing potential with them.

Hospital leaders who close obstetrics units often cite declining birth numbers, along with staffing challenges and financial losses. The closures can be a particular challenge for pregnant women who lack the reliable transportation and flexible schedules needed to travel long distances for prenatal care and birthing services.

The baby boom peaked in 1957, when about 4.3 million children were born in the United States. The annual number of births dropped below 3.7 million by 2022, even though the overall U.S. population nearly doubled over that same period.

West Virginia has seen the steepest decline in births, a 62% drop in those 65 years, according to federal data. Iowa’s births dropped 43% over that period. Of the state’s 99 counties, just four — all urban or suburban — recorded more births.

Births have increased in only 13 states since 1957. Most of them, such as Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada, are places that have attracted waves of newcomers from other states and countries. But even those states have had obstetrics units close in rural areas.

In Iowa, Oskaloosa’s hospital has bucked the trend and kept its labor and delivery unit open, partly by pulling in patients from 14 other counties. Last year, the hospital even managed the rare feat of recruiting two obstetrician-gynecologists to expand its services.

The publicly owned hospital, called Mahaska Health, expects to deliver 250 babies this year, up from about 160 in previous years, CEO Kevin DeRonde said.

“It’s an essential service, and we needed to keep it going and grow it,” DeRonde said.

Many of the U.S. hospitals that are now dropping obstetrics units were built or expanded in the mid-1900s, when America went on a rural-hospital building spree, thanks to federal funding from the Hill-Burton Act.

“It was an amazing program,” said Brock Slabach, chief operations officer for the National Rural Health Association. “Basically, if you were a county that wanted a hospital, they gave you the money.”

Slabach said that in addition to declining birth numbers, obstetrics units are experiencing a drop in occupancy because most patients go home after a night or two. In the past, patients typically spent several days in the hospital after giving birth.

Dwindling caseloads can raise safety concerns for obstetrics units.

A study published in JAMA in 2023 found that women were more likely to suffer serious complications if they gave birth in rural hospitals that handled 110 or fewer births a year. The authors said they didn’t support closing low-volume units, because that could lead more women to have complications related to traveling for care. Instead, they recommended improving training and coordination among rural health providers.

Stephanie Radke, a University of Iowa obstetrics and gynecology professor who studies access to birthing services, said it is almost inevitable that when rural birth numbers plunge, some obstetrics units will close. “We talk about that as a bad event, but we don’t really talk about why it happens,” she said.

Radke said maintaining a set number of obstetrics units is less important than ensuring good care for pregnant women and their babies. It’s difficult to maintain quality of care when the staff doesn’t consistently practice deliveries, she said, but it is hard to define that line. “What is realistic?” she said. “I don’t think a unit should be open that only delivers 50 babies a year.”

In some cases, she said, hospitals near each other have consolidated obstetrics units, pooling their resources into one program that has enough staffers and handles sufficient cases. “You’re not always really creating a care desert when that happens,” she said.

The decline in births has accelerated in many areas in recent years. Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and demographer at the University of New Hampshire, said it is understandable that many rural hospitals have closed obstetrics units. “I’m actually surprised some of them have lasted as long as they have,” he said.

Johnson said rural areas that have seen the steepest population declines tend to be far from cities and lack recreational attractions, such as mountains or large bodies of water. Some have avoided population losses by attracting immigrant workers, who tend to have larger families in the first generation or two after they move to the U.S., he said.

Katy Kozhimannil, a University of Minnesota health policy professor who studies rural issues, said declining birth numbers and obstetric unit closures can create a vicious cycle. Fewer babies being born in a region can lead a birthing unit to shutter. Then the loss of such a unit can discourage young people from moving to the area, driving birth numbers even lower.

In many regions, people with private insurance, flexible schedules, and reliable transportation choose to travel to larger hospitals for their prenatal care and to give birth, Kozhimannil said. That leaves rural hospitals with a larger proportion of patients on Medicaid, a public program that pays about half what private insurance pays for the same services, she said.

Iowa ranks near the bottom of all states for obstetrician-gynecologists per capita. But Oskaloosa’s hospital hit the jackpot last year, when it recruited Taylar Swartz and Garth Summers, a married couple who both recently finished their obstetrics training. Swartz grew up in the area, and she wanted to return to serve women there.

She hopes the number of obstetrics units will level off after the wave of closures. “It's not even just for delivery, but we need access just to women's health care in general,” she said. “I would love to see women's health care be at the forefront of our government's mind.”

Swartz noted that the state has only one obstetrics training program, which is at the University of Iowa. She said she and her husband plan to help spark interest in rural obstetrics by hosting University of Iowa residency rotations at the Oskaloosa hospital.

Comegys, a patient of Swartz’s, could have chosen a hospital birthing center closer to her home, but she wasn’t confident in its quality. Other hospitals in her region had shuttered their obstetrics units. She is grateful to have a flexible job, a reliable car, and a supportive family, so she can travel to Oskaloosa for checkups and to give birth there. She knows many other women are not so lucky, and she worries other obstetrics units are at risk.

“It’s sad, but I could see more closing,” she said.


Tony Leys wrote this story for KFF Health News.


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