Photo Credit: UNICEF |
The report by the Registrar General of India on
maternal mortality which was released in December 2013 came as a respite in the
face of India’s failure to achieve the targets under the Millennium Development
Goals. Maternal mortality has significantly decreased in India over the past
few years. India’s maternal mortality rate (MMR), or the rate of deaths among
women during or after pregnancy, declined by 16 percent in 2011-12 from
2007-09, according to the Census data.
Although, the MMR dropped from 212 deaths per 100,000
live births in 2007-09 to 178 in 2010-12, India is lagging behind the target of
103 deaths per 100,000live births to be achieved by 2015 under the United
Nations-mandated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Moreover, international comparisons reveal a grim picture.
According to the 2010 figures from the "World Development
Indicators", South Korea has a maternal mortality count of 16, followed by
Sri Lanka (35) and China (37). India is way below at 200, lagging behind even
Nepal (170). The three regional countries that are behind India are Indonesia
(220), Bangladesh (240) and Pakistan (260).
So what is preventing India from not even matching countries
like Nepal in ensuring better health care facilities to expecting and new mothers?
Lack of institutional delivery or delivery by skilled professionals, poor
health budgetary allocation to health, discrimination against women and
cultural attitudes that do not consider professional prenatal and delivery care
are the major contributors to this sorry picture.
The NFHS data released by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare in 2012 also revealed that with the existing rate of increase in
deliveries by skilled personnel, the achievement for 2015 is likely to be only
62 percent which is still considerably short of the targeted universal
coverage. High out of pocket expenses by pregnant women and their families on
institutional deliveries like drugs, user charges, diagnostic tests, diet and C
–sections prevented the poor from accessing health care centres leading to high
mortality rates.
Janani Suraksha Yojana by the National Rural Health
Mission was launched in 2005 as a response to this poor health infrastructure. It provides for graded scale of cash assistance
based on the categorisation of States as well as whether beneficiary was from
rural/urban area. However, is merely doling out money to BPL families enough to
reduce maternal deaths? Is this an effective policy approach to a complex issue
like maternal mortality?
In the “high focus” states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh), according to the NRHM document, the MMR is high
because there are not enough rural hospitals and road connectivity is poor. If
the objective is to reduce MMR in these states, an all-out effort has to be
made in both these fronts: creating the
health infrastructure in rural areas which is truly functional and ensuring
road connectivity. There is a lack of a policy framework which can move beyond
the idea of financial incentive and respond to the underlying hindrances to
improved maternal health. There is a need to pilot solutions which address the
intertwined factors which lead to high number of deaths among pregnant women or
new mothers. It is the need of the hour that we have policies which are born
from a better understanding of the ground reality rather than mere financial
assistance.
There are quite a few successful approaches we can
learn from. Unicef’s work in Madhya Pradesh is worth a mention. Along with the
State Government, Unicef has upgraded maternal and neonatal health centres in
several remote districts of MP. A call centre was also established in the
district hospital two hours away to make sure that the ambulance reaches women
on time and takes them home again, once they’ve given birth. If there are
problems with a birth, the ambulance can take the mother to a newborn care unit
in the district hospital. The unit is equipped with incubators and can
accommodate children born underweight and unwell.
Maternal and Prenatal Death Inquiry and Response
(MAPEDIR) is yet another innovative tool which is being used by health experts,
policy makers and communities. This innovation extends across select districts
in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh (MP), West Bengal, Jharkhand, Orissa and
Bihar. It seeks to kindle the community’s participation in probing why women
died in pregnancy, delivery or soon after, with an emphasis on developing
feasible solutions to the identified problems. The entire process includes
identifying and investigating maternal deaths, sensitising the community,
galvanising communities and health systems into action, and monitoring and
adjusting interventions through continuing inquiries. The accumulated evidence
can help communities understand the root causes behind these deaths so they can
take effective local action and advocate for improved services to prevent
future deaths.
The role of private sector and public-private
partnerships in increasing availability and physical access to services for
women in rural areas is another solution which can be considered.
Whatever be the approach, reproductive freedom lies at
the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination, and equality.
Every woman in India should have the right to access to best reproductive
health care available. Only then can they participate with full dignity as
equal members of the society.
Simi
Sunny
No comments:
Post a Comment