The IOM estimated that every dollar spent on prenatal care would save $3.37 in neonatal care expenses.

This led one legislator to conclude: “It is not often that a person in public life gets to say, ‘I know how to save the lives of American children and save taxpayer money at the same time’.”4 In response to this report, the United States Congress passed legislation in the late 1980s that provided funding to expand the Medicaid program—a government health insurance program for the poor—in order to increase the number of poor women eligible for free access to prenatal care. This legislation had bipartisan congressional Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical support and was signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush. In one Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical sense, these Medicaid expansions worked. More women did, in fact, enroll in Medicaid, and more of these women received prenatal care. From 1990 to 2003, the percentage of women who enrolled in prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy increased. The increases were largest in the highest-risk groups—7% for non-Hispanic white women, 24% for non-Hispanic black women, and 29% for Hispanic women. The percentage of pregnant women who did not receive any prenatal care was cut in half.5 In another

sense, however, the policies Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical seemed to be a dismal failure. National rates of both preterm birth and low-birth-weight birth continued to rise. In 1991, the PLX4032 Surgeon-General of the United States Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical issued a report, Healthy People

2000, setting 10-year goals for the nation’s health. One of the goals was to reduce the rate of low-birth-weight births from 6.9% to 5%. Over the ensuing decade, the rate rose from 6.9% to 7.6%.6 Undaunted, the Surgeon-General issued a new set of goals, Healthy People 2010, calling once again for a goal reducing low birth weight to 5%. In addition, this report called Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for a reduction in preterm birth from 11.6% to 7.6%. Over the next years, both low birth weight and preterm birth continued to rise. In 2007, the IOM issued a follow-up to its 1985 report. Once again, they presented the compelling case for a new national effort to reduce the rate of preterm birth. They noted: Infants born preterm are at greater risk than infants born Metalloexopeptidase at term for mortality and a variety of health and developmental problems. Complications include acute respiratory, gastrointestinal, immunologic, central nervous system, hearing, and vision problems, as well as longer-term motor, cognitive, visual, hearing, behavioral, social-emotional, health, and growth problems. The birth of a preterm infant can also bring considerable emotional and economic costs to families and have implications for public-sector services, such as health insurance, educational, and other social support systems.