Skip to main content
Log in

The Practice of Nurse-Midwifery in the Era of Managed Care: Reports from the Field

  • Published:
Maternal and Child Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to describe the reports of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) about how changes in the financing and organization of health care in the late 1990s influenced their ability to serve vulnerable populations and provide a woman-centered, prevention-oriented midwifery model of care. Methods: A 13-page survey was mailed to all CNMs ever certified by the American College of Nurse-Midwives (N = 6365) in July 1998. The survey included closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 2405 CNMs responded; of these, 2089 were in clinical practice during the study period (1997–98) and 82% of the 2089 (N = 1704) wrote responses to the open-ended questions and were included in the qualitative database. We present responses to the closed-ended questions about seven domains of practice and elaborate on three major themes identified through content analysis of the qualitative data. Results: The majority (57%) reported that the changes in the larger health care environment had influenced their practices during 1997–98. The effects most frequently reported were 1) increased client loads (31%); 2) altered style of practice (30%); 3) inability to serve the same populations; (20%); 4) decreased client loads (20%); and 5) increased administrative duties (17%). Three major themes were identified and elaborated upon in the qualitative data: 1) challenges to the style of midwifery practice related to the managed care environment; 2) the loss of socially and economically at-risk women from CNMs' client base; and 3) barriers to high quality and comprehensive services for women. Conclusions: During the late 1990s as managed care was expanding and health systems were merging, a significant number of CNMs in the field described threats to their ability to sustain economically viable practices and a style of care consistent with the woman-centered, prevention-oriented midwifery model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Kovnar CT, Burkhardt P. Findings from the American College of Nurse-Midwives' Annual Membership Survey, 1995-1999. J Midwifery Women Health 2001;46(1):24–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krulewitch CJ, Declercq ER. CNM birth attendance in the United States, 1998 [Science Update]. J Midwifery Women Health 2001;46(1):30.

    Google Scholar 

  3. MacDorman MF, Singh GK. Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:310–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oakley D. Murray ME, Murtland T, Hayashi R, Andersen F, Mayes F, Rooks J. Comparisons of outcomes of maternity care by obstetricians and certified nurse-midwives. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:823–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rosenblatt RA, Dobie SA, Hart LG, Baldwin LM, Schnceweiss R, Gould D, Raine TR, Jenkins L, Benedetti TJ, Fordyce M, Pirani MK, Perrin EB. Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women. Am J Public Health 1997;87:344–51.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jackson D. Management of labor in low-risk pregnancies: Impact of perinatal care provider and cervical dilation at admission in labor on method of delivery and length of stay; and the use of G-estimation in perinatal clinical studies. Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University School of Public Health, Nov 2000.

  7. Murphy PA. Primary care for women: Health assessment, health promotion and disease prevention services. J Nurse Midwifery 1996;41(2):83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Paine LL, Johnson TRB, Lang JM, Gagnon D, Declercq ER, DeJoseph J, Seupholme A, Strobino D, Ross A. A comparison of visits and practices of nurse-midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists in ambulatory care settings. J Midwifery Women Health 2000;45(1):37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Leader S, Perales PJ. Provision of primary-preventive health care services by obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:391–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rooks JP. The midwifery model of care. J Nurse Midwifery 1998;44(4):370–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Primary Care. Defining primary care: An interim report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hale RW. Obstetrician/gynecologists: Primary care physicians for women [Primary Care Update]. Obstet Gynecol 1995;2:67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Levitt L, Lundy J. Trends and indicators in the changing health care marketplace: Chartbood. San Francisco: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Salganicoff A, Beckerman Z. Health coverage and access: policy issues for women. Chart pack. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weinick RM, Cohen JW. Leveling the playing field: Managed care enrollment and hospital use, 1987-1996. Health Aff 2000;19(3):178–84.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lewin ME, Altman S, editors. America's health care safety net: Intact but endangered. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. [Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Changing Market, Managed Care and the Future Viability of Safety Net Providers]

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hellinger F. The impact of financial incentives on physician behavior in managed care plans: A review of the evidence, Med Care Res Rev 1996;53(3):294–314.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller RH, Luft HS. Does managed care lead to better or worse quality of care? Health Aff 1997;16(5):7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sisk JE, Gorman SA, Reisinger AL, Glied SA, DuMouchel WH, Hynes MM. Evaluation of Medicaid managed care: Satisfaction, access and use.JAMA 1996;276(1):50–5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Salganicoff A, Wyn R, Solis B. Medicaid managed care and low-income women: Implications for access and satisfaction. Women Health Issues 1998;8(6):339–49.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips KA, Mayer ML, Aday LA. Barriers to care among racial/ethnic groups under managed care. Health Aff 2000;19(4):65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lipson DJ, Naierman N. Effects of health system changes on safety net providers. Health Aff 1996;15(2):33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Buchbinder SB, Melick CF, Powe NR. Managed care and primary care physicians' overall career satisfaction. J Health Care Finance 2001;28(2):35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Declercq GD, Williams DR, Koontz AM, Paine LL, Steit EL, McCloskey M. Serving women in need: Nurse-midwifery practice in the United States. J Midwifery Women Health 2001;46(1):11–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rooks JP. Nurse-midwifery in America, 1980-1995. In: Midwifery and childbirth in America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997:161.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Marwick C. Effect of managed care felt in every medical field. JAMA 1996;276(10):768–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mechanic D. Topics for our times: Managed care and public health opportunities. Am J Public Health 1998;88(6):874–5.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stoto MA. Sharing responsibility for the public's health: A new perspective from the Institute of Medicine. J Public Health Manage Pract 1997;3(5):22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Walker B. Public health in a managed care environment [Review].J Health Care Poor Underserved 1997;8(3):345–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCloskey, L., Kennedy, H.P., Declercq, E.R. et al. The Practice of Nurse-Midwifery in the Era of Managed Care: Reports from the Field. Matern Child Health J 6, 127–136 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015420425487

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015420425487

Navigation