While the women in the qualitative study explicitly described these experiences related to drug and not alcohol use, it is plausible that they apply to alcohol as well. Thus, policies that require informing women that their substance use may have already harmed their fetus, such as MWS policies, could lead women to avoid prenatal care. Policies that mandate reporting to CPS, that define alcohol use during pregnancy as child abuse/neglect, or that allow civil commitment for alcohol use during pregnancy could also lead women to avoid prenatal care. A positive association between prenatal care utilization and birth outcomes has been documented , and if pregnant women who drink alcohol avoid prenatal care, prenatal care providers miss opportunities to provide other health promoting interventions that 1) support women to reduce or stop drinking, 2) provide other important components of prenatal care, such as monitoring for pre-eclampsia, and 3) link them to other supportive services. Punitive policies that lead pregnant women who drink to avoid prenatal care could thus increase the chances of adverse birth outcomes. In addition, policy contexts that allow criminal justice prosecutions or require CPS reporting could also influence effectiveness of alcohol-related interventions such as screening and brief interventions, which are widely recommended for pregnant women, including at-risk drinkers . Screening in an environment where being reported to CPS is a possible outcome from disclosing substance use may make women less likely to disclose use to providers and thus less likely to get support and services to help them reduce their use . To date, however, there has been no comprehensive research examining whether and how either supportive or punitive state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy are associated with birth outcomes and prenatal care utilization. Research on this topic is crucial because 1) policies continue to be debated and enacted in individual states , 2) the federal government is now incorporating them in federal legislation , and 3) some of these laws are being challenged in state court .
In addition, findings from research examining the effects of policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy can help inform how state policymakers respond to opioid and cannabis use during pregnancy,vertical agriculture farming which are timely given the opioid crisis and legalization of both recreational and medical cannabis in several states. This study combines state- and individual-level data to examine associations between state-level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy and birth outcomes across 50 states over 42 years. We hypothesize that each supportive policy will be associated with decreased negative birth outcomes and each punitive policy will be associated with increased negative birth outcomes. We also hypothesize that each individual punitive policy will be associated with decreased prenatal care utilization, while prohibitions against criminal prosecution will be associated with increased prenatal care. We do not expect to see associations between mandatory warning signs and prenatal care or between priority treatment and prenatal care because we do not foresee them contributing to an environment of trust or mistrust between women and providers. If there are associations, we expect associations with increased prenatal care because they may lead women to be more motivated to seek information from providers or more able to get treatment and thus have more support to engage in prenatal care. Primary outcomes were low birthweight and premature birth . Secondary outcomes were any prenatal care utilization, late prenatal care utilization , inadequate prenatal care ), and an APGAR score ≥ 7. All outcome data came from birth certificates. We also took steps to address changes in data collection over time. For example, prior to 1980, NCHS did not impute continuous gestational age when the last menstrual period day was unavailable. After 1980, NCHS began imputing gestational age when the last menstrual period day was unavailable. We applied this imputation method to1972-1980 data to be able to have more complete data to construct the adequacy of prenatal care variable . Analyses of APGAR scores were for the years 1978-2013 because APGAR scores were not reported on birth certificates prior.The main exposure variables were time-varying state-level indicators regarding whether states had particular policies in the month and year of conception. These policies were: Mandatory Warning signs, Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women, Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women and Women with Children, Reporting Requirements for Data and Treatment Purposes, Prohibitions on Criminal Prosecution, Civil Commitment, Reporting Requirements for Child Protective Services Purposes, and Child Abuse/Child Neglect. These policies have been detailed elsewhere and are briefly described in Table 1.
The first policies, Reporting Requirements for CPS and Child Abuse/Child Neglect, went into effect in Massachusetts in 1974. Next, Washington DC adopted Mandatory Warning Signs in 1985 and Kansas adopted Reporting Requirements for Data and Treatment Purposes in 1986. In 1989, California established Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women, and both Florida and Washington established Priority Treatment for Pregnant Women and Women with Children. Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia put Prohibitions on Criminal Prosecution into effect in 1992. South Dakota and Wisconsin established Civil Commitment in 1998. All policies were still in effect in at least four states in 2013. Each policy indicator variable is dichotomous, coded as 0 if it was not in effect for that state in the month/year of conception and 1 if it was in effect for the month/year of conception. Linking the policy indicators to the month and year of conception improves the accuracy of exposure timing .Models controlled for both individual-level maternal characteristics and for state level characteristics and policies in effect during the pregnancy. Individual-level maternal characteristics included maternal age, race, marital status, education, nativity, and parity. If data for individual-level controls were missing, we created a missing category to include all available data. Version of birth certificate was also included as an indicator variable. State-level controls included state- and year- specific poverty, unemployment, per capita cigarette consumption, and per capita total ethanol consumption, as well as indicators for whether government control of wine sales and government control of spirit sales were in effect for that state in that year. Data for state-level controls came from secondary sources, including the U.S. Census, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, APIS, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Beverage Control Association, and published research . State-level per capita cigarette consumption and per capital alcohol consumption were included because these variables could not be controlled at the individual-level due to lack of data documented on birth certificates in the earlier years and concerns with the quality of these data in the later years . Multivariable logistic regression was used for all outcomes. Regression models included all policy indicators simultaneously, fixed effects for state and year, state specific cubic time trends, and adjusted for both individual and state-level control variables. Regression models also accounted for clustering of standard errors according to mother’s state of residence.
Taking the most conservative approach, analyses included year fixed effects and birth certificate version indicator variables to account for changes in Vital Statistics data gathering over time as well as other relevant events in those states and years. State-specific cubic time trends were added to address possible concerns with endogeneity. All analyses were performed in Stata v14.2. This is the first study to comprehensively assess whether state-level policies targeting alcohol use in pregnancy are related to adverse birth outcomes, outcomes that indicate measurable harms due to alcohol use during pregnancy. We find that most policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy – MWS, CACN, CC, PCP, RRDATA, and PTPREG – appear associated with increased adverse birth outcomes, possibly due to some of these policies leading women to avoid prenatal care. In addition, it appears that generally applicable alcohol policies – specifically retail control of wine sales and any other policies that lead to decreased population-level consumption – are associated with improved birth outcomes. Although the magnitudes of effects are generally small,cost of vertical farming they are still meaningful in such a large population. Overall, these findings do support our hypotheses that policies punishing alcohol use during pregnancy are associated with increased adverse birth outcomes and may lead to avoidance of prenatal care. They do not, however, support our hypothesis that the more supportive policies – including Mandatory Warning Signs – are associated with decreased adverse birth outcomes. They also are inconsistent with our expectation that supportive policies would be unlikely to be associated with prenatal care utilization. With a few exceptions , scholars have consistently distinguished policies targeting substance use during pregnancy as either supportive or punitive; our study findings do not support this distinction. Rather, our findings suggest that state level policies targeting alcohol use during pregnancy at best do not improve birth outcomes and, at worst, lead to increases in adverse birth outcomes and lead women to avoid prenatal care. This pattern of findings is not completely surprising for three key reasons. First, qualitative research has found that information that leads women to worry that their substance use has already irreversibly harmed their fetus leads women to avoid prenatal care . Similarly, our findings suggest that rather than providing women with information that helps them change their behavior and engage with health care services that may support such behavior change, MWS may operate by scaring women and leading women to avoid such help. Second, this same previous qualitative research has found that policies related to CPS and child removal lead women to avoid prenatal care. Our findings related to CACN policies are consistent with this previous research, and extend prior findings by indicating that this avoidance of prenatal care may be linked to worse birth outcomes. This is crucial, as ongoing research on alcohol outcomes has found some associations between states with CACN and less alcohol use during pregnancy . The current analyses show that even though defining alcohol use during pregnancy as child abuse/neglect is associated with decreases in self-reports of binge and heavy alcohol during pregnancy, this does not translate to better birth outcomes. Third, and perhaps most vitally, previous research indicates that policy making related to alcohol use during pregnancy appears more related to policy making in the area of reproductive rights than to policy making that reduces public health harms from alcohol use in the population overall .
This means that the problem of alcohol use during pregnancy likely has not benefited from the same public health policy development process used to address public health harms from alcohol use in the general population. The current results show that reduced population-level alcohol consumption and government control over wine retail sales are associated with improved birth outcomes, which is in line with previous studies; therefore policymakers and public health professionals who wish to improve birth outcomes through state-level policies targeting substance use should look to the broader alcohol policy field for lessons and approaches, rather than continuing with the types of policies currently in effect. We do note that some of the patterns of findings are more difficult to understand. For example, the policy that mandates priority treatment for pregnant women was related to lower odds of inadequate PCU, but higher odds of low birthweight, premature birth, and late PCU. These mixed findings could be because the policy indicator does not capture actual treatment availability. States prioritizing treatment for pregnant women might have fewer treatment slots than states without such laws, meaning our finding could be just an indication of lack of treatment availability; future research should examine this. Laws giving pregnant women priority could also prevent women from getting treatment prior to becoming pregnant, especially in states with limited treatment availability. Similarly, laws giving pregnant women priority might prevent other people – including partners of women who become pregnant – from getting treatment, leading to adverse birth outcomes due to harms from others’ drinking. Our findings are inconsistent with the only other published study that examined associations between MWS and adverse birth outcomes across both states and time. In that study, MWS were associated with decreased odds of very low birthweight and very preterm birth . This discrepancy could be because the previous study 1) only examined MWS without accounting for other policies; 2) used data only for the years 1989-2006; 3) examined different outcomes; 4) only used a subset of states; 5) did not link policy data to individual outcomes based on the month of conception; 6) controlled for state-level policies alcohol and tobacco policies and not actual per capita consumption; and/or 7) controlled for individual-level alcohol use data from birth certificates, which are of poor quality and which could be more likely to be assessed and documented in cases of adverse birth outcomes.