(no subject)

[hnpcc]

Exclusively breastfed baby denied health insurance in US. Apparently the four month old is "obese".

By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.

At birth, Alex weighed a normal 8 1/4 pounds. On a diet of strictly breast milk, his weight has more than doubled. He weighs about 17 pounds and is about 25 inches long.

"I'm not going to withhold food to get him down below that number of 95," Kelli Lange said. "I'm not going to have him screaming because he's hungry."

The Langes, both slender, don't know where Alex's propensity for pounds came from. Their other child is thin. No one in their families has a weight problem.

The Langes are counting on the fact that Alex will start shedding pounds when he starts crawling. He is already a kinetic bundle of arm- and leg-waving energy in a baby suit sized for a 9-month-old.

They joked that when he is ready for solid food, they will start him on Slim-Fast.

You know, there are things that make you seriously wonder. And that? Is one of them.

Also, that last quoted sentence is unbelievably sad.

Of course as Hoyden about Town points out:

They don’t say on which charts: most American physicians are still using old charts based on formula fed babies, not the WHO charts which are based on physiologically normal growth in optimally fed infants. Breastfed babies on average grow faster in the first six months, and slower in the second sixth months, than formula fed babies.

Comments

[vestalvagrant.livejournal.com]

That Hoyden About Town quote? I was sure it's the opposite. IE, exclusively breastfed babies grow slower in the first six months and faster after solids are introduced. Formula fed babies are the chubby ones.

[hnpcc]

Hm, glancing at the ABA site, they agree with you. Odd. I wonder if Hoyden's misinterpreted something or there's conflicting information?

[hnpcc]

Actually, doing some more procrastinating I found this article:

the charts did not accurately reflect the general growth curve of predominantly breastfed babies, whose weight rises more steeply than the curve in the early weeks, and may dip slightly after the three-month mark.

Which doesn't exactly go with the whole 6 months thing, but whatever.

Either way why would you expect a baby to be in the 99th percentile for height and under 90 for weight. Strange, strange people.

[hnpcc]

Aha! I can blame the CDC (as always).

In general, exclusively breast-fed infants tend to gain weight more rapidly in the first 2 to 3 months. From 6 to 12 months breast-fed infants tend to weigh less than formula-fed infants.

Four months falls nicely in there.

Last sentence still applies.

[vestalvagrant.livejournal.com]

Jack was 85th percentile for height and 15th for weight, to the detriment of my emotional wellbeing.

[kirstenfleur.livejournal.com]

I remember looking at Jack and thinking "I shouldn't be able to see his ribs!"

Poor you. That was not a good time. You'd never know now though, he's such a gorgeous and healthy long lean lad! ;)

[vestalvagrant.livejournal.com]

It's certainly the 'fact' that's used most frequently when telling women with babies like mine not to worry about them being low on the weight charts. The commonly-used charts are based on measuring formula-fed babies and aren't hugely relevant to breastfed babies. Which means that if the breastfed baby in the story is 99th percentile on common charts, it's one hell of a hefty bubba (and predetermined to be that way).

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Heh, my brother spent his entire childhood in the 99th percentile for height and weight. He's around the 95th percentile now after topping off somewhere around 75.5 inches and 230 lbs.

Basically what happened is, in order to cut costs, insurance companies stopped requiring a physical examination before you sign up (when this was first happening, it was advertised as a perk, no having to schedule a doctor visit just to see if you qualify for insurance). Now they just ask your height and weight and calculate your BMI, and if it's over 30 they won't insure you, even if you happen to be fit and healthy. Of course that only applies to the individual market. If you're lucky enough to have an employer-sponsored group plan you can usually get insurance, based on the employer's risk pool.

[kirstenfleur.livejournal.com]

Do they calculate the BMI of those under 18? Because if they do, that's ridiculous and if they don't, how do they judge the fitness of children and infants?

And what about athletes with large muscle loads, who are brilliantly fit but who have "overweight" BMIs?

I will never understand the USA's attitude to health insurance. Give me Medicare any day.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Under 18 they don't calculate BMI, they go by growth charts, as in the article. But I've actually never heard of insurance companies refusing to insure children before. Normally any children will be covered under whatever plan their parents qualify for (for an extra fee, of course)... but the individual insurance market is a scary, scary place.

[kirstenfleur.livejournal.com]

American health insurers are INSANE!

So Laura, who as you know was in the high 90s for weight/length all her babyhood, would have been classified as obese? For God's sake, what a load of tripe some people come up with!

I suppose that baby's parents are now hoping like hell he doesn't get ill at any point. Vaccinations are still free in the US, aren't they? And they can get over-the-counter pain/fever stuff. But really, it's so STUPID it burns. :(

[(Anonymous)]

It's possible to get free (or at least very cheap) vaccinations, but most middle-class families don't have the time to wait in the scummy free clinics, if they even bothered to do the research to find one, and drove into the inner city to get there.

The vaccinations themselves are generally very low cost, what you have to pay for is the doctor visit for the nurse to jab you in the arm. These are usually done at the same time as routine checkups, so they tend to be bundled in with the cost of the doctor visit you would be having anyway.

He'll be insured!

[kirstenfleur.livejournal.com]

The insurance company has been embarrassed enough to change their tune. Hurray.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTm1p-cajzcmI2w_ROTot6L6lx8gD9B9S5800