Posted by: JMAC | June 29, 2007 9:27 AM

It is my hope that Pat Dillon considers New Haven's high school drop out rate and the amount the city spends on incarcerating people just as embarrassing.

The lack of appropriate health care and infant mortality may be a serious issue.

But what about those who are still alive and kicking?

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | June 29, 2007 9:52 AM

This year legislators worked as a team and did replace the money. (I had filed HB 5076 http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5076
to fund FIMR and the bill was rolled into the budget.)
However, the department cut the money we appropriated last year. So the 'good faith' I asked for was that the executive branch honor the legislature's intent. As of yesterday it looks very very good.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | June 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Both issues you mention involve youth, but one issue falls within the laws of criminal justice, the other in education.
This year, the legislature took up important legislation to reform juvenile justice. It's been worked on over two years. I was an early supporter, voting for it on Judiciary and on Appropriations.
The dropout rate is a separate question. I don't sit on Education, but have spoken with NH BOE about the issues we face. If you are involved with a group dealing with drop out rates, I'd be happy to attend a meeting.
The two issues are sometimes related, you know. Teen pregnancies are high risk births. A young woman who becomes pregnant and drops out of school, or drops out and then becomes pregnant, is at risk in many ways.
I guess I disagree with your 'alive and kicking' comment. Infant death is a loss - an unnecessary one today - and more likely for infants of color. But it's everyone's responsibility.
At the very least, low birth weight babies (related to poverty and health access) are at a health disadvantage and often have more problems in school. They may even drop out. Helping the moms get good nutrition and prenatal care can help all along the way.

Posted by: Fair Haven Doc | June 29, 2007 5:02 PM

First of all, we are talking about the way the state distributes the money, not the way the city does. The urban centers (like New Haven) will have worse health care outcomes because of a larger underserved and uninsured population. While this is an issue that is particularly evident in New Haven, and New Haven can undertake initiatives to improve access, it is largely out of the hands of the city. For the most part we are talking about state health care politics and budgets.

A major issue here is lack of access to prenatal care. Prenatal care to those who lack access has been shown to be a wise investment. Overall, for each $1 spent on prenatal care, there is $1.50 saved in maternal and newborn medical costs after the birth. (Incidentally, prenatal care reduces the risk of maternal death 5-fold, and the risk of stillbirth 3-fold.) The investment of resources in New Haven's African American population (as cited in the story) is proof of this positive impact. And Rep. Dillon is right on: the consequences of adverse perinatal outcomes (e.g. low birth weight, adverse environmental exposures like drugs and alcohol, preterm birth) contribute to even more significant societal costs down the line, not just perinatal death.

This will probably be another issue that gets folded into the immigration issue. This increase in adverse outcomes is likely due to a growing (un- or under-insured) immigrant population in Connecticut's urban centers. Whatever side you are on for the political debate, it is hard to argue against putting the money towards preventive measures that reduce costs down the line. A child who is born here is a citizen and we end up committed to the investment anyway. Why not start off with an evidence-supported investment before the child is born? This is not a novel concept; other states in the northeast (notably New York) have already found this to be a wise measure.

Posted by: Rep.Pat Dillon | July 2, 2007 2:37 PM

"it is largely out of the hands of the city. For the most part we are talking about state health care politics and budgets."
Well, yes, the state does pay for it, but like many programs the money for FIMR goes to the city, HUSKY goes to local providers, and they are locally operated.
"This increase in adverse outcomes is likely due to a growing (un- or under-insured) immigrant population in Connecticut's urban centers."
Maybe you're right, I don't know. But that doesn't explain why the trend in New Haven is worse than Bridgeport or Hartford, where there are immigrants also. We don't know until we analyse the data. Then we can work as a team and develop a plan.