Search

Background: Insurance coverage for lactation management is proposed by the United States Affordable Care Act. International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) are key providers of lactation services. In order to inform national discussion, this study examines the scope of insurance reimbursement of IBCLC services. Objectives: An email survey of US IBCLCs (N = 10 495) in March 2011 was used to explore frequencies of (1) submission—how often lactation consults were submitted to insurance providers for reimbursement and (2) recognition—the proportion of submitted charges recognized by insurance providers. Methods: Results (N = 2045) were analyzed to describe patterns of submission and recognition by IBCLC work setting, job classification, and reimbursement strategy. Results: Many survey respondents did not know their submission (41%) or recognition (57%) levels. Multiple strategies were used for reimbursement of IBCLC services with large variations in recognition between strategies. Overall, less than 15% reported high levels of submissions to insurance providers. Moreover, of submitted encounters, only 4% were consistently recognized by insurance providers. Inpatient hospital IBCLCs were least likely to have consults recognized (3%), and private community IBCLCs were most frequently recognized (32%). Compared with using IBCLC credentials for submitting an encounter, using another clinical license was the most successful strategy for achieving recognition of IBCLC consults (crude risk ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.01; P = .02). Conclusion: IBCLCs provide key care to a vulnerable population. However, we found that these services are not consistently reimbursed. IBCLCs poorly communicate their health care activities to insurance providers, but insurance providers also inconsistently recognize and reimburse IBCLC care.

Physicians commonly state the concern that, if they promote breastfeeding, they may “impose guilt upon those who do not breastfeed.” This article explores the genesis of this fear, who may benefit from this construct, and the terminology of guilt, shame, and loss. The article also explores the responsibility for both lactation failure and associated shame, considering the roles and responsibilities of physicians, the media, and society as a whole. An alternative construct for the guilt is offered, based on the consideration that the woman experiences lack of breastfeeding as a loss at some level, conscious or subconscious, and whether the choice to not breastfeed is her decision or imposed. Proposed approaches for acting to prevent and to treat shame and guilt are presented. J Hum Lact. 24(1):80-84.

This study assessed reported changes in clinical breastfeeding support practices following a three-day (approximately 24 hour) course. The course, presented at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, included the physiology of lactation and lactational infertility, related policy, clinical skills, the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM), and program-related findings. A questionnaire was sent to all participants and an additional systematic sample was telephoned to assure a statistically valid sample. Sixty-nine percent of respondents reported changes in clinical practices resulting from attendance at the course. The results support the concept, now being advanced by the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, that an 18-24 hour course can change clinical practices.