Search

PURPOSE Black birthing parents and their newborns disproportionately experience newborn drug testing for prenatal substance exposure by health care professionals (HCPs), which contributes to Child Protective Services (CPS) reporting, family separation, and termination of parental rights. This qualitative study aims to interrogate dominant power structures by exploring knowledge, attitudes, and experiences of HCPs and CPS professionals regarding the influence of structural racism on inequities in newborn drug testing practices. METHODS We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 physicians, midwives, nurses, social workers, and CPS professionals guided by an explanatory framework, and conducted inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS We identified 3 primary themes: (1) levels of racism beyond the hospital structure contributed to higher rates of drug testing for Black newborns; (2) inconsistent hospital policies led to racialized application of state law and downstream CPS reporting; and (3) health care professionals knowledge of the benefits and disproportionate harms of CPS reporting on Black families influenced their decision making. CONCLUSION Health care professionals recognized structural racism as a driver of disproportionate newborn drug testing. Lack of knowledge and skill limitations of HCPs were barriers to dismantling power structures, thus impeding systems-level change. Institutional changes should shift focus from biologic testing and reporting to supporting the mutual needs of birthing parent and child through family-centered substance use treatment. State and federal policy changes are needed to ensure health equity for Black families and eliminate reporting to CPS for prenatal substance exposure when no concern for child abuse and neglect exists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reveals how law and legal interests transform medicine. Drawing on qualitative interviews with medical professionals, this study shows how providers mobilize law and engage in investigatory work as they deliver care. Using the case of drug testing pregnant patients, I examine three mechanisms by which medico-legal hybridity occurs in clinical settings. The first mechanism, clinicalization, describes how forensic tools and methods are cast in clinical terminology, effectively cloaking their forensic intent. In the second, medical professionals informally rank the riskiness of illicit substances using both medical and criminal-legal assessments. The third mechanism describes how gender, race, and class inform forensic decision-making and criminal suspicion in maternal health. The findings show that by straddling both medical and legal domains, medicine conforms to the standards and norms of neither institution while also suspending meaningful rights for patients seeking care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Michigan is among 25 states that mandate health care professionals (HCPs) to report newborn drug exposure to Child Protective Services (CPS) under the US Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act. HCPs are more likely to report Black families to CPS for prenatal drug use than their White peers despite similar rates of drug use.1 2 CPS reports can facilitate parental drug treatment but can also lead to criminalization of substance use in pregnancy and contribute to health inequity for Black families. Objective: To examine factors associated with HCP decisions to obtain newborn drug testing (NDT) using an anti-racist and justice-informed approach. Study design and analysis: A retrospective cohort study. Setting and dataset: EHR data set from a large academic hospital in the Midwest US. Population studied: Mother-baby dyads receiving prenatal and birth care from 2014-2020. Intervention/Instrument: n/a. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was placement of an NDT order. We collected demographic data including age, race and ethnicity, marital status, insurance type, and neighborhood disadvantage score. Results: Data were available for 26,366 dyads and NDT orders were placed for 1,237 newborns. The rate of NDT ordering was 11.3% (n=359) for Black participants, the referent group for analysis. Unadjusted odds of NDT were lower for non-Hispanic White (OR 0.37, CI 0.32-0.42) than Black participants. Adjusted odds were lower for non-Hispanic White (OR 0.72, 0.57-0.91), non-Hispanic Other race (OR 0.5, CI 0.32-0.79), and Hispanic race (OR 0.4, 1.06). Of the 88% (1,090/1,237) NDTs with test results, 56% were positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, 18% for opioids, and <6% for amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine, and phencyclidine. There was no difference in the rate of positive drug tests across racial groups. Conclusions: Black families experience more newborn drug testing despite similar rates of positive drug tests. Interventions focused on racial inequity are urgently needed to reduce bias, overtesting, and subsequent criminalization and CPS investigation of Black birthing people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A policy brief is presented in which the author discusses her research concerning the decision making process of medical providers who opted to administer drug tests to pregnant patients with a history of substance abuse.