The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

Like all of these “commodities,” even if you don’t need it yourself, odds are that someone in your economic circles does. (When Americans on welfare get their checks, formula and diapers are some of their first purchases.) It’s portable, there’s no ready
Temych/iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.

Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.

A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.

Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.  

Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?

On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby.  Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.

Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:

Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

1. Mississippi

  • Budget Rank: 18
  • Health Care Rank: 51
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29

2. Pennsylvania

  • Budget Rank: 37
  • Health Care Rank: 36
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51

3. West Virginia

  • Budget Rank: 13
  • Health Care Rank: 48
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50

4. South Carolina

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 43
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49

5. Nevada

  • Budget Rank: 39
  • Health Care Rank: 35
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46

6. New York

  • Budget Rank: 46
  • Health Care Rank: 12
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47

7. Louisiana

  • Budget Rank: 8
  • Health Care Rank: 50
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26

8. Georgia

  • Budget Rank: 6
  • Health Care Rank: 46
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43

9. Alabama

  • Budget Rank: 3
  • Health Care Rank: 47
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44

10. Arkansas

  • Budget Rank: 12
  • Health Care Rank: 49
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37

Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby

1. Vermont

  • Budget Ranks: 17
  • Health Care Rank: 1
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5

2. North Dakota

  • Budget Rank: 10
  • Health Care Rank: 14
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10

3. Oregon

  • Budget Rank: 38
  • Health Care Rank: 2
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14

4. Hawaii

  • Budget Rank: 31
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1

5. Minnesota

  • Budget Rank: 32
  • Health Care Rank: 5
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12

6. Kentucky

  • Budget Rank: 1
  • Health Care Rank: 33
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20

7. Maine

  • Budget Rank: 25
  • Health Care Rank: 10
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15

8. Wyoming

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 17
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7

9. Iowa

  • Budget Rank: 14
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9

10. Alaska

  • Budget Rank: 50
  • Health Care Rank: 6
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Chart of the Day: SALT in the GOP’s Wounds

© Mick Tsikas / Reuters
By The Fiscal Times Staff

The stark and growing divide between urban/suburban and rural districts was one big story in this year’s election results, with Democrats gaining seats in the House as a result of their success in suburban areas. The GOP tax law may have helped drive that trend, Yahoo Finance’s Brian Cheung notes.

The new tax law capped the amount of state and local tax deductions Americans can claim in their federal filings at $10,000. Congressional seats for nine of the top 25 districts where residents claim those SALT deductions were held by Republicans heading into Election Day. Six of the nine flipped to the Democrats in last week’s midterms.

Chart of the Day: Big Pharma's Big Profits

By The Fiscal Times Staff

Ten companies, including nine pharmaceutical giants, accounted for half of the health care industry's $50 billion in worldwide profits in the third quarter of 2018, according to an analysis by Axios’s Bob Herman. Drug companies generated 23 percent of the industry’s $636 billion in revenue — and 63 percent of the total profits. “Americans spend a lot more money on hospital and physician care than prescription drugs, but pharmaceutical companies pocket a lot more than other parts of the industry,” Herman writes.

Chart of the Day: Infrastructure Spending Over 60 Years

iStockphoto
By The Fiscal Times Staff

Federal, state and local governments spent about $441 billion on infrastructure in 2017, with the money going toward highways, mass transit and rail, aviation, water transportation, water resources and water utilities. Measured as a percentage of GDP, total spending is a bit lower than it was 50 years ago. For more details, see this new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Number of the Day: $3.3 Billion

istockphoto
By The Fiscal Times Staff

The GOP tax cuts have provided a significant earnings boost for the big U.S. banks so far this year. Changes in the tax code “saved the nation’s six biggest banks $3.3 billion in the third quarter alone,” according to a Bloomberg report Thursday. The data is drawn from earnings reports from Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.

Clarifying the Drop in Obamacare Premiums

An insurance store advertises Obamacare in San Ysidro, California
© Mike Blake / Reuters
By The Fiscal Times Staff

We told you Thursday about the Trump administration’s announcement that average premiums for benchmark Obamacare plans will fall 1.5 percent next year, but analyst Charles Gaba says the story is a bit more complicated. According to Gaba’s calculations, average premiums for all individual health plans will rise next year by 3.1 percent.

The difference between the two figures is produced by two very different datasets. The Trump administration included only the second-lowest-cost Silver plans in 39 states in its analysis, while Gaba examined all individual plans sold in all 50 states.