Reassembled Maternal Mortality Review Committee will review 2023 data in next report, due Jan. 31

Newly reassembled after Idaho lawmakers let it disband, a group of Idaho medical experts is preparing a report about pregnant moms who died in 2023.

The Idaho Maternal Mortality Review Committee met Thursday for the first time since being disbanded in 2023.

The committee’s next report is due to the Idaho Legislature by Jan. 31, as required in the new Idaho law that re-established the group.

The review committee’s purpose has been to identify, review and analyze maternal deaths in Idaho — and offer recommendations to address those deaths.

The committee’s last report, using data from 2021, found Idaho’s maternal mortality rate nearly doubled in recent years — and most of those deaths were preventable.

The committee was previously housed in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. But the new law that reinstated it placed the committee under the Idaho Board of Medicine, which licenses doctors.

The committee is working to first address maternal death cases in 2023, and will then look into 2022 cases, Idaho Board of Medicine General Counsel Russell Spencer told the Sun in an interview.

That’s “because the Legislature would like the most up to date” information available, Idaho Board of Medicine spokesperson Bob McLaughlin told the Sun in an interview.

Idaho has several laws banning abortion. In the 2024 legislative session, Idaho lawmakers didn’t amend those laws, despite pleas from doctors for a maternal health exception.

How Idaho’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee works

The review committee, under the Department of Health and Welfare, analyzed de-identified medical records, health statistics, autopsy reports and other records related to maternal deaths.

The committee’s work “was not intended to imply blame or substitute for institutional or professional peer review,” according to a Health and Welfare website. “Rather, the review process sought to learn from and prevent future maternal deaths.”

The reinstated committee, under the Board of Medicine, will still analyze de-identified cases. The cases “will not be used for disciplinary actions by the Board of Medicine,” the board’s website says.

An advisory body to the Board of Medicine, the review committee is meant to “identify, review, and analyze maternal deaths and determine if the pregnancy was incidental to, or a contributing factor in, the mother’s death,” the Board of Medicine’s website says.

The board’s website says the committee report “will provide insights into maternal death trends and risk factors in Idaho year over year.”

Next Idaho maternal mortality report to include 2023 data

The review committee hasn’t yet fully reviewed or published findings from Idaho maternal deaths in 2022 and 2023.

In 2023, 13 Idaho maternal death cases were identified for review, and 15 cases were identified in 2022, Spencer told the Sun.

But he said the actual number of maternal death cases to be reviewed could be reduced, for instance, if the person wasn’t pregnant or if the death occurred outside of the year the committee was analyzing.

Spencer told the Sun the committee has already reviewed seven of the 13 maternal death cases identified in 2023.

The committee will also work to ensure that each case is “correctly associated with maternal mortality,” he said.

“If so, then it will go in front of the committee, and the committee and the committee will determine whether it was related to the pregnancy or if it was incidental to the pregnancy,” Spencer said.

The committee plans to meet three times this year, including last week’s meeting, he said.

The committee will likely review 2022 data in the first half of 2025, while it awaits the 2024 data, McLaughlin told the Sun in an email.

“It usually takes a full calendar year to receive relevant documents, input data, and have committee meetings,” he said. “We are doing everything in our power to review 2022’s data as soon as possible, along with the cases from 2023 and the expected cases for 2024 coming to us in 2025.”

How Idaho lawmakers reinstated the committee

In summer 2023, Idaho became the only U.S. state without a maternal mortality review committee, after state lawmakers let the committee disband by not renewing it.

In 2024, the Idaho Legislature reinstated the maternal mortality review committee through a new bill, House Bill 399, that widely passed both legislative chambers before Gov. Brad Little signed it into law.

Work to revive the review committee started soon after Little signed the new bill into law on March 18, McLaughlin told the Sun in an email before the meeting.

The Idaho Board of Medicine hired a coordinator for the review committee, who started Aug. 5, and worked to ensure the committee had access to data to conduct the work, such as receiving information to start case review from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s Bureau of Vital Statistics and working with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “to execute a data sharing agreement and memorandum of understanding” for its database, McLaughlin told the Sun.

Idaho Medical Association CEO Susie Keller said in a statement that the association was grateful to the Legislature for reinstating “this important health care resource for women and families.”

The medical association “commends the Idaho Board of Medicine for meeting the challenges of re-establishing” the review committee, Keller added.

Who’s on the committee now?

The reinstated Idaho Maternal Mortality Review Committee includes a mix of health care professionals, including doctors, midwives, a nurse and a paramedic.

The members are:

• Dr. Andrew Spencer, a maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialist
• Faith Krull, a certified nurse midwife
• Jeremy Schabot, deputy director of training and safety at Ada County Paramedics
• Dr. John Eck, a family physician in Boise
• Joshua Hall, the Nez Perce County coroner
• Dr. Julie Meltzer, who specializes in OB/GYN care
• Krysta Freed, a licensed midwife
• Linda Lopez
• Dr. Magni Hamso, the medical director for Idaho Medicaid
• Dr. Spencer Paulson, a pathologist
• Tasha Hussman, a registered nurse

On Thursday, the committee named Eck as chair and Spencer as vice chair, on voice votes without any opposition.

The committee then entered executive session — where the public is not allowed to attend — to review cases.

The previous iteration of Idaho’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee conducted most of its work in executive session, similar to other states, McLaughlin told the Sun in an email.

“To do its work, the (Maternal Mortality Review Committee) must review records of hospital care, psychiatric care, and other medical records, all exempt from disclosure” under Idaho law, McLaughlin said. “We also want to encourage open and free discussion among the members of the committee, which an executive session helps to promote.”

Two past committee members re-applied, but weren’t selected

Four of the review committee’s current members had served on the Idaho Maternal Mortality Review Committee when it concluded its final report in 2023, including Hamso, Meltzer, Freed and Krull.

But two doctors who had previously served on the committee applied and were not selected. Both of those doctors — Dr. Stacy Seyb and Dr. Caitlin Gustafson — have been involved in lawsuits against the state of Idaho or state government agencies related to Idaho’s abortion bans.

Upon request, the Idaho Board of Medicine provided the list of committee applicants to the Idaho Capital Sun. But McLaughlin said the Idaho Public Records Act did not allow the state medical licensing agency to “provide a more specific answer” about reasons applicants weren’t selected.

The head of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement, said the organization was “deeply invested” in the review committee’s work.

“The IAFP is deeply invested in the continued work of the (Maternal Mortality Review Committee) in its new iteration and hopes to see the high-quality data analysis and reports that were provided by previous (review committees). This work is crucial to supporting maternal health and well-being in Idaho,” organization executive director Liz Woodruff said in a statement.

Russ Barron, administrator of the Board of Medicine’s parent agency called the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses, made the appointments “in consultation” with the Board of Medicine, McLaughlin told the Sun.

Committee members were selected based on their education, training and clinical expertise, the Board of Medicine’s website says.

Asked why some past review committee members weren’t selected to serve on the new committee, Spencer told the Sun, “there’s nothing wrong with anybody who wasn’t on.”

Spencer said he couldn’t discuss reasons why specific people weren’t selected.

“We’re very, very grateful for everybody who’s ever served on this committee. We had enough interest in the committee that we were able to fill the different slots with people who hadn’t served before and provide new perspectives,” he told the Sun.

This article was written by Kyle Pfannenstiel of the Idaho Capital Sun.

Dear Prudence is Slate’s advice column. Ashley C. Ford is filling in as Prudie for Jenée Desmond-Harris while she’s on parental leave. Submit questions here.

Dear Prudence, 

My friend has suffered a personality transplant. We’re in our mid-30s and I think she’s having an early mid-life crisis. She has become obsessed with tradwife content and complains about her job and social life, saying she wishes it was the 1950s when women could stay at home and be wives and mothers. Wishing to achieve that lifestyle, she has decided to get married but has had no luck finding the man of her dreams, which is a cross between a cowboy and a millionaire. In a desperate attempt to meet someone with traditional values, and thinking that the problem is the fact that we live in a large West Coast city, she believes that what she needs to do is relocate to a different state like Montana.

I’m afraid that if she uses her savings to go on a hunt for this unattainable cowboy millionaire, she is going to not only torpedo her career but might eventually end up in debt. I’ve told her tradwives are content creators and it’s all for show, but she won’t listen. I want to stage an intervention with her sister. She’s very close to her sister and I think she may be the one who might be able to get through to her. Do you think this is wise? I don’t want her to hate me, but I’m worried.

—Living in Fantasy Land

Dear Fantasy Land,

We’ve heard so much over the last few years about men being red-pilled (even more so during these last few weeks), but I don’t think we’ve paid enough attention to the women being led to their own version of regressive ideals propped up by anxiety about the quality of their livelihoods. It sounds like your friend found herself sucked into that particular world of mythmaking. I’m sure it’s been disconcerting for you to watch it happen up close and in real-time. However, this is the kind of thing people fall into and resist all attempts to be pulled out of. I’m not saying your friend couldn’t use an intervention, but I think you should prepare yourself for the very real possibility that, even with her sister’s assistance, she may already be too far gone into her Billionaire Cowboy dream. Will you be able to handle that?

Before you go the intervention route, have a candid conversation with your friend about why she feels so attached to this dream, and where she hopes it all leads. In my experience, people who lean into these ideas are not just looking for a husband or a lifestyle, they’re looking for a specific feeling to either experience for the first time or recapture for themselves. Maybe she’s looking to feel cared for, protected, and undeniably loved. Maybe she feels like fantasy is her best option. Talking to your friend about her choices will help you figure out what she ultimately wants, which might help you suggest other ways she might find what she’s looking for out of life.

Dear Prudence, 

Me and my boyfriend were dating for a while. Then he started speaking to me dryly, so I checked on him and it turned out he was cheating on me. We broke up and did not have any contact with each other for a while. Until he hit me up asking how I was and telling him he missed me. I still had feelings for him so we got back together, but then after a few months, he cheated on me again. What does this mean and what should I do in this situation?

—Fake Relationship

Dear Fake Relationship, 

It means that no matter how much you love him, or how many times you forgive him, he will cheat on you. You should stop giving him the opportunity to do so.

Want Advice on Parenting, Kids, or Family Life?

Submit your questions to Care and Feeding here. It’s anonymous! (Questions may be edited for publication.)

Dear Prudence, 

I’m a man in my 30s who is struggling with a really bad crush on a female co-worker. Although I’ve had plenty of co-worker crushes in the past, this is different. I’m not sleeping well, I’m anxious, and I’m having a difficult time keeping these feelings out of my mind. I spend the “free” moments of my work day either hiding out so that I don’t run into them or inventing excuses to go and talk to them (then chickening out). I haven’t felt like this since I met my spouse, who I’m currently married to.

I have no intention of cheating on my partner, and I really don’t get the sense that this other person shares my feelings. Even if they did, I would know better than to do anything about it. I’m not going to throw my life away for a colleague I have no future with. I hope to ride this out for a while and wait for it to dissipate, as I assume it will. But I wonder if the intensity of my feelings has to do with the pressure I feel to keep them secret. My spouse is insecure about her appearance and a little jealous—not intensely, but she gets a little paranoid about, say, the women I’m friends with at work (the crush is one of them). When I’ve had crushes in the past, it’s been easy to keep them to myself because the attraction doesn’t really occur to me until I’m sharing space with this person during the work day. By the time I’ve clocked out, I’ve already forgotten about them. But because this current crush is so psychologically present for me, I’m desperate to talk about it, especially with the person I’m closest to. I feel like I can’t because I’m worried about hurting her feelings.

I know that this crush will pass, that it’s not my fault that I caught feelings for someone, nor is it a betrayal to simply “have feelings.” But I also doubt it will be the last time it happens to me, and I want to find a way to discuss this with her that will be honest, non-threatening, and hopefully non-combative. I’m not looking to open the relationship up. If we could have a conversation in which I admit to these unexpected feelings, and if we could both laugh at what a ridiculous state I am in, I could hold these feelings a little more lightly and let go of them more easily. I worry if I keep bottling them up, I’m going to feel even more crazy and possibly resentful of the fact that I can’t talk about something that’s causing me significant discomfort. How do I approach this conversation? Should I have it all? Is there anything I should avoid saying? Anything I should definitely say? Help!

—I’ve Got It Bad, And It’s Really Bad

Dear Really Bad,

You don’t need to tell your wife about your crush, you need to make some new friends. There’s nothing odd about having a crush, some of us are more prone to them than others. As long as no lines are crossed, it’s harmless. Where the harm comes in is when you act on inappropriate feelings, commit infidelity, or make someone uncomfortable by sharing the crush, especially in the workplace. While your wife doesn’t work with you, it’s clear to me that you would be causing her undue distress by attempting to discuss this crush with her. (She’s already expressed jealousy about the specific person you can’t get out of your mind!) Despite your explanation, I’m having a hard time understanding why you would even consider this. Because she’s close to you and you have no one else to talk with about it? That reasoning just doesn’t pass the bar. If you really believe the only relief you’ll feel will come from sharing your feelings about this all-consuming crush, then you should talk to someone who’s more your friend than your wife’s and leave her out of it.

Want more Prudie every week? Slate Plus members get additional columns each week. Sign up for Slate Plus now.

Dear Prudence, 

I have been married for 10 years. When I married my husband, I knew he was not an extrovert, nor a person who could work a room. He had no close friends. I always thought he was misunderstood or worked too hard to have time for excess because he loved me dearly and well when we were dating. He is now a loyal hardworking professional man with a good job in the financial sector, and whose baseline actions indicate that he loves his family. He doesn’t cheat, and he comes home and spends time with the kids. But over time, the reason for his isolation has become evident.

His communication style under stress is curt, unfeeling, and dictatorial to all those around him—usually me, our parents, and our children. He stonewalls me when things overwhelm him. This has put our marriage under strain. When an argument arises, usually it’s due to his overly negative reaction to a basic life occurrence that wouldn’t sway another person. For example, if a friend of mine comes by our home with less than 24 hours’ notice, he gets upset and storms around the house. Once he dropped some papers, and blamed me for the item on the floor he tripped over. (It was a Hot Wheel.) If he can’t find something, it’s because I misplaced it. If I’m washing dishes in a space he thinks he needs to be in, I’m the one in the way even if I was there first. I try to discuss these moods with him and understand why he feels so strongly about these minor things but he shuts me down.

When he asks me to do something, it’s usually in the form of an order. When I ask why he speaks that way when he could just as easily ask nicely, he says he shouldn’t have to sugarcoat his words at home. I’m pragmatic and usually shrug things off pretty easily, but these little moments have added up over time to build significant resentment. I can’t live this way my whole life. I feel like a second-class citizen in my own home. I stay for the kids and moral reasons. I am financially stable so that is not stopping me. I also don’t want my children to treat their spouses this way in the future, but my son is watching his every move and has started speaking like him. The answer is probably counseling, but good resources aren’t readily available in our area and I doubt he will agree to go. Am I seeing things as worse than they are?

—Second-Class Citizen

Dear Second-Class Citizen,

You’re not making things out to be worse than they are, you are living under emotional dominance. Your husband is likely a person who processes all his difficult emotions as anger because he doesn’t consider anger an emotion. However, you and his loved ones are obviously well aware that it is. When someone refuses to seek counseling for an emotional problem, they’ll often defend their behavior to a serious degree.

Though you’ve lived with this behavior for a long time, it seems you’ve realized that “dealing” with someone else’s smoldering anger becomes unbearable. It’s time for your husband to understand just how unbearable it’s become. When he’s not in a “mood,” approach him and let him know that this issue can’t stand. Put him in charge of figuring out how to address it, since your suggestions have been met with a wall. Let him know that this isn’t just something you don’t want to live with, it’s something you won’t live with anymore.

—Ashley

Classic Prudie

My husband used to work for a major theme park. As a perk, we could get guests into the park for free. It was a bit of a family tradition that I would take the kids of the family for an outing or two while their parents got a little time for themselves. The rules were simple: They had to be potty trained and only family. I wasn’t taking time off to take everyone on earth for a free vacation. At the end of my husband working there, my brother had been dating “Sara” for a few months. Sara was a single mom of two and I had never met her or her kids at that point. My brother wanted to bring Sara and the kids down for a visit with all the bells and whistles. I declined.

Many of the residents who packed Tuesday night’s Mesquite City Council meeting said they were “disappointed” by the police union’s complaints against the chief of their city’s police department.

While meeting attendees spilled out of the overflow rooms, a union leader told the mayor and council that the Mesquite Police Officers Association held a vote of “no confidence” in Chief MaQuade Chesley’s ability to run the Mesquite Police Department.

Andrew Regenbaum, who is executive director of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, said a “strong majority” voted that they weren’t confident in Chesley’s leadership.

Nepotism and retaliatory behavior on the part of the chief, Regenbaum alleged, spurred the Mesquite association to hold the vote.

Regenbaum implored city leaders to act Tuesday night.

“I urge you to consider the significance of his actions and this vote of no confidence and take appropriate action,” Regenbaum said.

After Regenbaum spoke, dozens of residents lined up behind him to make their own comments. Many said they backed Chesley and expressed frustrations about what they said was the vagueness of Regenbaum’s statements.

One resident, Sue Hanks, said she “wanted the facts.”

“I want to know exactly what Chief Chesley has done to the detriment of our Mesquite community,” Hanks said.

Another, Jeffery Smith, who has worked as an officer with the department for years, said that the Mesquite Police Officers Association does not “speak for” him. For more than 30 minutes, residents came to the podium to share their disdain for the allegations. Several called it a “witch hunt.”

One called members of the MPOA “cry babies.”

“You better consider that he (Chesley) has done one heck of a job,” said Ron Richmond, a former Mesquite Police Department detective. “I started in 1996, and we never used to do this. (You) work and shut up. You’re not going to get everything you need.”

Chesley, who sat in the audience for the meeting, gave one of the final remarks of the forum. He said that his commitment to the department had never wavered. He also shared that since he became aware of the concerns that the union has with his leadership, he has created a five-year “plan for improvement.”

“The plan focuses on critical areas designed to enhance our internal operation and the service we provide to our community. Some of those areas are open communication and active listening,” Chesley said. “We want to make sure our officers are supported and that their wellness is maintained throughout their careers.”

Unlike one woman whom Mayor Allan Litman interrupted after exceeding the allotted three minutes, the council allowed Chesley’s remarks to go longer than the time limit. The crowd gave him a standing ovation after.

A handful of people dressed in MPOA T-shirts sat near the back of the chambers. One scoffed while Chesley spoke.

During their comments to the council, Mindy Hughes and Brent Horlacher, who had been sitting with the MPOA supporters, insisted that a thorough investigation be done. They said the police union should not be villainized.

“It is the union’s job to demand transparency and honesty from the government entity, as well as any citizen would expect,” Horlacher said. “That is the mission of MPOA. It’s not to hurt anyone. It’s not to talk bad about anyone. It’s not to ruin anybody’s life. It is, however, an essential function of the MPOA to seek truth and accountability from those elected and appointed by the city of Mesquite.”

In an interview after the meeting, Regenbaum told the Review-Journal that he could not discuss specific incidents but that Chesley had “weaponized internal affairs against people in the department who disagreed with him.” According to Regenbaum, the chief had also hired out-of-state friends and given them more favorable pay scales.

“It is not unusual that he (Chesley) would bring out all his supporters,” Regenbaum said. “What is important is that the MPOA rank and rile had the courage to do something of this magnitude.”

Contact Akiya Dillon at adillon@reviewjournal.com