A new study by Northwestern University found that the rates of gestational diabetes among pregnant people in the U.S. have increased by 36% from 2016 – 2024.
And, according to the study, the burden isn’t evenly distributed. Native American, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations experience higher rates of gestational diabetes than other groups. For health journalists, covering this rise is an opportunity to shine a light on disparities in maternal health access, chronic disease prevention and structural inequities that affect pregnancy outcomes.
Why this matters
Gestational diabetes is often clinically defined as blood sugar levels that rise during pregnancy and usually resolve after birth. But its consequences linger. People who experience gestational diabetes face a higher lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and their children are more likely to experience metabolic conditions later in life. When journalists treat gestational diabetes as a temporary complication rather than a long-term health signal, they miss an opportunity to connect pregnancy care to broader conversations about chronic disease prevention and health equity.
What makes the current rise especially urgent is who is most affected. The data show disproportionately higher rates among American Indian and Alaska Native people, as well as Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations. These disparities do not exist because of individual behavior alone, yet coverage often defaults to personal responsibility narratives focused on diet, weight, or lifestyle choices during pregnancy. That framing obscures the structural conditions that make prevention and management more difficult in some communities than others.
Highlight patients’ realities
Food access is one part of the story. Pregnant people living in neighborhoods with limited access to affordable, nutritious food face barriers that are not easily overcome by standard medical advice. Physical activity recommendations mean something very different in communities without safe sidewalks, green space or flexible work schedules. Add in inconsistent access to prenatal care, language barriers, underinsurance, or mistrust rooted in historical harms, and the rise in gestational diabetes begins to look less like a mystery and more like a predictable outcome of systemic neglect.
Consider leading with prevalence alone, and starting with the lived experience of someone navigating a gestational diabetes diagnosis while juggling unstable housing, hourly work, or long travel distances to prenatal appointments. Reporting that centers on patients’ realities can illuminate why clinical guidance often falls short when social conditions remain unchanged.
Screening and policy implications
Screening protocols for gestational diabetes are not uniform, and access to follow-up nutrition counseling or diabetes education varies widely by geography and insurance status. Journalists can ask who gets timely screening, who receives culturally relevant care, and who falls through the cracks after delivery, when postpartum care often evaporates despite ongoing health risks.
The policy implications also deserve attention. Rising gestational diabetes rates intersect with debates over Medicaid coverage for prenatal and postpartum care, funding for community health centers, and nutrition assistance programs that support pregnant people and families. When coverage frames gestational diabetes solely as a clinical issue, it lets policymakers off the hook. When reporting connects the condition to structural supports — or the lack of them — it clarifies where intervention is possible.
This story is not just about pregnancy. Gestational diabetes offers a window into how early life health trajectories are shaped by inequity. It highlights how prevention efforts aimed only at people, without addressing social determinants, are unlikely to succeed. For journalists committed to advancing health equity, covering gestational diabetes means resisting simplistic explanations and asking harder questions about whose health is prioritized and whose is placed at risk.
