Navigating the Labyrinth of Pregnancy-Related Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants: An Assessment of Current State and Federal Policies.

Insurance coverage for prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and postpartum care for undocumented immigrants consists of a patchwork of state and federal policies, which varies widely by state. According to federal law, states must provide coverage for labor and delivery through Emergency Medicaid. Various states have additional prenatal and postpartum coverage for undocumented immigrants through policy mechanisms such as the Children's Health Insurance Program's "unborn child" option, expansion of Medicaid, and independent state-level mechanisms. Using a search of state Medicaid and federal government websites, we found that 27 states and the District of Columbia provide additional coverage for prenatal care, postpartum care, or both, while 23 states do not. Twelve states include any postpartum coverage; 7 provide coverage for 12 months postpartum. Although information regarding coverage is available publicly online, there exist many barriers to access, such as lack of transparency, lack of availability of information in multiple languages, and incorrect information. More inclusive and easily accessible policies are needed as the first step toward improving maternal health among undocumented immigrants, a population trapped in a complicated web of immigration policy and a maternal health crisis. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1051-1060. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307750).

State Public Insurance Coverage Policies and Postpartum Care Among Immigrants.

Importance: Professional medical organizations recommend that adults receive routine postpartum care. Yet, some states restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants and recently documented immigrants (those who received legal documentation status within the past 5 years). Objective: To examine the association between public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the difference in receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pooled, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 states and New York City including low-income adults with a live birth between 2012 and 2019. Exposure: Giving birth in a state that offered public insurance coverage for postpartum care to recently documented or undocumented immigrants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of postpartum care by the category of coverage offered (full coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care regardless of immigration status; moderate coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully residing immigrants without a 5-year waiting period, but did not offer postpartum care to undocumented immigrants; no coverage: states that did not offer publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully present immigrants before 5 years of legal residence or to undocumented immigrants). Results: The study included 72 981 low-income adults (20 971 immigrants [29%] and 52 010 nonimmigrants [71%]). Of the 19 included states and New York City, 6 offered full coverage, 9 offered moderate coverage, and 4 offered no coverage; 1 state (Oregon) switched from offering moderate coverage to offering full coverage. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, receipt of postpartum care among immigrants was 7.0-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -10.6 to -3.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and 11.3-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -13.9 to -8.8 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. The differences in the receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants were also associated with the coverage categories. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, there was a 3.3-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -5.3 to -1.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and a 7.7-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -10.3 to -5.0 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with states without insurance restrictions, immigrants living in states with public insurance restrictions were less likely to receive postpartum care. Restricting public insurance coverage may be an important policy-driven barrier to receipt of recommended pregnancy care and improved maternal health among immigrants.

Immigration Detention in the United States: Identifying Alternatives That Comply With Human Rights and Advance Public Health.

Under international law, the United States is obligated to uphold noncitizens' fundamental rights, including their rights to health. However, current US immigration laws-and their enforcement-not only fail to fulfill migrants' health rights but actively undermine their realization and worsen the pandemic's spread. Specifically, the US immigration system's reliance on detention, which precludes effective social distancing, increases risks of exposure and infection for detainees, staff, and their broader communities. International agreements clearly state that the prolonged, mandatory, or automatic detention of people solely because of their migration status is a human rights violation on its own. But in the context of COVID-19, the consequences for migrants' right to health are particularly acute. Effective alternatives exist: other countries demonstrate the feasibility of adopting and implementing immigration laws that establish far less restrictive, social services-based approaches to enforcement that respect human rights. To protect public health and realize its global commitments, the United States must shift away from detaining migrants as standard practice and adopt effective, humane alternatives-both amid COVID-19 and permanently.

Pediatric kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants: An American perspectives.

Kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants remains controversial. While in the United States the National Organ Transplant Act does not prohibit inclusion of these patients as transplant candidates, legislative and financial barriers and ethical concerns remain. The purpose of this article was to review the legal and financial barriers to kidney transplant for children with ESKD who are undocumented immigrants and consider arguments for and against inclusion of these children as kidney transplant candidates. While this discussion is largely restricted to the experience in the United States and its unique healthcare system, the themes and ideas may be more generalizable to the experience in many high-income countries. We conclude that access to kidney transplant is legal, ethically justifiable, and clearly in the best interest of these children. Transplant professionals should continue to advocate for changes in policy and greater resources to support these patients.

Risk and protective markers for well-being in Latinx immigrants in removal proceedings.

OBJECTIVES: There are currently 1,308,327 immigrants in removal proceedings, over 80% of whom are Latinx (TRAC, 2021b). This study examined the relation among putative protective markers (i.e. social support, religious support, and legal support) and the emotional and physical well-being of Latinx individuals facing removal proceedings. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that increased social support, religious support, and legal support would buffer the negative relations between hopelessness, poor self-efficacy, and well-being measures (depression, anxiety, stress, mental well-being, somatic symptoms, and physical well-being). METHOD: Participants (N = 157; 31.2% men, M age = 33.4 years) had an active immigration court case in Texas and completed a demographic questionnaire, the Beck Hopelessness Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Multi-Faith Religious Support Scale, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21, Patient Health Questionnaire-15, and Short Form Health Survey-12. RESULTS: Higher levels of hopelessness and poor self-efficacy were associated with more negative well-being outcomes, while social support was associated with more positive well-being outcomes. Contrary to hypotheses, religious support and legal support served as risk markers independently, while legal support interacted with hopelessness, such that decreased legal support was associated with higher mental well-being at lower levels of hopelessness and interacted with poor self-efficacy, such that increased legal support was associated with poorer mental well-being at lower levels of self-efficacy. All effect sizes were small (rsp2 = .04 to .16). CONCLUSIONS: Targeting hopelessness and poor self-efficacy while promoting social support may help mental health professionals improve the well-being of immigrants in removal proceedings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Examination and Analysis of U.S. Citizen Children with Illegal Immigrant Parents Facing Deportation.

Although the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the United States, the 1996 Immigration Act does not allow illegal immigrant parents to avoid deportation unless such deportation would cause extreme and exceptional hardship to a U.S. citizen relative. This paper reviews the potential adverse effects of such deportation on a child. It presents 12 cases where child and adolescent forensic psychiatric evaluations of U.S. citizen children supported their immigrant parents' petitions for legal resident status. Parent-child attachment, as well as the child's educational status, language proficiencies, acculturation to U.S. culture, and psychiatric distress at the potential deportation, are the factors most helpful in elucidating a child's reaction to this threatened deportation. During the child and adolescent psychiatry evaluations, the parents were interviewed, school records were reviewed and, where appropriate, pediatric records were considered. All the children were examined alone and then as a family unit with their parents using standard DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria [1]. Firstly, considering their clinical diagnoses, a clinical prognosis was made for the possibility if the child were to be forced to go to their parents' country of origin with their deported illegal immigrant parent(s). Secondly, each case was examined and analyzed individually to determine the clinical prognosis of the U.S. citizen child if they were to stay in the United States while the illegal immigrant parent(s) was forced to leave. In all of the 12 cases, there was already pre-existing anxiety in the children secondary to the fear of a negative outcome for the parents in the immigration legal cases. In all of the 12 cases it was also determined that the prognosis for the child's adjustment to being without their parent but remaining in the US would have produced a significant exacerbation of the psychopathology already seen. Furthermore, in all of the 12 cases, were the children to be relocated to their parental culture, unfamiliar to the child's American culture, again, the prognosis was made that a significant exacerbation of psychopathology would occur. On the basis of the findings of the child and adolescent psychiatric evaluations and analyses presented to the court, all of the illegal immigrant parents were permitted to receive permanent resident status.

Mechanisms of Deterrence: Federal Immigration Policies and the Erosion of Immigrant Children's Rights.

In this commentary, we highlight the US government's proposed changes to the Flores Settlement Agreement, a federal legal settlement from the 1990s that ensures that child welfare principles are applied to immigrant children.We describe how Flores should be understood as mitigating child trauma by ensuring a baseline standard of treatment of immigrant children. We outline how children experience trauma throughout the migration course and argue that the proposed changes decrease standards of care through indefinite child detention, separation, and delicensing immigrant child detention facilities.We draw on the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study to consider the effect these multiplying forms of trauma may have on children.

Barriers to providing optimal dialysis care for undocumented immigrants: Policy challenges and solutions.

Access to hemodialysis for undocumented immigrants with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is widely variable across the United States and highly dependent upon state policy. Some states have enacted policies to provide coverage for standard dialysis to undocumented immigrants, while other states do not provide coverage. Patients living in some states which do not provide coverage rely on emergency federal coverage through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. However, this act requires that patients present with an acute, life-threatening condition in order to receive dialysis, which is then referred to as "emergency-only hemodialysis" (EoHD). Because EoHD requires patients to present in life-threatening condition, patients who rely on EoHD suffer from debilitating physical symptoms and psychosocial distress. Undocumented immigrants who receive EoHD also have staggeringly higher mortality rates than those who receive standard hemodialysis. Moreover, in comparison with standard dialysis, EoHD results in greater health care utilization and higher health care costs. Therefore, EoHD represents a very low value care practice, providing substandard care at a greater cost. Policy change is urgently needed to provide undocumented immigrants with ESRD access to the standard of care; that is, three-times weekly standard hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.

Restrictive Immigration Law and Birth Outcomes of Immigrant Women.

Unauthorized immigration is one of the most contentious policy issues in the United States. In an attempt to curb unauthorized migration, many states have considered restrictive laws intended to make life so difficult for unauthorized immigrants that they would choose to leave the country. Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, enacted in 2010, was a pioneering example of these efforts. Using population-level natality data and causal inference methods, we examined the effect of SB1070 on infants exposed before birth in Arizona. Prenatal exposure to the bill resulted in lower birth weight among Latina immigrant women, but not among US-born white, black, or Latina women. The decline in birth weight resulted from exposure to the bill being signed into law, rather than from its (limited) implementation. The findings indicate that the threat of a punitive law, even in the absence of implementation, can have a harmful effect on the birth outcomes of the next generation.

Included, but Deportable: A New Public Health Approach to Policies That Criminalize and Integrate Immigrants.

There has been a burst of research on immigrant health in the United States and an increasing attention to the broad range of state and local policies that are social determinants of immigrant health. Many of these policies criminalize immigrants by regulating the "legality" of their day-to-day lives while others function to integrate immigrants through expanded rights and eligibility for health care, social services, and other resources.Research on the health impact of policies has primarily focused on the extremes of either criminalization or integration. Most immigrants in the United States, however, live in states that possess a combination of both criminalizing and integrating policies, resulting in distinct contexts that may influence their well-being.We present data describing the variations in criminalization and integration policies across states and provide a framework that identifies distinct but concurrent mechanisms of deportability and inclusion that can influence health. Future public health research and practice should address the ongoing dynamics created by both criminalization and integration policies as these likely exacerbate health inequities by citizenship status, race/ethnicity, and other social hierarchies.

Ensuring Compliance With Quarantine by Undocumented Immigrants and Other Vulnerable Groups: Public Health Versus Politics.

A successful quarantine requires a high rate of compliance by individuals with potential exposure to a communicable disease.Many individuals would be reluctant to comply with a quarantine because they fear that contact with government officials will place them in legal, personal, or economic jeopardy. These include undocumented immigrants and individuals with a substance use disorder. For a quarantine to succeed, individuals must be granted temporary immunity from arrest, deportation, or similar adverse consequences, but doing so will be politically unpopular.We argue that public health considerations must take precedence over politics in protecting the health of the public.

The Role of Campus Support, Undocumented Identity, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on Civic Engagement for Latinx Undocumented Undergraduates.

This study examined civic engagement in a sample of 790 undocumented Latinx undergraduates (aged 18-30). The relations between social supports (campus safe spaces and peer support) and civic engagement and whether a strong sense of undocumented identity mediated this relation were examined. Competing statistical models examined the role of participants' status (whether or not they received temporary protection from deportation with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA]) in this mediational process. Results revealed that having a strong identification with being undocumented mediated the role of social supports on civic engagement in the overall sample, and that this process was specifically important for those with DACA status. The intersection of policies such as DACA and the lived experiences of Latinx undocumented college students are discussed.

When deservingness policies converge: US immigration enforcement, health reform and patient dumping.

As immigration and health policy continue to be contentious topics globally, anthropologists must examine how policy creates notions of health-related deservingness, which may have broad consequences. This paper explores hidden relationships between immigration enforcement laws and the most recent health reform law in the United States, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which excludes immigrants from certain types of health services. Findings in this paper show how increasingly harsh immigration enforcement efforts provide health facilities a 'license to discriminate' against undocumented immigrants, resulting in some facilities 'dumping' undocumented patients or unlawfully transferring them from one hospital to another. Due to changes made through the ACA, patient dumping disproportionately complicates public hospitals' financial viability and may have consequences on public facilities' ability to provide care for all indigent patients. By focusing on the converging consequences of immigrant policing and health reform, findings in this paper ultimately show that examining deservingness assessments and how they become codified into legislation, which I call 'deservingness projects', can reveal broader elements of state power and demonstrate how such power extends beyond targeted populations. Exercises of state power can thus have 'spillover effects' that harm numerous vulnerable populations, highlighting the importance of medical anthropology in documenting the broad, hidden consequences of governmental actions that construct populations as undeserving of social services.

Caring for Undocumented Immigrants With Kidney Disease.

The care of dialysis-dependent undocumented immigrants exemplifies a problem at the crux of 2 US national agendas: immigration and health care reform. Undocumented immigrants represent 3% of the US population and 27% of the uninsured, and an estimated 6,500 individuals are dialysis dependent. With no uniform national policy, an estimated 30% to 50% of these individuals receive treatment only in life-threatening situations (emergent dialysis). Since 2005, about 400 undocumented immigrants have received a kidney transplant (>70% living). Although the Affordable Care Act specifically excluded noncitizens, its policies have indirectly allowed more than 200 individuals to purchase insurance from a health insurance exchange and transition from emergent to thrice-weekly hemodialysis. Under the Trump administration, uncertainties with health care plans, threats of deportation, and rescinding of policies such as sanctuary city status are bound to result in unforeseen challenges for this vulnerable population. Global variation in the care accessible to migrants, refugees, undocumented immigrants, and asylum seekers argues for the need for a framework to transform advocacy into public policy to improve the lives of patients with kidney disease worldwide. Access to nonemergent dialysis is humane and cost-effective; it deserves to be espoused and advocated by leading medical organizations.

Beyond the Border and Into the Heartland: Spatial Patterning of U.S. Immigration Detention.

The expansion of U.S. immigration enforcement from the borders into the interior of the country and the fivefold increase in immigration detentions and deportations since 1995 raise important questions about how the enforcement of immigration law is spatially patterned across American communities. Focusing on the practice of immigration detention, the present study analyzes the records of all 717,160 noncitizens detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2008 and 2009-a period when interior enforcement was at its peak-to estimate states' detention rates and examine geographic variation in detention outcomes, net of individual characteristics. Findings reveal substantial state heterogeneity in immigration detention rates, which range from approximately 350 detentions per 100,000 noncitizens in Connecticut to more than 6,700 detentions per 100,000 noncitizens in Wyoming. After detainment, individuals' detention outcomes are geographically stratified, especially for detainees eligible for pretrial release. These disparities indicate the important role that geography plays in shaping individuals' chances of experiencing immigration detention and deportation.

Recent Developments in Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Law.

This survey reviews significant statutory developments and appellate court decisions addressing workers' compensation issues for the period from October 2016 through September 2017. Workers' compensation systems are state statutory programs; the direct effect of statutes and precedents outside of their state of origin is limited. Nevertheless, compensation principles and laws have much in common among states and much can be learned from studying how legislatures and courts of other jurisdictions have treated similar issues. It is notable that when state courts cannot adjudicate an issue based solely upon a statute's plain language, and no precedent of the jurisdiction is determinative, they often consider authority from other states. Given the state-based character of compensation laws, not all of the cases discussed here can be considered to be landmark decisions, but they are significant for what they can teach lawyers and judges about how workers' compensation laws are structured and interpreted.