Pediatric Support for Children Eligible for Legal Humanitarian Relief.

Many children in immigrant families may qualify for legal protection-for themselves if unaccompanied, or as a derivative on parents' claims-on humanitarian grounds related to persecution or forced migration. Pediatric providers can offer a spectrum of multidirectional medical-legal supports to increase access to medical-legal services and support children who are undocumented or in mixed-status families. These activities can include providing trusted information, incorporating screening for health-related social needs, establishing networks for multidirectional referrals, and providing letters of support for legal protection. To expand workforce capacity for medical-legal services related to immigration, pediatric providers can also receive training to conduct specialized, trauma-informed forensic evaluations and can advocate at individual, local, state, federal, and global levels to address factors leading to persecution and forced migration while supporting individuals who may be eligible for legal protection. [Pediatr Ann. 2024;53(5):e183-e188.].

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.

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).

Perceived structural vulnerabilities among detained noncitizen immigrants in Minnesota.

Across several decades there has been an unprecedented increase in immigration enforcement including detention and deportation. Immigration detention profoundly impacts those experiencing detention and their family members. An emerging area of research has found that immigrants experience a number of challenges which constrain and limit their decisions, choices, and options for security and integration in the United States due to social, political and structural determinants. These determinants lead to greater structural vulnerabilities among immigrants. The purpose of the current study was to illuminate the perceived vulnerabilities of detained noncitizen immigrants as they are raised and described while attending case hearings at the Bloomington, Minnesota immigration court. Through conducting a thematic analysis of notes derived from third party immigration court observers, three areas of perceived vulnerability were identified. These perceived vulnerabilities include 1) migration and motivations to migrate, 2) structural vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination, financial insecurity, social ties and family support, stable or fixed residence, English language proficiency, health and mental health) in the US, and 3) challenges in navigating immigration detention. These findings demonstrate that noncitizen immigrants who are undergoing immigration detention are experiencing multiple intersecting vulnerabilities which profoundly impact their lives. Collaborative efforts across sectors are needed to work towards comprehensive immigration reforms including both short-term and long-term solutions to address pressing issues for noncitizens undergoing immigration detention.

The Boston Medical Center Immigrant Task Force: An Alternative to Teaching Immigration Law to Health Care Providers.

As healthcare providers engage in the politics of reforming and humanizing our immigration and asylum "system" it is critical that they are able to refer their patients whose health is directly impacted by our immigration laws and policies to experts who can help them navigate the system and obtain the healthcare they need.

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.

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.

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.

Emergency-Only Hemodialysis Policies: Ethical Critique and Avenues for Reform.

An estimated 6,500 undocumented immigrants in the United States have been diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). These individuals are ineligible for the federal insurance program that covers dialysis and/or transplantation for citizens, and consequently are subject to local or state policies regarding the provision of healthcare. In 76% of states, undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive scheduled outpatient dialysis treatments, and typically receive dialysis only when presenting to the emergency center with severe life-threatening symptoms. 'Emergency-only hemodialysis' (EOHD) is associated with higher healthcare costs, higher mortality, and longer hospitalizations. In this paper, we present an ethical critique of existing federal policy. We argue that EOHD represents a failure of fiduciary and professional obligations, contributes to moral distress, and undermines physician obligations to be good stewards of medical resources. We then explore potential avenues for reform based upon policies introduced at the state level. We argue that, while reform at the federal level would ultimately be a more sustainable long-term solution, state-based policy reforms can help mitigate the ethical shortcomings of EOHD.

The role of external actors in shaping migrant health insurance in Thailand.

The role of external actors in national health policy in aid-independent countries has received relatively little attention in the literature, despite the fact that influence continues to be exerted once financial support is curtailed as countries graduate from lower income status. Focusing on a specific health policy in an aid-independent country, this qualitative study explores the role of external actors in shaping Thailand's migrant health insurance. Primary data were collected through in-depth interviews with eighteen key informants from September 2018 to January 2019. The data were analysed using thematic analysis, focusing on three channels of influence, financial resources, technical expertise and inter-sectoral leverage, and their effect on the different stages of the policy process. Given Thailand's export orientation and the importance of reputational effects, inter-sectoral leverage, mainly through the US TIP Reports and the EU carding decision, emerged as a very powerful channel of influence on priority setting, as it indirectly affected the migrant health insurance through efforts aimed at dealing with problems of human trafficking in the context of labour migration, especially after the 2014 coup d'état. This study helps understand the changed role external actors can play in filling health system gaps in aid-independent countries.

A tale of two crises: The compounded effect of COVID-19 and anti-immigration policy in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting some important sources of health disparities that assail our society's most vulnerable people, particularly undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. The focus of this commentary is on uncovering those sources of health disparities and making a call for action. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Climate of Fear: Provider Perceptions of Latinx Immigrant Service Utilization.

Latinx immigrants endure stressors throughout the immigration process that detrimentally impact their health and wellbeing. Yet, they also face substantial barriers to accessing and utilizing services. These barriers might be heightened under the Trump administration, which has implemented policies facilitating increased immigration enforcement and punitive immigration practices. This study utilizes data collected from providers who serve Latinx immigrants in the border state of Texas to better understand current immigrant service utilization behaviors. Individual interviews and focus groups were conducted shortly after the last presidential election to inquire about recruitment, retention, program completion, and resources to address key client risk factors. Applying grounded theory analysis strategies, interviews, and focus group recordings were coded for key themes. Data demonstrated central concerns held by providers serving immigrants, and especially those who are undocumented or in mixed-status families. Concerns were related to the following three themes: (1) undocumented immigrant stressors, (2) limited resources for undocumented immigrants, and (3) service utilization barriers. Lack of services for undocumented immigrants and fear related to service utilization were prominent subthemes. These findings extend our knowledge of stressors and barriers of access and utilization for immigrants during this time period of increased immigration enforcement which have valuable implications for practice and future research. Providers can take concrete actions to educate immigrants, regardless of documentation status, on how their clients' identities will be protected. In addition, intentional trust-building strategies are essential to help overcome fear of utilizing services. Future research should ascertain perspectives of immigrant families, as this study drew perspectives only from providers.

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.