The mediation and moderation effect of social support on the relationship between opioid misuse and suicide attempts among native American youth in New Mexico: 2009-2019 Youth Risk Resiliency Survey (NM-YRRS).

BACKGROUND: Suicide attempt and opioid misuse continue to be major behavioral health challenges among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). The aim of the study is to evaluate the mediating and moderating role that social support (SS) plays in their association among AI/AN high-school students in New Mexico (NM). METHODS: An aggregated NM Youth Resiliency and Risk Survey (NM-YRRS, 2009-2019: odd years) dataset was used. Multivariable logistic regression modeling and mediation analysis were conducted while adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: Overall, 12.0 and 14.0% of AI/AN students reported opioid misuse and suicide attempt, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of suicide attempt in students with high SS relative to low SS who misused opioids was 0.43 (p-value = 0.007). The effect of high SS relative to low SS among males who misused opioids was more pronounced (AOR = 0.24, p-value < 0.0001) compared to females (AOR = 0.43, p-value = 0.007). Relative to low SS, high SS was protective for suicide attempt among AI/AN students who misused opioids and attended school in off-reservation (AOR = 0.42, p-value = 0.012) communities, rural communities (AOR = 0.44, p = 0.040), and in communities that are both rural and off-reservation (AOR = 0.39, p = 0.035). Overall, 23.64, and 41.05% of the association between opioid misuse, and suicide attempt was mediated and moderated by SS, respectively. The mediation effect of SS was lowest for rural, on-reservation schools. CONCLUSION: More resources need to be allocated to rural on-reservation schools to enhance social support. The study highlights key insights into the significant role SS plays in promoting health and mitigating the association between opioid misuse and suicide attempt.

A trend analysis of the prevalence of opioid misuse, social support, and suicide attempt among American Indian/Alaska native high school students in New Mexico: 2009-2019 Youth Risk Resiliency Survey (YRRS).

BACKGROUND: American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth face stark inequities in opioid misuse, social support, and suicide attempt. This study examined trends in these behavioral measures among AI/AN students in New Mexico (NM). METHODS: Using the NM oversampled Youth Resiliency and Risk Survey (NM-YRRS, 2009 - 2019: odd years), prevalence estimates of opioid misuse, social support (SS), and suicide attempt for AI/AN high school students were generated. Trends over time were assessed via linear regression of weighted proportions according to Peter Armitage. Stratified trends by demographics were also employed. RESULTS: While the prevalence of suicide attempt did not change significantly over time, it was consistently higher among females (2011-2019), those who misused opioids, received low social support, had a mother with less than high school education, had a C, D, or F for academic performance, and non-straight students relative to their counterparts. In particular, the prevalence of suicide attempt among AI/AN students who reported opioid misuse in 2009 was significantly higher by 25.4% than their counterparts who did not report opioid misuse (35.8% vs. 10.4%.) A significant decreasing trend over time (2009-2017) was observed for opioid misuse (16.1%↓8.8%, p-value = 0.0033), including when stratifying by sex (males: 15.9%↓9%, p-value = 0.002; females: 16.2%↓8.6%, p-value = 0.012). Youth with high maternal education exhibited significant decline in opioid misuse (13.5%↓6.7%, p-value = 0.019; 2011-2017.) Opioid misuse increased significantly from 2017 to 2019 (8.8%↑12.9%, p-value < 0.0001.) For instance, in 2019 among AI/AN students who reported low social support, opioid misuse was roughly doubled (18.9% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.0001), and suicide attempt was tripled (21.3% vs. 7.0%, p < 0.0001) compared to students with high social support. CONCLUSION: No significant trend was observed for suicide attempt. We observed a significant decreasing trend in opioid misuse between 2009 through 2017 but a significant increase from 2017 to 2019. A higher level of maternal education (college or above), and an A or B school grade performance were protective against both opioid misuse and suicide attempt.

Attitudes toward Medication for Opioid Use Disorder among Substance Use Treatment Providers.

Background: Provider attitudes can be a powerful reinforcer of stigma toward medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This study examines attitudes toward MOUD among substance use treatment providers and identifies personal and professional characteristics associated with more positive attitudes. Methods: Treatment providers (N = 570) working at publicly-funded substance use programs in Michigan self-administered a web-based survey (November 2020 through July 2021), reporting their socio-demographics, professional experience, and attitudes toward MOUD. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with general attitudes toward MOUD and three logistic regression models were calculated to identify factors associated with perceptions of each medication. Results: Half of providers considered methadone an effective treatment (53.0%); 62.9% considered buprenorphine effective, and 70.3% considered naltrexone effective. Receipt of training (B = 1.433, p = .009) and serving pregnant women or women with children (B = 1.662, p < .001) were associated with more positive attitudes toward MOUD. Providers with advanced degrees were more likely to consider methadone (OR = 2.264, p = .006), buprenorphine (OR = 2.192, p = .009), and naltrexone (OR = 2.310, p = .011) effective. Rural providers were more likely to consider naltrexone effective (OR = 2.708, p = .003). Providers working with criminal legal populations were more likely to consider buprenorphine (OR = 2.948, p = .041) and naltrexone (OR = 4.108, p = .010) effective, but not methadone. Conclusion: Treatment providers' attitudes remain poorly aligned with the evidence base. Increased efforts are needed to address attitudes toward MOUD among the specialized treatment workforce.

Intervention Stigma toward Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are evidence-based treatments, yet can be controversial among some populations. This study provides a systematic review of prejudice and discrimination toward MOUD, a form of "intervention stigma," or stigma associated with a particular medical treatment.A systematic search strategy was used in PsychInfo and PubMed to identify studies published between 1998 and 2018. Studies that empirically examined stigma toward MOUD were included if the manuscript was of moderate or high quality. Studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis.The search yielded 972 studies, of which 28 were included. Most studies utilized qualitative methods to examine intervention stigma toward methadone or buprenorphine, with one including naltrexone. Studies demonstrated that intervention stigma among healthcare providers was influenced by lack of training and abstinent treatment preferences. Providers equated MOUD with illicit substance use and at times refused to care for MOUD patients. Stigma among peer patients seeking treatment was also influenced by abstinent treatment preferences, and among the general public stigma was influenced by lack of MOUD knowledge. Intervention stigma was also driven at the policy level by high regulation of methadone, which fueled diversion and hindered social functioning among patients. Few studies indicated how to reduce intervention stigma toward MOUD.Intervention stigma affects both provision and perceptions of methadone and buprenorphine, decreasing access and utilization of MOUD. Future research should further develop and test MOUD stigma reduction interventions in a variety of social contexts to improve access to care and reduce patient barriers.

Racial inequities in U.S. naloxone prescriptions.

Background: Research indicates U.S. racial and ethnic minority patients are prescribed opioids for pain less often than non-Hispanic Whites. Racial inequities are strongest for pain conditions with uncertain prognosis (e.g., chronic pain syndrome) compared to acute pain with defined duration (e.g., fractures). As naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal drug, becomes more popular among prescribers in clinical contexts, it is unclear whether racial inequities also extend to naloxone prescriptions. Methods: Patients diagnosed with bone fracture (n = 551,103) or chronic pain syndrome [CPS] (n = 173,341) were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes in electronic health records from the Health Facts® Database. Logistic regressions were used to determine whether the likelihood of receiving a prescription for opioids or a co-prescription for opioids and naloxone differ by patient race/ethnicity, which included African American, Native American, Non-Hispanic White, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and "other" categories. Results: Multiple logistic regressions show naloxone prescriptions do not consistently mirror trends in opioid prescriptions when broken down by patient race/ethnicity and diagnosis. Patients of color with bone fracture or CPS are largely less likely to receive prescriptions for outpatient opioid analgesics than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Among bone fracture patients prescribed opioids, African Americans and patients of "other" race/ethnicity are also significantly less likely to receive naloxone prescriptions. However, Native American and Hispanic CPS patients prescribed opioids are more likely to get naloxone prescriptions despite being less likely to get opioid prescriptions. And while Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander fracture patients and "other" race/ethnicity CPS patients are less likely to receive an opioid prescription than non-Hispanic Whites, there is no difference from non-Hispanic Whites in their likelihood of receiving a naloxone prescription. Conclusions: Among patients prescribed opioids, naloxone prescriptions vary by patient race/ethnicity and by health condition, indicating the need for efforts to assure equitable diffusion of this harm reduction intervention.

Strategies Used by Interprofessional Teams to Counter Healthcare Marginalization and Engage Complex Patients.

Low-income U.S. patients with co-occurring behavioral and physical health conditions often struggle to obtain high-quality health care. The health and sociocultural resources of such "complex" patients are misaligned with expectations in most medical settings, which ask patients to mobilize forms of these assets common among healthier and wealthier populations. Thus, complex patients encounter barriers to engagement with their health behaviors and health care providers, resulting in poor outcomes. But this outcome is not inevitable. This study uses in-depth interviews with two interprofessional primary care teams and surveys of all six teams in a complex patient program to examine strategies for improving patient engagement. Five primary care team strategies are identified. While team member burnout was a common byproduct, professional support offered by the team structure reduced this effect. Team perspectives offer insight into mechanisms of improvement and the professional burdens and benefits of efforts to counter health care marginalization among complex patients.

Ambivalence and contingencies: A qualitative examination of peer recovery coaches' attitudes toward medications for opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Peer recovery coaches (PRCs) are an important provider group affecting medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) uptake and retention. However, some PRCs may have experiences and beliefs that do not align with the use of MOUD. This study examines PRCs' perceptions of MOUD and how PRCs' attitudes affect their interactions with clients. The article also explores factors influencing PRCs' attitudes. METHODS: The study team conducted semi-structured interviews by phone with PRCs in Michigan (N = 34, July through September 2021). The study asked participants about their opinion of MOUD, how they help clients to make decisions about MOUD, and whether they have encountered negative attitudes toward MOUD in their work. Data analysis was guided by Tracy's (2020) iterative phronetic approach. RESULTS: Nearly all PRCs acknowledged the social stigma surrounding MOUD. PRCs described the stigma toward MOUD as affecting treatment access, utilization, and recovery support. While most PRCs expressed support for many recovery pathways, support for MOUD was contingent on the type of medication and the conditions under which it is used. PRCs often described MOUD as acceptable only in the short-term when paired with psychosocial interventions, after nonpharmacological treatment attempts had failed. PRCs with concerns about MOUD reported sometimes avoiding discussions about MOUD with clients, spreading misinformation about MOUD, and encouraging clients to discontinue treatment. However, many PRCs expressed a desire to support clients' self-determination despite their own biases. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight a need for education and stigma reduction among PRCs and point to specific areas for intervention. PRCs described deeply engrained beliefs about MOUD rooted in their own treatment histories and recovery practices. Provision of high-quality training and supervision to shift attitudes among PRCs will be key to increasing the use of MOUD.

Characteristics associated with the availability of therapeutic acupuncture in substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: We examine the characteristics associated with the availability of therapeutic acupuncture in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities in the United States (US). METHODS: This study utilizes data from the 2018 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). Multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Only 5.5% (n = 814) of all SUD treatment facilities offered acupuncture therapy. Facilities operating an opioid treatment program (OTP) were 1.60 times more likely to offer therapeutic acupuncture than non-OTP facilities. Facilities that offered oral naltrexone pharmacotherapy or buprenorphine with naloxone pharmacotherapy were 1.63 and 1.37 times more likely to offer therapeutic acupuncture, respectively, compared to facilities that did not offer these pharmacotherapies. Federal government facilities were over four times more likely to offer acupuncture than those operated by state governments and had triple the odds of having acupuncture than private nonprofit organizations. Tribal facilities were over five times more likely than state government-operated facilities to offer acupuncture. Facilities located in the Western region of the US were 1.59, 1.39, and 1.30 times more likely than Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southern US regions, respectively, to offer acupuncture therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although complementary and holistic approaches such as acupuncture are accepted adjunct methods to treat persons with SUD, the findings suggest that their utilization in SUD treatment facilities in the US is minimal. Results, however, highlight that facilities operated by tribal and federal governments, those that are located in the Western region of the US, and non-hospital facilities have the highest odds of incorporating therapeutic acupuncture as treatment for SUD.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2022.2056401 .

Improving Access to Care for Patients Taking Opioids for Chronic Pain: Recommendations from a Modified Delphi Panel in Michigan.

Purpose: About 5-8 million US patients take long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. In the context of policies and guidelines instituted to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing, abrupt discontinuations in opioid prescriptions have increased and many primary care clinics will not prescribe opioids for new patients, reducing access to care. This may result in uncontrolled pain and other negative outcomes, such as transition to illicit opioids. The objective of this study was to generate policy, intervention, and research recommendations to improve access to care for these patients. Participants and Methods: We conducted a RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi, consisting of workshops, background videos and reading materials, and moderated web-based panel discussions held September 2020-January 2021. The panel consisted of 24 individuals from across Michigan, identified via expert nomination and snowball recruitment, including clinical providers, health science researchers, state-level policymakers and regulators, care coordination experts, patient advocates, payor representatives, and community and public health experts. The panel proposed intervention, policy, and research recommendations, scored the feasibility, impact, and importance of each on a 9-point scale, and ranked all recommendations by implementation priority. Results: The panel produced 11 final recommendations across three themes: reimbursement reform, provider education, and reducing racial inequities in care. The 3 reimbursement-focused recommendations were highest ranked (theme average = 4.2/11), including the two top-ranked recommendations: increasing reimbursement for time needed to treat complex chronic pain (ranked #1/11) and bundling payment for multimodal pain care (#2/11). Four provider education recommendations ranked slightly lower (theme average = 6.2/11) and included clarifying the spectrum of opioid dependence and training providers on multimodal treatments. Four recommendations addressed racial inequities (theme average = 7.2/11), such as standardizing pain management protocols to reduce treatment disparities. Conclusion: Panelists indicated reimbursement should incentivize traditionally lower-paying evidence-based pain care, but multiple strategies may be needed to meaningfully expand access.

Associations between naloxone prescribing and opioid overdose among patients with acute and chronic pain conditions.

AIMS: To assess whether naloxone prescribing in clinical contexts targeted pain patients most at risk for opioid overdose. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using data from the Health Facts Database. SETTING: Over 600 United States healthcare facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Three patient groups were followed for 2 years during 2009 to 2017: individuals with shoulder or long bone fractures (n = 252 424), chronic pain syndrome (CPS) (n = 76 141), or non-traumatic low back pain (n = 792 956) who received an opioid prescription. Groups were chosen based on previous work. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome was opioid overdose identified by International Classification of Diseases codes (ICDs) and the primary predictor was number of naloxone prescriptions identified by National Drug Codes (NDCs). FINDINGS: Opioid overdoses occurred among 0.16% of fracture patients (average follow-up time to overdose [AFU] = 240 days), 1.28% of CPS patients (AFU = 244 days), and 0.30% low back pain patients (AFU = 264 days). A total of 58 083 bone fracture patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.68-2.09), and number of subsequent overdoses (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.69-2.12). A total of 19 529 CPS patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.61-1.78) and number of subsequent overdoses (IRR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.67-1.83). A total of 110 608 low back pain patients received naloxone prescriptions, and naloxone prescription was associated with subsequent opioid overdose (HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.27-1.40) and number of subsequent overdoses (IRR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.29-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a naloxone prescription appears to be associated with increased risk of subsequent opioid overdose among patients with acute and chronic pain, suggesting prescribers often identify patients most in need of naloxone.

Treatment provider perceptions of take-home methadone regulation before and during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies. METHODS: Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent. CONCLUSION: Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services.

The association between opioids, environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators and COVID-19 mortality rates in the United States: an ecological study at the county level.

BACKGROUND: The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world presents an unprecedented challenge to public health inequities. People who use opioids may be a vulnerable group disproportionately impacted by the current pandemic, however, the limited prior research in this area makes it unclear whether COVID-19 and opioid use outcomes may be related, and whether other environmental and socioeconomic factors might play a role in explaining COVID-19 mortality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between opioid-related mortality and COVID-19 mortality across U.S. counties. METHODS: Data from 3142 counties across the U.S. were used to model the cumulative count of deaths due to COVID-19 up to June 2, 2020. A multivariable negative-binomial regression model was employed to evaluate the adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate ratios (aMRR). RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, counties with higher rates of opioid-related mortality per 100,000 persons were found to be significantly associated with higher rates of COVID-19 mortality (aMRR: 1.0134; 95% CI [1.0054, 1.0214]; P = 0.001). Counties with higher average daily Particulate Matter (PM2.5) exposure also saw significantly higher rates of COVID-19 mortality. Analyses revealed rural counties, counties with higher percentages of non-Hispanic whites, and counties with increased average maximum temperatures are significantly associated with lower mortality rates from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates need for public health efforts in hard hit COVID-19 regions to also focus prevention efforts on overdose risk among people who use opioids. Future studies using individual-level data are needed to allow for detailed inferences.

Opioid use disorder and health service utilization among COVID-19 patients in the US: A nationwide cohort from the Cerner Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Both opioid use and COVID-19 affect respiratory and pulmonary health, potentially putting individuals with opioid use disorders (OUD) at risk for complications from COVID-19. We examine the relationship between OUD and subsequent hospitalization, length of stay, risk for invasive ventilator dependence (IVD), and COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: Multivariable logistic and exponential regression models using electronic health records data from the Cerner COVID-19 De-Identified Data Cohort from January through June 2020. FINDINGS: Out of 52,312 patients with COVID-19, 1.9% (n=1,013) had an OUD. COVID-19 patients with an OUD had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=3.44, 95% CI=2.81-4.21), maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.16, 95% CI=1.09-1.22), and odds of IVD (aOR=1.26, 95% CI=1.06-1.49) than patients without an OUD, but did not differ with respect to COVID-19 mortality. However, OUD patients under age 45 exhibited greater COVID-19 mortality (aOR=3.23, 95% CI=1.59-6.56) compared to patients under age 45 without an OUD. OUD patients using opioid agonist treatment (OAT) exhibited higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=5.14, 95% CI=2.75-10.60) and higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.22, 95% CI=1.01-1.48) than patients without OUDs; however, risk for IVD and COVID-19 mortality did not differ. OUD patients using naltrexone had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=32.19, 95% CI=4.29-4,119.83), higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.59, 95% CI=1.06-2.38), and higher odds of IVD (aOR=3.15, 95% CI=1.04-9.51) than patients without OUDs, but mortality did not differ. OUD patients who did not use treatment medication had higher odds of hospitalization (aOR=4.05, 95% CI=3.32-4.98), higher maximum length of stay ( e ß ^ =1.14, 95% CI=1.08-1.21), and higher odds of IVD (aOR=1.25, 95% CI=1.04-1.50) and COVID-19 mortality (aOR=1.31, 95% CI=1.07-1.61) than patients without OUDs. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests people with OUD and COVID-19 often require higher levels of care, and OUD patients who are younger or not using medication treatment for OUDs are particularly vulnerable to death due to COVID-19.

Intervention stigma: How medication-assisted treatment marginalizes patients and providers.

Methadone and buprenorphine are drugs used to treat opioid use disorders, and are labeled the "gold standard" of treatment by the National Institutes of Health. Yet associating with these forms of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) subjects individuals to stigma from healthcare personnel both within and outside addiction treatment communities. This study uses the case of MAT to propose a new category of stigma: "intervention stigma." Unlike "condition stigmas" that mark individuals due to diagnosis, intervention stigma marks patients and health professionals due to involvement with a medical treatment or other form of intervention. In-depth interviews with 47 addiction treatment professionals explore how individuals working in MAT experience discrimination and prejudice from other healthcare professionals, especially abstinent treatment professionals who disagree with the use of medications to treat opioid use disorders. This discrimination and prejudice stems at times from stigma toward addiction diagnoses, and at other times toward unique features of MAT itself. The experiences of addiction treatment professionals illustrate how medical interventions can mark patients and professionals in ways that affect patient care, and thus must be added to the scope of destigmatization efforts operating in the health sector.

Contingent engagement: What we learn from patients with complex health problems and low socioeconomic status.

OBJECTIVE: Elicit patients' perceptions of factors that facilitate their engagement in care METHODS: In-depth interviews with 20 adult Medicaid patients who had complex health problems, frequent hospitalizations/emergency department use, and who were enrolled in an intensive, team-based care program designed to address medical, behavioral, and social needs. RESULTS: Prior to engaging in the program, participants described weak relationships with primary care providers, frequent hospitalizations and emergency visits, poor adherence to medications and severe social barriers to care. After participating in the program, participants identified key factors that enabled them to develop trust and engage with care including: availability for extended intensive interactions, a non-judgmental approach, addressing patients' material needs, and providing social contact for isolated patients. After developing relationships with their care team, participants described changes such as sustained interactions with their primary care team and incremental improvements in health behaviors. CONCLUSION: These findings illuminate factors promoting "contingent engagement" for low socio-economic status patients with complex health problems, which allow them to become proactive in ways commensurate with their circumstances, and offers insights for designing interventions to improve patient outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: For these patients, engagement is contingent on healthcare providers' efforts to develop trust and address patients' material needs.

Dialysis Hospitalization Inequities by Hispanic Ethnicity and Immigration Status.

Medicare provides access to chronic outpatient dialysis for most U.S. patients diagnosed with end-stage renal disease. However, many new and/or undocumented immigrants do not qualify due to lawful presence and work credit requirements. Medicare-ineligible dialysis patients often wait until their health is poor enough for admission to emergency room dialysis. We use University of New Mexico Hospital chart data from 2013-2016 for a case-control study measuring the likelihood of being admitted to an emergency room for dialysis among patients who use interpreters, which is employed as a proxy for new and undocumented immigrants, compared with other patients. We find Hispanic patients who use an interpreter are significantly more likely to be admitted to emergency rooms for dialysis compared with patients who did not use an interpreter. This study highlights the need for national, state, and local policies to address this inefficient and inequitable healthcare pattern resulting in unnecessary costs and suffering.

Cultural Health Capital on the margins: Cultural resources for navigating healthcare in communities with limited access.

Communities struggling with access to healthcare in the U.S. are often considered to be disadvantaged and lacking in resources. Yet, these communities develop and nurture valuable strategies for healthcare access that are underrecognized by health scholars. Combining medical sociology and critical race theory perspectives on cultural capital, this paper examines the health-relevant cultural resources, or Cultural Health Capital, in South Texas Mexican American border communities. Ethnographic data collected during 2011-2013 in Cameron and Hidalgo counties on the U.S.-Mexico border provide empirical evidence for expanding existing notions of health-relevant cultural capital. These Mexican American communities use a range of cultural resources to manage healthcare exclusion and negotiate care in alternative healthcare spaces like community clinics, flea markets and Mexican pharmacies. Navigational, social, familial, and linguistic skills and knowledge are used to access doctors and prescription drugs in these spaces despite social barriers to mainstream healthcare (e.g. cost, English language skills, etc.). Cultural capital used in marginalized communities to navigate limited healthcare options may not always fully counteract healthcare exclusion. Nevertheless, recognizing the cultural resources used in Mexican American communities to facilitate healthcare challenges deficit views and yields important findings for policymakers, healthcare providers, and advocates seeking to capitalize on community resources to improve healthcare access.