Hospital Capital Assets, Community Health, and the Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Care: A Population-Based Study of US Counties.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality hospital care requires adequate space, buildings, and equipment, although redundant infrastructure could also drive service overprovision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the distribution of physical hospital resources-that is, capital assets-in the United States; its correlation with indicators of community health and nonhealth factors; and the association between hospital capital density and regional hospital utilization and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We created a dataset of n=1733 US counties by analyzing the 2019 Medicare Cost Reports; 2019 State Inpatient Database Community Inpatient Statistics; 2020-2021 Area Health Resource File; 2016-2020 American Community Survey; 2022 PLACES; and 2019 CDC WONDER. We first calculated aggregate hospital capital assets and investment at the county level. Next, we examined the correlation between community's medical need (eg, chronic disease prevalence), ability to pay (eg, insurance), and supply factors with 4 metrics of capital availability. Finally, we examined the association between capital assets and hospital utilization/costs, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Counties with older and sicker populations generally had less aggregate hospital capital per capita, per hospital day, and per hospital discharge, while counties with higher income or insurance coverage had more hospital capital. In linear regressions controlling for medical need and ability to pay, capital assets were associated with greater hospital utilization and costs, for example, an additional $1000 in capital assets per capita was associated with 73 additional discharges per 100,000 population (95% CI: 45-102) and $19 in spending per bed day (95% CI: 12-26). CONCLUSIONS: The level of investment in hospitals is linked to community wealth but not population health needs, and may drive use and costs.

Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans.

This cross-sectional study estimates the incidence of rape-related pregnancies in US states with abortion bans.

Administration's Share of Personnel in Veterans Health Administration and Private Sector Care.

Importance: Health care administrative overhead is greater in the US than some other nations but has not been assessed in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Objective: To compare administrative staffing patterns in the VHA and private (non-VHA) sectors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using US employment data from 2019, prior to pandemic-related disruptions in health care staffing, and was carried out between January 14 and August 10, 2023. A nationally representative sample of federal and nonfederal personnel in hospitals and ambulatory care settings from the American Community Survey (ACS), all employees reported in VHA personnel records, and personnel in health insurance carriers and brokers tabulated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) were analyzed. Exposure: VHA vs private sector health care employment, including 397 occupations grouped into 18 categories. Main Outcome and Measure: The proportion of staff working in administrative occupations. Results: Among 3 239 553 persons surveyed in the ACS, 122 315 individuals (weighted population, 12 501 185 individuals) were civilians working in hospitals or ambulatory care; of the weighted population, 12 156 988 individuals (mean age, 42.6 years [95% CI, 42.5-42.7 years]; 76.2% [95% CI, 75.9%-76.5%] females) were private sector personnel and 344 197 individuals (mean age, 46.2 years [95% CI, 45.7-46.7 years]; 63.8% [95% CI, 61.8%-65.8%] females) were federal employees. In clinical settings, administrative occupations accounted for 23.4% (95% CI, 23.1%-23.8%) of private sector vs 19.8% (95% CI, 18.1%-21.4%) of VHA personnel. After including 1 000 800 employees at private sector health insurers and brokers and 13 956 VHA Central Office personnel with administrative occupations, administration accounted for 3 851 374 of 13 157 788 private sector employees (29.3%) vs 77 500 of 343 721 VHA employees (22.5%). Physicians represented approximately 7% of personnel in the VHA (7.2% [95% CI, 6.1%-8.2%]) and private sector (6.5% [95% CI, 6.3%-6.7%]), while the VHA deployed more registered nurses (23.7% [95% CI, 21.6%-25.8%] vs 21.2% [95% CI, 20.9%-21.5%]) and social service personnel (6.3% [95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.7%-5.0%]) than the private sector. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, administrative occupations accounted for a smaller share of personnel in the VHA compared with private sector care, a difference possibly attributable to the VHA's simpler financing system. These findings suggest that if staffing patterns in the private sector mirrored those of the VHA, nearly 900 000 fewer administrative staff might be needed.

Amputation Rates and Associated Social Determinants of Health in the Most Populous US Counties.

Importance: Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) have been found to be associated with health outcome disparities in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, the association of specific components of SDOH and amputation has not been well described. Objective: To evaluate whether individual components of SDOH and race are associated with amputation rates in the most populous counties of the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this population-based cross-sectional study of the 100 most populous US counties, hospital discharge rates for lower extremity amputation in 2017 were assessed using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database. Those data were matched with publicly available demographic, hospital, and SDOH data. Data were analyzed July 3, 2022, to March 5, 2023. Main outcome and Measures: Amputation rates were assessed across all counties. Counties were divided into quartiles based on amputation rates, and baseline characteristics were described. Unadjusted linear regression and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess associations between county-level amputation and SDOH and demographic factors. Results: Amputation discharge data were available for 76 of the 100 most populous counties in the United States. Within these counties, 15.3% were African American, 8.6% were Asian, 24.0% were Hispanic, and 49.6% were non-Hispanic White; 13.4% of patients were 65 years or older. Amputation rates varied widely, from 5.5 per 100 000 in quartile 1 to 14.5 per 100 000 in quartile 4. Residents of quartile 4 (vs 1) counties were more likely to be African American (27.0% vs 7.9%, P < .001), have diabetes (10.6% vs 7.9%, P < .001), smoke (16.5% vs 12.5%, P < .001), be unemployed (5.8% vs 4.6%, P = .01), be in poverty (15.8% vs 10.0%, P < .001), be in a single-parent household (41.9% vs 28.6%, P < .001), experience food insecurity (16.6% vs 12.9%, P = .04), or be physically inactive (23.1% vs 17.1%, P < .001). In unadjusted linear regression, higher amputation rates were associated with the prevalence of several health problems, including mental distress (ß, 5.25 [95% CI, 3.66-6.85]; P < .001), diabetes (ß, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.33-2.15], P < .001), and physical distress (ß, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.86-1.61]; P < .001) and SDOHs, including unemployment (ß, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.59-1.73]; P = .03), physical inactivity (ß, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57-0.90]; P < .001), smoking, (ß, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.46-0.92]; P = .002), higher homicide rate (ß, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.77]; P < .001), food insecurity (ß, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30-0.72]; P = .04), and poverty (ß, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.32-0.60]; P < .001). Multivariable regression analysis found that county-level rates of physical distress (ß, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.16-1.53]; P = .03), Black and White racial segregation (ß, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06-0.17]; P < .001), and population percentage of African American race (ß, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.00-0.12]; P = .03) were associated with amputation rate. Conclusions and Relevance: Social determinants of health provide a framework by which the associations of environmental factors with amputation rates can be quantified and potentially used to guide interventions at the local level.

Population-level trends in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emergency department visits and hospitalizations before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified reductions in exacerbations of chronic lung disease in many locales after onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the population-level impacts of COVID-19 on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations-with a focus on disadvantaged communities-in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed 2016 to 2020 county-level data on asthma and COPD acute care use, with myocardial infarction hospitalizations as a comparator condition. We linked this with county-level lower respiratory disease mortality data. We calculated rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths and evaluated changes using linear regressions adjusted for year and county-fixed effects. For a supplementary analysis, we calculated ED visit rates nationwide for asthma, COPD, or any diagnosis using the 2016 to 2020 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: Our county-level data included 685 counties in 13 states. Rates of each outcome fell in 2020. In adjusted analyses, we found large reductions in asthma and COPD ED visit rates (eg, a 21.5 per 10,000-person reduction in COPD ED visits; 95% confidence interval, -23.8 to -19.1), with smaller reductions in hospitalizations and chronic lower respiratory mortality. Disadvantaged communities had mostly higher baseline rates of respiratory morbidity and larger absolute reductions in some outcomes. Among 90,808 ED visits in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, asthma ED visits/y fell 33% during the pandemic and COPD visits by 51%; overall ED visits fell by only 7%. CONCLUSION: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with reductions in acute care utilization for asthma and COPD. Understanding the mechanism of this reduction might inform future efforts to prevent exacerbations.

Missing Americans: Early death in the United States-1933-2021.

We assessed how many US deaths would have been averted each year, 1933-2021, if US age-specific mortality rates had equaled the average of 21 other wealthy nations. We refer to these excess US deaths as "missing Americans." The United States had lower mortality rates than peer countries in the 1930s-1950s and similar mortality in the 1960s and 1970s. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the United States began experiencing a steady increase in the number of missing Americans, reaching 622,534 in 2019 alone. Excess US deaths surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching 1,009,467 in 2020 and 1,090,103 in 2021. Excess US mortality was particularly pronounced for persons under 65 years. In 2020 and 2021, half of all US deaths under 65 years and 90% of the increase in under-65 mortality from 2019 to 2021 would have been avoided if the United States had the mortality rates of its peers. In 2021, there were 26.4 million years of life lost due to excess US mortality relative to peer nations, and 49% of all missing Americans died before age 65. Black and Native Americans made up a disproportionate share of excess US deaths, although the majority of missing Americans were White.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights.

Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

Century-Long Trends in the Financing and Ownership of American Health Care.

Policy Points Over the past century, the tax-financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance. For-profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees. US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted. CONTEXT: Who pays for health care-and who owns it-determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century. METHODS: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for-profit), and private (not-for-profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not-for-profit, or for-profit entities or "self-employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees. FINDINGS: For-profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not-for-profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer-financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer-financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth. CONCLUSIONS: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted.

COVID-19 Risk by Workers' Occupation and Industry in the United States, 2020‒2021.

Objectives. To assess the risk of COVID-19 by occupation and industry in the United States. Methods. Using the 2020-2021 National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the risk of having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 by workers' industry and occupation, with and without adjustment for confounders. We also examined COVID-19 period prevalence by the number of workers in a household. Results. Relative to workers in other industries and occupations, those in the industry "health care and social assistance" (adjusted prevalence ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.37), or in the occupations "health practitioners and technical," "health care support," or "protective services" had elevated risks of COVID-19. However, compared with nonworkers, workers in 12 of 21 industries and 11 of 23 occupations (e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, and sales) were at elevated risk. COVID-19 prevalence rose with each additional worker in a household. Conclusions. Workers in several industries and occupations with public-facing roles and adults in households with multiple workers had elevated risk of COVID-19. Public Health Implications. Stronger workplace protections, paid sick leave, and better health care access might mitigate working families' risks from this and future pandemics. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):647-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307249).

Corporate Efforts to Adopt and Distort the Social Determinants of Health Framework.

Over the past two centuries, progressive scholars have highlighted the health-harming effects of oppressive living and working conditions. Early studies delineated the roots of inequities in these social determinants of health in capitalist exploitation. Analyses in the 1970s and 1980s that adopted the social determinants of health framework emphasized the deleterious effects of poverty but rarely explored its origins in capitalist exploitation. Recently, major U.S. corporations have adopted and distorted the social determinants of health framework, implementing trivial interventions that serve as rhetorical cover for their myriad health-harming behaviors, and the Trump administration cited social determinants to justify imposing work requirements for persons seeking health insurance through Medicaid. Progressives should raise the alarm against the use of social determinants of health rhetoric to bolster corporate power and undermine health.

Community Health, Health Care Access, And COVID-19 Booster Uptake In Massachusetts.

Booster vaccination offers vital protection against COVID-19, particularly for communities in which many people have chronic conditions. Although vaccination has been widely and freely available, people who have experienced barriers to care might be deterred from being vaccinated. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 booster uptake and small area-level demographics, chronic disease prevalence, and measures of health care access in 462 Massachusetts communities during the period September 2021-April 2022. Unadjusted analyses found that booster uptake was higher in older and wealthier areas, lower in areas with more Hispanic and Black residents, and lower in areas with a high prevalence of chronic conditions. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, uptake was lower in communities with more uninsured residents and those in which fewer residents received routine medical check-ups. Adjusted analyses found that areas with more vaccine providers and primary care physicians had higher booster uptake, but this association was not significant in unadjusted analyses. Results suggest a need for innovative outreach efforts, as well as structural changes such as expansion of health care coverage and universal access to care to mitigate the inequitable burden of COVID-19.

Chronic Illness in Children and Foregone Care Among Household Adults in the United States: A National Study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood chronic illness imposes financial burdens that may affect the entire family. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess whether adults living with children with 2 childhood chronic illnesses-asthma and diabetes-are more likely to forego their own medical care, and experience financial strain, relative to those living with children without these illnesses. RESEARCH DESIGN: 2009-2018 National Health Interview Survey. SUBJECTS: Adult-child dyads, consisting of one randomly sampled child and adult in each family. MEASURES: The main exposure was a diagnosis of asthma or diabetes in the child. The outcomes were delayed/foregone medical care for the adult as well as family financial strain; the authors evaluated their association with the child's illness using multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: The authors identified 93,264 adult-child dyads; 8499 included a child with asthma, and 179 a child with diabetes. Families with children with either illness had more medical bill problems, food insecurity, and medical expenses. Adults living with children with each illness reported more health care access problems. For instance, relative to other adults, those living with a child with asthma were more likely to forego/delay care (14.7% vs. 10.2%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39) and were more likely to forego medications, specialist, mental health, and dental care. Adults living with a child with diabetes were also more likely to forego/delay care (adjusted odds ratio: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: Adults living with children with chronic illnesses may sacrifice their own care because of cost concerns. Reducing out-of-pocket health care costs, improving health coverage, and expanding social supports for families with children with chronic conditions might mitigate such impacts.

Hospital Expenditures Under Global Budgeting and Single-Payer Financing: An Economic Analysis, 2021-2030.

U.S. hospitals provide large amounts of low-value care and devote inordinate resources to administration, while some hospitals leverage market power to realize large profits. Meanwhile, many rural and safety net hospitals are financially distressed. The coexistence of waste and want suggests that U.S. hospital financing is neither efficient nor equitable. We model the economic consequences of adopting the mode of hospital payment used in Canada and the U.S. Veterans Health Administration and proposed in the leading congressional single-payer Medicare-for-All bill: global budgeting. Our models assume increased utilization due to expanded and upgraded coverage; gradual reductions in administrative costs from simplified payment; and the elimination of hospital profits, with hospital capital expenditures funded by explicit grants rather than from profits or borrowing. We estimate that non-federal hospital operating budgets will total $17.2 trillion between 2021 and 2030 under current law versus $14.7 trillion under single-payer with global budgeting. This difference reflects $520 billion in foregone profits and $1,984 billion in reduced expenditures on hospital administration; expenditures on clinical operating budgets, however, would be higher than under current law, funded out of profits.

Trends and Disparities in the Distribution of Outpatient Physicians' Annual Face Time with Patients, 1979-2018.

BACKGROUND: Physician time is a valuable yet finite resource. Whether such time is apportioned equitably among population subgroups, and how the provision of that time has changed in recent decades, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends and racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of annual face time with physicians in the USA. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional. SETTING: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1979-1981, 1985, 1989-2016, 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Office-based physicians. MEASURES: Exposures included race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic); age (<18, 18-64, and 65+); and survey year. Our main outcome was patients' annual visit face time with a physician; secondary outcomes include annual visit rates and mean visit duration. RESULTS: Our sample included n=1,108,835 patient visits. From 1979 to 2018, annual outpatient physician face time per capita rose from 40.0 to 60.4 min, an increase driven by a rise in mean visit length and not in the number of visits. However, since 2005, mean annual face time with a primary care physician has fallen, a decline offset by rising time with specialists. Face time provided per physician changed little given growth in the physician workforce. A racial/ethnic gap in physician visit time present at the beginning of the study period widened over time. In 2014-2018, White individuals received 70.0 min of physician face time per year, vs. 52.4 among Black and 53.0 among Hispanic individuals. This disparity was driven by differences in visit rates, not mean visit length, and in the provision of specialist but not primary care. LIMITATION: Self-reported visit length. CONCLUSION: Americans' annual face time with office-based physicians rose for three decades after 1979, yet is still allocated inequitably, particularly by specialists; meanwhile, time spent by Americans with primary care physicians is falling. These trends and disparities may adversely affect patient outcomes. Policy change is needed to assure better allocation of this resource.

Assessment of Immigrants' Premium and Tax Payments for Health Care and the Costs of Their Care.

Importance: Some worry that immigrants burden the US economy and particularly the health care system. However, no analyses to date have assessed whether immigrants' payments for premiums and taxes that fund health care programs exceed third-party payers' expenditures on their behalf. Objective: To assess immigrants' net financial contributions to US health care programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used 2017 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) and 2014 to 2018 data from the American Community Survey. The main analyses used data from the calendar year 2017. Data from the calendar years 2012 to 2016 were also reported. Data were analyzed from June 15, 2020, to August 14, 2022. Participants comprised 210 669 community-dwelling respondents to the MEPS and CPS (main analysis) and nursing home residents who were included in the American Community Survey (additional analysis). Exposures: Citizenship and immigration status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total and per capita payments for premiums and taxes that fund health care as well as third-party payers' expenditures for health care in 2018 US dollars. Results: Among 210 669 participants, 51.0% were female, 18.3% were Hispanic, 12.3% were non-Hispanic Black, 60.3% were non-Hispanic White, and 9.2% were of other races and/or ethnicities. A total of 180 084 participants were respondents to the 2018 CPS, and 30 585 were respondents to the 2017 MEPS. Among the 180 084 CPS respondents, immigrants accounted for 14.1% (weighted to be nationally representative), with the subgroup of citizen immigrants accounting for 6.8%, documented noncitizen immigrants accounting for 3.7%, and undocumented immigrants accounting for 3.6%; US-born citizens constituted 85.9% of the population. Relative to US-born citizens, immigrants were more often age 18 to 64 years (79.6% vs 58.3%), of Hispanic ethnicity (45.0% vs 14.0%), and uninsured (16.8% vs 7.4%); similar percentages (51.4% vs 50.9%) were female. US-born citizens vs immigrants paid similar amounts in premiums and taxes ($6269 per capita [95% CI, $6185-$6353 per capita] vs $6345 per capita [95% CI, $6220-$6470 per capita]). However, third-party expenditures for immigrants' health care ($5061 per capita; 95% CI, $4673-$5448 per capita) were lower than their expenditures for the care of US-born citizens ($6511 per capita; 95% CI, $6275-$6747 per capita). Immigrants, in general, paid significantly more per person (net contribution, $1284; 95% CI, $876-$1691) than was paid on their behalf. Most of this surplus was accounted for by undocumented immigrants, whose contributions exceeded their expenditures by $4418 per person (95% CI, $4047-$4789 per person). US-born citizens collectively paid $67.2 billion (95% CI, -$2.3 to $136.3 billion) less in premiums and taxes than third-party payers paid for their care. This deficit was mostly offset by the $58.3 billion (95% CI, $39.8-$76.8 billion) net surplus of payments from immigrants, 89% of which ($51.9 billion; 95% CI, $47.5-$56.3 billion) was attributable to undocumented immigrants. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, immigrants appeared to subsidize the health care of other US residents, suggesting that concerns that immigrants deplete health care resources may be unfounded.