Food Insecurity and Experiences of Discrimination Among Caregivers of Hospitalized Children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pediatric hospitals are adopting strategies to address food insecurity (FI), a stigmatizing condition, among families with children. We hypothesized that parents and other caregivers ("caregivers") from households with FI or marginal food security (MFS) are more likely to experience discrimination during their child's hospitalization. METHODS: We analyzed data from 319 caregivers of children admitted to an urban, academic children's hospital and randomly assigned to the control arm of the double-blind randomized controlled CommunityRx-Hunger trial (November 2020 to June 2022, NCT R01MD012630). Household food security in the 30 days before admission and discrimination during hospitalization were measured with the US Household Food Security Survey and the Discrimination in Medical Settings Scale, respectively. We used logistic regression to model the relationship between food security status and discrimination, adjusting for gender, race, ethnicity, income, and partner status. RESULTS: Most participants were African American or Black (81.5%), female (94.7%), and the parent of the hospitalized child (93.7%). FI and MFS were prevalent (25.1% and 15.1%, respectively). Experiences of discrimination during a child's hospitalization were prevalent (51.9%). Caregivers with FI had higher odds than caregivers with food security of experiencing discrimination (adjusted odds ratio = 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.1-3.6, P = .03); MFS was not significantly associated with discrimination (P = .25). Compared with food secure caregivers, those with FI had higher odds of 5 of 7 experiences of discrimination assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Among parents and other caregivers, household FI is associated with experiences of discrimination during a child's hospitalization.

Beyond Hobby Lobby: Employer's responsibilities and opportunities to improve network access to reproductive healthcare for employees.

The majority of United States (US) women age 15-49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees' health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.