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.

Beyond "Chilling Effects": Latinx and Asian Immigrants' Experiences With Enforcement and Barriers to Health Care.

OBJECTIVES: Immigration enforcement policies are associated with immigrants' barriers to health care. Current evidence suggests that enforcement creates a "chilling effect" in which immigrants avoid care due to fear of encountering enforcement. Yet, there has been little examination of the impact of immigrants' direct encounters with enforcement on health care access. We examined some of the first population-level data on Asian and Latinx immigrants' encounters with law and immigration enforcement and assessed associations with health care access. METHODS: We analyzed the 2018 and 2019 Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy survey in which Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n=1681) reported on 7 enforcement experiences (eg, racial profiling and deportation). We examined the associations between measures of individual and cumulative enforcement experiences and the usual sources of care and delay in care. RESULTS: Latinx, compared with Asian respondents, reported the highest levels of enforcement experiences. Almost all individual enforcement experiences were associated with delaying care for both groups. Each additional cumulative experience was associated with a delay in care for both groups (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.50). There were no associations with the usual source of care. CONCLUSION: Findings confirm that Latinx immigrants experience high levels of encounters with the enforcement system and highlight new data on Asian immigrants' enforcement encounters. Direct experiences with enforcement have a negative relationship with health care access. Findings have implications for health systems to address the needs of immigrants affected by enforcement and for changes to health and immigration policy to ensure immigrants' access to care.

Why we dehumanize illegal immigrants: A US mixed-methods study.

Dehumanization is a topic of significant interest for academia and society at large. Empirical studies often have people rate the evolved nature of outgroups and prior work suggests immigrants are common victims of less-than-human treatment. Despite existing work that suggests who dehumanizes particular outgroups and who is often dehumanized, the extant literature knows less about why people dehumanize outgroups such as immigrants. The current work takes up this opportunity by examining why people dehumanize immigrants said to be illegal and how measurement format affects dehumanization ratings. Participants (N = 672) dehumanized such immigrants more if their ratings were made on a slider versus clicking images of hominids, an effect most pronounced for Republicans. Dehumanization was negatively associated with warmth toward illegal immigrants and the perceived unhappiness felt by illegal immigrants from U.S. immigration policies. Finally, most dehumanization is not entirely blatant but instead, captured by virtuous violence and affect as well, suggesting the many ways that dehumanization can manifest as predicted by theory. This work offers a mechanistic account for why people dehumanize immigrants and addresses how survey measurement artifacts (e.g., clicking on images of hominids vs. using a slider) affect dehumanization rates. We discuss how these data extend dehumanization theory and inform empirical research.

Provider and administrator-level perspectives on strategies to reduce fear and improve patient trust in the emergency department in times of heightened immigration enforcement.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Heightened immigration enforcement may induce fear in undocumented patients when coming to the Emergency Department (ED) for care. Limited literature examining health system policies to reduce immigrant fear exists. In this multi-site qualitative study, we sought to assess provider and system-level policies on caring for undocumented patients in three California EDs. METHODS: We recruited 41 ED providers and administrators from three California EDs (in San Francisco, Oakland, and Sylmar) with large immigrant populations. Participants were recruited using a trusted gatekeeper and snowball sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed the transcripts using constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 physicians, 11 nurses, 9 social workers, and 11 administrators, and identified 7 themes. Providers described existing policies and recent policy changes that facilitate access to care for undocumented patients. Providers reported that current training and communication around policies is limited, there are variations between who asks about and documents status, and there remains uncertainty around policy details, laws, and jurisdiction of staff. Providers also stated they are taking an active role in building safety and trust and see their role as supporting undocumented patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study introduces ED-level health system perspectives and recommendations for caring for undocumented patients. There is a need for active, multi-disciplinary ED policy training, clear policy details including the extent of providers' roles, protocols on the screening and documentation of status, and continual reassessment of our health systems to reduce fear and build safety and trust with our undocumented communities.

Health Care Utilization Before and After the "Muslim Ban" Executive Order Among People Born in Muslim-Majority Countries and Living in the US.

Importance: The health effects of restrictive immigration and refugee policies targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries are largely unknown. Objective: To analyze whether President Trump's 2017 executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (known as the "Muslim ban" executive order) was associated with changes in health care utilization by people born in targeted nations living in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients treated at Minneapolis-St. Paul HealthPartners primary care clinics or emergency departments (EDs) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Patients were categorized as (1) born in Muslim ban-targeted nations, (2) born in Muslim-majority nations not listed in the executive order, or (3) non-Latinx and born in the US. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2019, to May 12, 2021. Exposures: Executive order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included the number of (1) primary care clinic visits, (2) missed primary care appointments, (3) primary care stress-responsive diagnoses, (4) ED visits, and (5) ED stress-responsive diagnoses. Visit trends were evaluated before and after the Muslim ban issuance using linear regression, and differences between the study groups after the executive order issuance were evaluated using difference-in-difference analyses. Results: A total of 252 594 patients were included in the analysis: 5667 in group 1 (3367 women [59.4%]; 5233 Black individuals [92.3%]), 1254 in group 2 (627 women [50%]; 391 White individuals [31.2%]), and 245 673 in group 3 (133 882 women [54.5%]; 203 342 White individuals [82.8%]). Group 1 was predominantly born in Somalia (5231 of 5667 [92.3%]) and insured by Medicare or Medicaid (4428 [78.1%]). Before the Muslim ban, primary care visits and stress-responsive diagnoses were increasing for individuals from Muslim-majority nations (groups 1 and 2). In the year after the ban, there were approximately 101 additional missed primary care appointments among people from Muslim-majority countries not named in the ban (point estimate [SE], 6.73 [2.90]; P = .02) and approximately 232 additional ED visits by individuals from Muslim ban-targeted nations (point estimate [SE], 3.41 [1.53]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that after issuance of the Muslim ban executive order, missed primary care appointments and ED visits increased among people from Muslim-majority countries living in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Perspectives on Working with Immigrants Held in Detention Using Photovoice.

Those who work with immigrants in detention centers may be at increased risk of secondary trauma. This study used Photovoice to capture reflections on how the lives of volunteers are affected by their work on behalf of immigrant family detainees. Participants were recruited over a two-month period in 2018 from amongst the volunteers of a non-governmental organization that provides legal services to the detainees at one immigration detention center. Participants submitted photos and captions that explored their experiences with their work. Thirteen volunteers consented to participate and submitted 44 photos with captions to the project. Major themes included emotional challenges of the work, frustrations with the U.S. government, comparison of their experiences to those of their clients', and finding uplifting moments. Our findings regarding the significant emotional challenges of this work are of particular importance given the increasing coverage of immigration detention in the media and the increased interest in volunteer opportunities to support this population.

Health Care Use Among Latinx Children After 2017 Executive Actions on Immigration.

BACKGROUND: US immigration policy changes may affect health care use among Latinx children. We hypothesized that January 2017 restrictive immigration executive actions would lead to decreased health care use among Latinx children. METHODS: We used controlled interrupted time series to estimate the effect of executive actions on outpatient cancellation or no-show rates from October 2016 to March 2017 ("immigration action period") among Latinx children in 4 health care systems in North Carolina. We included control groups of (1) non-Latinx children and (2) Latinx children from the same period in the previous year ("control period") to account for natural trends such as seasonality. RESULTS: In the immigration action period, 114 627 children contributed 314 092 appointments. In the control period, 107 657 children contributed 295 993 appointments. Relative to the control period, there was an immediate 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40%-10.9%) decrease in cancellation rates among all Latinx children, but no sustained change in trend of cancellations and no change in no-show rates after executive immigration actions. Among uninsured Latinx children, there was an immediate 12.7% (95% CI: 2.3%-23.1%) decrease in cancellations; however, cancellations then increased by 2.4% (95% CI: 0.89%-3.9%) per week after immigration actions, an absolute increase of 15.5 cancellations per 100 appointments made. CONCLUSIONS: There was a sustained increase in cancellations among uninsured Latinx children after immigration actions, suggesting decreased health care use among uninsured Latinx children. Continued monitoring of effects of immigration policy on child health is needed, along with measures to ensure that all children receive necessary health care.

The adverse health effects of punitive immigrant policies in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Immigrants in the United States (US) today are facing a dynamic policy landscape. The Trump administration has threatened or curtailed access to basic services for 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. We sought to examine the historical effects that punitive laws have had on health outcomes in US immigrant communities. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched the following databases from inception-May 2020 for original research articles with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019138817. Articles with cohort sizes >10 that directly evaluated the health-related effects of a punitive immigrant law or policy within the US were included. FINDINGS: 6,357 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, 32 studies were selected for inclusion and qualitatively synthesized based upon four themes that appeared throughout our analysis: (1) impact on healthcare utilization, (2) impact on women's and children's health, (3) impact on mental health services, and (4) impact on public health. The impact of each law, policy, mandate, and directive since 1990 is briefly discussed, as are the limitations and risk of bias of each study. INTERPRETATION: Many punitive immigrant policies have decreased immigrant access to and utilization of basic healthcare services, while instilling fear, confusion, and anxiety in these communities. The federal government should preserve and expand access for undocumented individuals without threat of deportation to improve health outcomes for US citizens and noncitizens.

Comparison of Use of Health Care Services and Spending for Unauthorized Immigrants vs Authorized Immigrants or US Citizens Using a Machine Learning Model.

Importance: Knowledge about use of health care services (health care utilization) and expenditures among unauthorized immigrant populations is uncertain because of limitations in ascertaining legal status in population data. Objective: To examine health care utilization and expenditures that are attributable to unauthorized and authorized immigrants vs US-born individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the data on documentation status from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS) to develop a random forest classifier machine learning model. K-fold cross-validation was used to test model performance. The LAFANS is a randomized, multilevel, in-person survey of households residing in Los Angeles County, California, consisting of 2 waves. Wave 1 began in April 2000 and ended in January 2002, and wave 2 began in August 2006 and ended in December 2008. The machine learning model was then applied to a nationally representative database, the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), to predict health care expenditures and utilization among unauthorized and authorized immigrants and US-born individuals. A generalized linear model analyzed health care expenditures. Logistic regression modeling estimated dichotomous use of emergency department (ED), inpatient, outpatient, and office-based physician visits by immigrant groups with adjusting for confounding factors. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2019, to October 14, 2020. Exposures: Self-reported immigration status (US-born, authorized, and unauthorized status). Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual health care expenditures per capita and use of ED, outpatient, inpatient, and office-based physician care. Results: Of 47 199 MEPS respondents with nonmissing data, 35 079 (74.3%) were US born, 10 816 (22.9%) were authorized immigrants, and 1304 (2.8%) were unauthorized immigrants (51.7% female; mean age, 47.6 [95% CI, 47.4-47.8] years). Compared with authorized immigrants and US-born individuals, unauthorized immigrants were more likely to be aged 18 to 44 years (80.8%), Latino (96.3%), and Spanish speaking (95.2%) and to have less than 12 years of education (53.7%). Half of unauthorized immigrants (47.1%) were uninsured compared with 15.9% of authorized immigrants and 6.0% of US-born individuals. Mean annual health care expenditures per person were $1629 (95% CI, $1330-$1928) for unauthorized immigrants, $3795 (95% CI, $3555-$4035) for authorized immigrants, and $6088 (95% CI, $5935-$6242) for US-born individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: Contrary to much political discourse in the US, this cross-sectional study found no evidence that unauthorized immigrants are a substantial economic burden on safety net facilities such as EDs. This study illustrates the value of machine learning in the study of unauthorized immigrants using large-scale, secondary databases.

States with fewer criminalizing immigrant policies have smaller health care inequities between citizens and noncitizens.

BACKGROUND: In the last thirty years, major shifts in immigrant policy at national and state levels has heightened boundaries among citizens, permanent residents, and those with other statuses. While there is mounting evidence that citizenship influences immigrant health care inequities, there has been less focus on how policies that reinforce citizenship stratification may shape the extent of these inequities. We examine the extent to which the relationship between citizenship and health care inequities is moderated by state-level criminalization policies. METHODS: Taking a comparative approach, we assess how distinct criminalization policy contexts across US states are associated with inequitable access to care by citizenship status. Utilizing a data set with state-level measures of criminalization policy and individual-level measures of having a usual source of care from the National Health Interview Survey, we use mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess the extent to which inequities in health care access between noncitizens and US born citizens vary depending on states' criminalization policies. RESULTS: Each additional criminalization policy was associated with a lower odds that noncitizens in the state had a usual source of care, compared to US born citizens. CONCLUSION: Criminalization policies shape the construction of citizenship stratification across geography, such as exacerbating inequities in health care access by citizenship.

Immigrant Health and Changes to the Public-Charge Rule: Family Physicians' Response.

As the US federal government pursues immigration reform, changes to the federal public-charge rule have triggered confusion and concerns among patients who are immigrants. Although federal judges temporarily blocked implementation, a decision by the Supreme Court in January 2020 allowed the proposed changes to take effect. These policy changes have resulted in many legal immigrants and their family members becoming more reluctant to apply for health insurance, food, housing, and other benefits for which they are qualified. This article summarizes the changes and exclusions. Family physicians can effectively respond to patient and immigrant community concerns about these changes by providing outreach education, access to primary health care, and referrals to legal and social services.