Health Care Access and Utilization and the Latino Health Paradox.

BACKGROUND: The Latino health paradox is the phenomenon whereby recent Latino immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes on some indicators than Latino immigrants who have lived in the United States longer and US-born Latinos and non-Latino Whites. This study examined whether the paradox holds after accounting for health care access and utilization. METHODS: The 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey data were used. The main predictors included population groups of foreign-born and US-born Latinos (Mexican or non-Mexican) versus US-born non-Latino Whites. Predicted probabilities of health outcomes (self-reported poor/fair health, overweight/obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and depression) were calculated and stratified by length of residence in the United States (<15 or ≥15 years) among foreign-born Latinos and sex (female or male). Multivariable analyses adjusted for having a usual source of care other than the emergency department, health insurance, a doctor visit in the past 12 months, predisposing and enabling factors, and survey year. RESULTS: After adjusting for health care access, utilization, and predisposing and enabling factors, foreign-born Latinos, including those living in the United States ≥15 years, had lower predicted probabilities for most health outcomes than US-born non-Latino Whites, except overweight/obesity and diabetes. US-born Latinos had higher predicted probabilities of overweight/obesity and diabetes and a lower predicted probability of depression than US-born non-Latino Whites. CONCLUSIONS: In this national survey, the Latino health paradox was observed after adjusting for health care access and utilization and predisposing and enabling factors, suggesting that, although these are important factors for good health, they do not necessarily explain the paradox.

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.

Caught Between a Well-Intentioned State and a Hostile Federal System: Local Implementation of Inclusive Immigrant Policies.

Policy Points Inclusive state immigrant policies that expand rights and resources for immigrants may improve population health, but little is known about their local-level implementation. Local actors that have anti-immigrant attitudes can hinder the implementation of state policies, whereas the persistent influence of anti-immigrant federal policies reinforces barriers to accessing health and other resources granted by state policies. Local actors that serve immigrants and support state policy implementation lack the resources to counter anti-immigrant climates and federal policy threats. CONTEXT: In the United States, inclusive state-level policies can advance immigrant health and health care access by extending noncitizens' access to public benefits, workplace rights, and protections from immigration enforcement. Although state policies carry promise as structural population health interventions, there has been little examination of their implementation at the local level. Local jurisdictions play multiple roles in state policy implementation and possess distinct immigration climates. Examining the local implementation of state immigrant policy can address challenges and opportunities to ensure the health benefits of inclusive policies are realized equitably across states' regions. METHODS: To examine the local implementation of state immigrant policies, we selected a purposive sample of California counties with large immigrant populations and distinct social and political dynamics and conducted and analyzed in-depth interviews with 20 community-based organizations that provided health, safety net, and other services. FINDINGS: We found that there were tensions between the inclusionary goals of state immigrant policies and local anti-immigrant climates and federal policy changes. First, there were tensions between state policy goals and resistance from local law enforcement agencies and policymakers (e.g., Board of Supervisors). Second, because of the ongoing threats from federal immigration policies, there was a mismatch between the services and resources provided by state policies and local community needs. Finally, organizations that served immigrants were responsible for contributing to policy implementation but lacked resources to meet community needs while countering local resistance and federal policy threats. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes knowledge regarding the challenges that emerge after state immigrant policies are enacted. The tensions among state immigrant policies, local immigration climates, and federal policy changes indicate that state immigrant policies are not implemented equally across state communities, resulting in challenges and limited benefits from policies for many immigrant communities.

Immigration and Immigrant Policies, Health, and Health Equity in the United States.

Policy Points There is growing attention to the role of immigration and immigrant policies in shaping the health and well-being of immigrants of color. The early 21st century in the United States has seen several important achievements in inclusionary policies, practices, and ideologies toward immigrants, largely at subnational levels (e.g., states, counties, cities/towns). National policies or practices that are inclusionary toward immigrants are often at the discretion of the political parties in power. Early in the 21st century, the United States has implemented several exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies, contributing to record deportations and detentions and worsening inequities in the social drivers of health.

Addressing racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake: lessons learned from the California alliance against COVID-19.

Lack of trust in biomedical research, government, and health care systems, especially among racial/ethnic minorities and under-resourced communities, is a longstanding issue rooted in social injustice. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted existing health and socioeconomic inequities and increased the urgency for solutions to provide access to timely, culturally, and linguistically appropriate evidence-based information about COVID-19; and ultimately to promote vaccine uptake. California's statewide alliance STOP COVID-19 CA (comprising eleven sites), leverages long standing community partnerships to better understand concerns, misinformation, and address racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Using data from the California CEAL Communication Working Group, we demonstrate the wide range of strategies, communication methods, languages, and trusted messengers that have been effective in reaching diverse communities across the state. We also showcase challenges and lessons learned, such as the importance of including trusted community partners to share information or provide vaccines. These approaches, rooted in community engagement, are crucial for addressing inequities and responding to future public health emergencies.

Coverage and Framing of Immigration Policy in US Newspapers.

Policy Points Although immigration policy is recognized as a social determinant of health, less is known about how mechanisms, such as news coverage of policy, influence intermediary and proximal health processes like seeking health care. The extent of news coverage of federal, state, and local exclusionary or integration immigration policies can influence public agendas regarding immigrant inclusion and exclusion. Exclusionary federal immigrant policies have dominated the news across the United States over the past ten years, despite active immigrant integration policymaking at national, state, and local levels. CONTEXT: Immigration policymaking at federal, state, and local levels in the United States has proliferated in the past decade. While evidence demonstrates that immigration policy is a determinant of health, there has been limited examination of the mechanisms by which policy influences proximal health processes. News coverage has served as a central platform for debates over restrictive and inclusive immigration policies and may constitute an important health mechanism by shaping public agendas, influencing support for immigrant exclusion or inclusion, and framing policy issues, thereby influencing immigrants' social climates. This study sought to examine the extent of news coverage of exclusionary and inclusive immigration policy at federal and state levels and variations in messages about immigrants during two periods of extensive policymaking. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of newspapers' coverage of immigration policy between 2010 and 2013 and between 2017 and 2019. We conducted a systematic NewsBank search of articles covering legislation, lawsuits, and other policies related to immigration (n = 931). Articles were coded for policy type and level, positive or negative framing of immigrants, and other characteristics. Our analysis then compared the patterns of the two periods. RESULTS: In both periods, the majority of coverage focused on exclusionary policies at the federal level, despite a significant increase in integration policies between 2017 and 2019. We found significant shifts in both the negative and positive framing of immigrants, from the dominant negative messages of immigrants as an economic drain to immigrants as criminals and the dominant positive messages of immigrants' economic contributions to immigrants as families. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2010, coverage of exclusionary federal policy has consistently dominated the news, as messages have increasingly described immigrants as either criminals or part of families. We discuss the health implications and future research directions of news coverages' role in influencing the immigration policy and social contexts that have been linked to health outcomes.

Association between immigration enforcement encounters and COVID-19 testing and delays in care: a cross-sectional study of undocumented young adult immigrants in california.

BACKGROUND: Undocumented immigrants are expected to face increased risks related to COVID-19 due to marginalizing restrictive immigration policies. However, few studies have assessed the prevalence of direct encounters with the immigration enforcement system among the undocumented and its impacts on their COVID-related health behaviors and outcomes. In this study, we quantify undocumented immigrants' lifetime exposure to various immigration enforcement tactics and their association with delays in COVID-19 testing and healthcare behaviors. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a non-random sample of 326 Asian and Latinx undocumented immigrants in California from September 2020 to February 2021. The primary exposure was immigration enforcement encounter scores ranging from 0-9, assessed through self-reports of direct experiences with the immigration system, immigration officials, and law enforcement. The main outcomes were positive test for COVID-19, had or suspected having COVID-19, and delayed or avoided testing and/or treatment for COVID-19 due to immigration status. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between the primary exposure and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Among 326 participants, 7% had received a positive COVID-19 test result, while 43% reported having or suspected having COVID-19. Almost 13% delayed or avoided COVID-19 testing and/or treatment because of their immigration status. Overall, an increase in immigration enforcement encounters was associated with higher odds of suspecting having had COVID-19 (aOR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01,1.26). Reporting an additional enforcement encounter was associated with higher odds of delaying or avoiding testing and/or treatment because of immigration status (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.26,1.86). Compared to their Latino counterparts, Asian respondents were more likely to report higher odds of delaying or avoiding testing and/or treatment (aOR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.17,8.42). There were no significant associations between the enforcement score and testing positive for COVID-19. Additionally, while Latinxs were more likely to report immigration enforcement encounters than Asians, there were no differences in the effects of race on COVID-19 testing and healthcare behaviors in models with race as an interaction term (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Immigration enforcement encounters compound barriers to COVID-19 testing and treatment for undocumented immigrants.

Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in Immigration Detention Centers Requires the Release of Detainees.

Immigration detention centers are densely populated facilities in which restrictive conditions limit detainees' abilities to engage in social distancing or hygiene practices designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With tens of thousands of adults and children in more than 200 immigration detention centers across the United States, immigration detention centers are likely to experience COVID-19 outbreaks and add substantially to the population of those infected.Despite compelling evidence indicating a heightened risk of infection among detainees, state and federal governments have done little to protect the health of detained im-migrants. An evidence-based public health framework must guide the COVID-19 response in immigration detention centers.We draw on the hierarchy of controls framework to demonstrate how immigration detention centers are failing to implement even the least effective control strategies. Drawing on this framework and recent legal and medical advocacy efforts, we argue that safely releasing detainees from immigration detention centers into their communities is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in immigration detention settings. Failure to do so will result in infection and death among those detained and deepen existing health and social inequities.

Laboring With the Heart: Promotoras' Transformations, Professional Challenges, and Relationships With Communities.

Little is known about promotoras' professional experiences engaging in Latinx health promotion. In this promotora-led community-based participatory study, we purposively recruited and interviewed 30 Spanish-speaking promotoras who worked in Los Angeles County and who had at least 5 years of experience as promotoras. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, findings revealed promotoras self-identified as health professionals who offered unique, insider perspectives. Challenges arose as employers viewed promotoras as volunteer lay health workers, while promotoras desired opportunities for professional growth. Motivation to continue working as promotoras stemmed from their commitment to Latinx communities. We provide recommendations to strengthen community-based capacity for advancing Latinx health.

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.

Cardiovascular disease behavioral risk factors among Latinos by citizenship and documentation status.

BACKGROUND: Studies have observed that recent Latino immigrants tend to have a physical health advantage compared to immigrants who have been in the US for many years or Latinos who are born in the United States. An explanation of this phenomenon is that recent immigrants have positive health behaviors that protect them from chronic disease risk. This study aims to determine if trends in positive cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk behaviors extend to Latino immigrants in California according to citizenship and documentation status. METHODS: We examined CVD behavioral risk factors by citizenship/documentation statuses among Latinos and non-Latino US-born whites in the 2011-2015 waves of the California Health Interview Survey. Adjusted multivariable logistic regressions estimated the odds for CVD behavioral risk factors, and analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, using US-born Latinos as the reference group, undocumented Latino immigrants had the lowest odds of current smoking, binge drinking, and frequency of fast food consumption. There were no differences across the groups for fruit/vegetable intake and walking for leisure. Among those with high blood pressure, undocumented immigrants were least likely to be on medication. Undocumented immigrant women had better patterns of CVD behavioral risk factors on some measures compared with other Latino citizenship and documentation groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study observes that the healthy Latino immigrant advantage seems to apply to undocumented female immigrants, but it does not necessarily extend to undocumented male immigrants who had similar behavioral risk profiles to US-born Latinos.

Included, but Deportable: A New Public Health Approach to Policies That Criminalize and Integrate Immigrants.

There has been a burst of research on immigrant health in the United States and an increasing attention to the broad range of state and local policies that are social determinants of immigrant health. Many of these policies criminalize immigrants by regulating the "legality" of their day-to-day lives while others function to integrate immigrants through expanded rights and eligibility for health care, social services, and other resources.Research on the health impact of policies has primarily focused on the extremes of either criminalization or integration. Most immigrants in the United States, however, live in states that possess a combination of both criminalizing and integrating policies, resulting in distinct contexts that may influence their well-being.We present data describing the variations in criminalization and integration policies across states and provide a framework that identifies distinct but concurrent mechanisms of deportability and inclusion that can influence health. Future public health research and practice should address the ongoing dynamics created by both criminalization and integration policies as these likely exacerbate health inequities by citizenship status, race/ethnicity, and other social hierarchies.

Inclusive state immigrant policies and health insurance among Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and White noncitizens in the United States.

Objectives: Policy-making related to immigrant populations is increasingly conducted at the state-level. State policy contexts may influence health insurance coverage by determining noncitizens' access to social and economic resources and shaping social environments. Using nationally representative data, we investigate the relationship between level of inclusion of state immigrant policies and health insurance coverage and its variation by citizenship and race/ethnicity. Methods: Data included a measure of level of inclusion of the state policy context from a scan of 10 policies enacted prior to 2014 and data for adults ages 18-64 from the 2014 American Community Survey. A fixed-effects logistic regression model tested the association between having health insurance and the interaction of level of inclusiveness, citizenship, and race/ethnicity, controlling for state- and individual-level characteristics. Results: Latino noncitizens experienced higher rates of being insured in states with higher levels of inclusion, while Asian/Pacific Islander noncitizens experienced lower levels. The level of inclusion was not associated with differences in insurance coverage among noncitizen Whites and Blacks. Conclusions: Contexts with more inclusive immigrant policies may have the most benefit for Latino noncitizens.

There and Back Again: How the Repeal of ACA Can Impact Community Health Centers and the Populations They Serve.

We examined the impact of Medicaid expansion on rates of the remaining uninsured at the federally qualified health center level by race/ethnicity, limited English proficiency, and poverty status of their patients. Results indicated a systematic disadvantage in nonexpansion states for federally qualified health centers with high concentrations of these populations and an advantage in expansion states for federally qualified health centers with fewer limited English proficiency patients. Our findings highlight the importance of maintaining the Affordable Care Act in reducing disparities in coverage and the importance of federal funding to continue services for the remaining uninsured and vulnerable populations in both expansion and nonexpansion states.

Legal Status, Time in the USA, and the Well-Being of Latinos in Los Angeles.

In the USA, undocumented Latino immigrants may have poorer health because of barriers to health care, stressors, and detrimental effects of immigration enforcement. Previous immigrant health research, however, suggests that recently arrived Latino immigrants have better health than US-born Latinos and their health deteriorates over time. Given the current environments that undocumented immigrants face, legal status is a structural factor that likely influences the patterns of immigrant health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which physical and mental health differed by legal status and duration in the USA for the Latino population in Los Angeles County, California. We conducted analysis of Latino respondents (n = 1396) to the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) Wave II. We examined self-reported health, depression measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form, and blood pressure collected by trained interviewers. Respondents reported their legal status, time in the USA, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Regression models were used to test associations between each outcome and 1) legal status and 2) legal status by duration (≤ 15 and > 15 years) in the USA. Without taking duration into account, we found no significant differences in outcomes between undocumented, documented, or US-born Latinos. Taking duration into account, shorter duration undocumented immigrants had worse self-reported health than the US born. Undocumented immigrants, regardless of duration, had higher blood pressure than documented immigrants who had been in the USA for less time and the same level of blood pressure as the US born. In contrast, shorter duration documented immigrants had lower blood pressure compared to longer duration documented immigrants and US-born counterparts, and marginally lower blood pressure than shorter duration undocumented immigrants. The findings suggest that the "health advantage" generally presumed to exist among immigrants may not affect undocumented immigrants.

Immigration as a social determinant of health.

Although immigration and immigrant populations have become increasingly important foci in public health research and practice, a social determinants of health approach has seldom been applied in this area. Global patterns of morbidity and mortality follow inequities rooted in societal, political, and economic conditions produced and reproduced by social structures, policies, and institutions. The lack of dialogue between these two profoundly related phenomena-social determinants of health and immigration-has resulted in missed opportunities for public health research, practice, and policy work. In this article, we discuss primary frameworks used in recent public health literature on the health of immigrant populations, note gaps in this literature, and argue for a broader examination of immigration as both socially determined and a social determinant of health. We discuss priorities for future research and policy to understand more fully and respond appropriately to the health of the populations affected by this global phenomenon.

Building Economic Security Today: making the health-wealth connection in Contra Costa county's maternal and child health programs.

In recent years, maternal and child health professionals have been seeking approaches to integrating the Life Course Perspective and social determinants of health into their work. In this article, we describe how community input, staff feedback, and evidence from the field that the connection between wealth and health should be addressed compelled the Contra Costa Family, Maternal and Child Health (FMCH) Programs Life Course Initiative to launch Building Economic Security Today (BEST). BEST utilizes innovative strategies to reduce inequities in health outcomes for low-income Contra Costa families by improving their financial security and stability. FMCH Programs' Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) conducted BEST financial education classes, and its Medically Vulnerable Infant Program (MVIP) instituted BEST financial assessments during public health nurse home visits. Educational and referral resources were also developed and distributed to all clients. The classes at WIC increased clients' awareness of financial issues and confidence that they could improve their financial situations. WIC clients and staff also gained knowledge about financial resources in the community. MVIP's financial assessments offered clients a new and needed perspective on their financial situations, as well as support around the financial and psychological stresses of caring for a child with special health care needs. BEST offered FMCH Programs staff opportunities to engage in non-traditional, cross-sector partnerships, and gain new knowledge and skills to address a pressing social determinant of health. We learned the value of flexible timelines, maintaining a long view for creating change, and challenging the traditional paradigm of maternal and child health.

The legacy of immigration policies and employment exclusion: Assessing the relationship between employment exclusions and immigrant health.

Restrictive federal and state immigration policies create conditions of employment exclusion that may negatively influence the health of immigrants. In particular, these policy effects are reflected in labor market and workplace experiences that determine the types of work and employment opportunities that immigrants are able to access and pursue. This study examines the relationship between both cumulative and individual measures of employment exclusion and self-rated health and psychological distress among Asian and Latino immigrants in California, and whether this relationship is modified by legal status. We used data from the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) study (n = 2010). We used both multivariable logistic regression and linear regression models for our analyses. For cumulative models, labor market exclusion was associated with poor health (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.46). Workplace exclusion was also associated with poor self-rated health (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.82) and increased psychological distress (ß = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.07). For individual measures of employment exclusion, settling for a job - a labor market exclusion - and working in a dangerous job and experiencing wage theft - workplace exclusions - were associated with poor health and increased psychological distress. There was no evidence that the association between employment exclusions and health varied by legal status. These findings demonstrate that the combined effect of employment exclusions is detrimental to immigrant health. To improve population health, public health researchers should continue to interrogate the policy conditions at the federal, state, and local level that exclude immigrants from employment opportunities and workplace protections.