Self-rated health of both US citizens and noncitizens is associated with state-level immigrant criminalization policies

Sociodemographic disparities in cardiovascular mortality by self-rated physical health: A U.S. nationwide county-level analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the association between self-rated poor physical health (srPPH), a validated proxy measure of health-related quality of life, and age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality (AACVM) rates across overall U.S. counties and within various demographics.

STUDY DESIGN

Nationwide county-level analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed county-level data spanning 2010-2019 from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This analysis included data from 2892 counties with complete records on srPPH and AACVM. srPPH was defined as the age-adjusted average number of days respondents reported being in poor physical health over the past 30 days. To estimate the average srPPH per resident in each county, the CDC utilized validated statistical models applied to BRFSS data. To assess the association between srPPH and AACVM, we employed Poisson Generalized Linear Mixed Models, generating incident rate ratios (IRRs).

RESULTS

Out of the 307,045,647 residents living in 2892 U S. counties in 2010, 8,157,571 (2.7 %) cardiovascular deaths were recorded during the study period. Counties where residents reported the greatest number of physically unhealthy days-indicative of higher srPPH-experienced the highest AACVM rates, despite significant decreases in overall AACVM rates from 2010 to 2019. Moreover, srPPH was independently associated with higher AACVM rates (IRR: 1.018; 95 % CI: 1.011 to 1.025) across most demographic groups, except Hispanics. This association was particularly strong among middle-aged (45-64 years old) women and elderly (≥65 years old) non-Hispanic Black individuals.

CONCLUSION

srPPH may serve as a valuable community health marker that can help identify populations at risk for cardiovascular mortality, independent of other social determinants of health. When used in combination with objective measures of cardiovascular health, this metric can enhance targeted screening and intervention efforts in high-risk populations.

Association of depression and self-reported health status by birthplace and citizenship status: Results from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey

BACKGROUND

Self-reported health (SRH) is an important indicator of mental health outcomes. More information, however, is needed on whether this association varies by birthplace (defined as US-born or non-US-born) and citizenship status (i.e., non-US-born citizen, non-US citizen, and US-born citizen).

METHODS

We examined the associations between SRH and depression among non-US-born US citizens, non-US citizens, and US-born citizens aged 18 years and older using weighted cross-sectional data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 139,884). Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between depression and SRH by citizenship status, adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

US-born citizens reported the highest prevalence of depression (40.3 %), and non-US-born citizens reported the highest prevalence of poor/fair SRH (14.5 %). Individuals with fair/poor SRH had a significantly increased likelihood of depression relative to those with good/very good/excellent for non-US-born US citizens (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 2.42, 95 % Confidence Interval [95 % CI] = 2.04-2.88), non-US citizens (AOR = 2.80, 95 % CI = 2.31-3.40), and US-born citizens (AOR = 2.31, CI = 2.18-2.45).

LIMITATIONS

The study is cross-sectional, reducing the strength of determining causal relationships. Also, there is a possible response bias due to the self-reported nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that fair/poor SRH is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of depression regardless of an individual citizenship status. Additionally, immigrants with fair/poor SRH had higher increased odds of depression. Therefore, mental healthcare interventions tailored for immigrants can reduce mental health problems and disparities among immigrants.

Extending Driver's Licenses to Undocumented Immigrants: Comparing Perinatal Outcomes Following This Policy Shift

Research shows that restrictive immigration policies and practices are associated with poor health, but far less is known about the relationship between inclusive immigration policies and health. Using data from the United States natality files, we estimate associations between state laws granting undocumented immigrants access to driver's licenses and perinatal outcomes among 4,047,067 singleton births to Mexican and Central American immigrant birthing people (2008-2021). Fitting multivariable log binomial and linear models, we find that the implementation of a license law is associated with improvements in low birthweight and mean birthweight. Replicating these analyses among U.S.-born non-Hispanic White birthing people, we find no association between the implementation of a license law and birthweight. These findings support the hypothesis that states' extension of legal rights to immigrants improves the health of the next generation.

Mexican-origin women's individual and collective strategies to access and share health-promoting resources in the context of exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies

BACKGROUND

A growing literature has documented the social, economic, and health impacts of exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies in the early 21st century for Latiné communities in the US, pointing to immigration and immigrant policies as forms of structural racism that affect individual, family, and community health and well-being. Furthermore, the past decade has seen an increase in bi-partisan exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies. Immigration enforcement has been a major topic during the 2024 Presidential election cycle, portending an augmentation of exclusionary policies towards immigrants. Within this context, scholars have called for research that highlights the ways in which Latiné communities navigate exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies, and implications for health. This study examines ways in which Mexican-origin women in a midwestern northern border community navigate restrictive immigration and immigrant policies to access health-promoting resources and care for their well-being.

METHODS

We conducted a grounded theory analysis drawing on interviews with 48 Mexican-origin women in Detroit, Michigan, who identified as being in the first, 1.5, or second immigrant generation. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on participants' preferences, and were conducted at community-based organizations or other locations convenient to participants in 2013-2014.

RESULTS

Women reported encountering an interconnected web of institutional processes that used racializing markers to infer legal status and eligibility to access health-promoting resources. Our findings highlight women's use of both individual and collective action to navigate exclusionary policies and processes, working to: (1) maintain access to health-promoting resources; (2) limit labeling and stigmatization; and (3) mitigate adverse impacts of immigrant policing on health and well-being. The strategies women engaged were shaped by both the immigration processes and structures they confronted, and the resources to which they had access to within their social network.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest a complex interplay of immigration-related policies and processes, social networks, and health-relevant resources. They highlight the importance of inclusive policies to promote health for immigrant communities. These findings illuminate women's agency in the context of structural violence facing immigrant women and are particularly salient in the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric and exclusionary immigration and immigrant policies.

The "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy on the health of Latinx and Asian immigrants

There is growing evidence that Asian and Latinx immigrants' health and health care access is shaped by immigrant policies that determine their rights, protections, and access to resources and the extent to which they are targeted by policing or deportation based on citizenship/legal status and other immigration-related social categories. However, there is limited population-based evidence of how immigrants experience the direct consequences of policies, nor of the impact of such consequences on their health. Between 2018 and 2020, we conducted the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, developing a population-based survey of Asian and Latinx immigrants in California (n = 2010) that measured 23 exclusionary experiences under health care and social services, education, labor/employment, and immigration enforcement policies. Applying Ruth Wilson Gilmore's concept of "disproportionate costs," we conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) and regression models of the RIGHTS data to 1) describe patterns of immigrant policy exclusion experienced by Asian and Latinx immigrants and 2) test relationships between patterns of policy exclusion and health care access and health status. LCA analyses identified 6 classes of distinct combinations of policy exclusions. In regression analyses, respondents in the class with cumulative exclusions across all policy sectors had the worst health care access and highest level of psychological distress, but the best self-rated health; while those in the class with employment and enforcement exclusions also had poor health care access. Respondents in the other 3 classes experienced combinations of health and social services exclusions, but these alone were not associated with worse outcomes. Findings show that the consequences of immigrant policies harm health through both cumulative exposure to and intersections of exclusions across policy sectors. Labor/employment and immigration enforcement policies, specifically, likely drive health inequities within immigrant populations. The RIGHTS study highlights the need to measure the cumulative and intersecting "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy within diverse immigrant populations.

Food Insecurity Disparities Among Immigrants in the U.S

Introduction

Food insecurity negatively impacts public health and costs the U.S. healthcare system $53 billion annually. Immigrants are at higher risk of food insecurity. We sought to (1) characterize the prevalence of food insecurity among immigrants (i.e., noncitizens and naturalized citizens) and U.S.-born citizens and (2) determine whether Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program utilization and income-poverty ratio levels impact the relationship between immigration status and food insecurity.

Methods

Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the odds of food insecurity (dependent variables) using nationally representative data from the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey. Independent variables included immigration status, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program utilization, income-poverty ratio, and other important demographics. AORs with their 95% CIs are reported. Analysis was conducted in 2022.

Results

After controlling for independent variables, noncitizens had 1.28 (95% CI=1.02, 1.61) times higher odds of food insecurity than U.S.-born citizens. There was no food insecurity disparity between naturalized citizens and U.S.-born citizens. However, the association between immigration status and food insecurity varied significantly at different levels of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program utilization and income-poverty ratio. There were no food insecurity disparities between immigrants and U.S.-born citizens when they utilized the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and when they had an income below 200% federal poverty level. Noncitizens who did not utilize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or those with an income above 200% federal poverty level were more likely to report food insecurity than their U.S.-born counterparts (AOR=1.32, 95% CI=1.01, 1.73 and AOR=1.88, 95% CI=1.24, 2.86, respectively). Moreover, naturalized citizens with an income above 200% federal poverty level were also more likely to report food insecurity than their U.S.-born counterparts (AOR=1.61, 95% CI=1.21, 2.14).

Conclusions

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program utilization may likely eliminate food insecurity disparities among immigrants and U.S.-born citizens. However, among non-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program utilizers, significant food insecurity disparities remained between noncitizens and U.S.-born citizens after adjusting for independent variables. In addition, among individuals with incomes above 200% federal poverty level, significant food insecurity disparities were observed between immigrants and U.S.-born citizens. More research is needed to further understand the role that fear of deportation, ineligibility or lack of awareness about eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other factors such as structural racism play in food insecurity disparities between immigrants and U.S.-born citizens.