State-Level Immigrant Prenatal Health Care Policy and Inequities in Health Insurance Among Children in Mixed-Status Families

Immigration Policy and the Health of Latina Mothers and Their Infants

Restrictive immigration policies may adversely affect the health of Latina mothers and their infants. We hypothesized that undocumented Latina mothers and their US born children would have worse birth outcomes and healthcare utilization following the November 2016 election. We used a controlled interrupted time series to estimate the impact of the 2016 presidential election on low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth, maternal depression, well child visit attendance, cancelled visits, and emergency department (ED) visits among infants born to Latina mothers on emergency Medicaid, a proxy for undocumented immigration status. There was a 5.8% (95% CI: -0.99%, 12.5%) increase in LBW and 4.6% (95% CI: -1.8%, 10.9%) increase in preterm births immediately after the 2016 election compared to controls. While these findings were not statistically significant at p < 0.05, the majority of our data suggest worsened birth outcomes among undocumented Latina mothers after the election, consistent with larger prior studies. There was no difference in well child or ED visits. While restrictive policies may have contributed to worse birth outcomes among undocumented Latina mothers, our findings suggest that Latino families still attend infants' scheduled visits.

Documentation Status and Self-Rated Physical Health Among Latinx Young Adult Immigrants: the Mediating Roles of Immigration and Healthcare Stress

Previous research has demonstrated that undocumented Latinx immigrants in the USA report worse physical health outcomes than documented immigrants. Some studies suggest that immigration-related stress and healthcare related-stress may explain this relationship, but none have tested it empirically. The purpose of this study was to determine if immigration-related stress and healthcare-related stress in the USA explain the relationship between documentation status and physical health among Latinx immigrants in North Carolina. The conceptual model was tested utilizing baseline data from a longitudinal, observational, community-engaged research study of young adult (18-44 years) Latinx immigrants residing in North Carolina (N = 391). Structural equation modeling was used to determine relationships among documentation status, healthcare, and immigration stress in the past six months, and self-rated physical health. Goodness-of-fit measures indicated that data fit the model well (RMSEA = .008; CFI = 1.0; TLI = .999; SRMR = .02; CD = .157). Undocumented individuals were more likely to experience immigration stress than their documented counterparts ([Formula: see text] = - 0.37, p < 0.001). Both immigration stress ([Formula: see text] = - 0.22, p < 0.01) and healthcare stress ([Formula: see text] = - 0.14, p < 0.05) were negatively related to physical health. Additionally, immigration stress was positively related to healthcare stress ([Formula: see text] = 0.72, p < 0.001). Results demonstrate that documentation status is an important social determinant of health. Passage of inclusive immigration and healthcare policies may lessen the stress experienced by Latinx immigrants and subsequently improve physical health.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and birth outcomes in California: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides temporary relief from deportation and work permits for previously undocumented immigrants who arrived as children. DACA faced direct threats under the Trump administration. There is select evidence of the short-term impacts of DACA on population health, including on birth outcomes, but limited understanding of the long-term impacts.

METHODS

We evaluated the association between DACA program and birth outcomes using California birth certificate data (2009-2018) and a difference-in-differences approach to compare post-DACA birth outcomes for likely DACA-eligible mothers to birth outcomes for demographically similar DACA-ineligible mothers. We also separately compared birth outcomes by DACA eligibility status in the first 3 years after DACA passage (2012-2015) and in the subsequent 3 years (2015-2018) - a period characterized by direct threats to the DACA program - as compared to outcomes in the years prior to DACA passage.

RESULTS

In the 7 years after its passage, DACA was associated with a lower risk of small-for-gestational age (- 0.018, 95% CI: - 0.035, - 0.002) and greater birthweight (45.8 g, 95% CI: 11.9, 79.7) for births to Mexican-origin individuals that were billed to Medicaid. Estimates were consistent but of smaller magnitude for other subgroups. Associations between DACA and birth outcomes were attenuated to the null in the period that began with the announcement of the Trump U.S. Presidential campaign (2015-2018), although confidence intervals overlapped with estimates from the immediate post-DACA period.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest weak to modest initial benefits of DACA for select birthweight outcomes during the period immediately following DACA passage for Mexican-born individuals whose births were billed to Medicaid; any benefits were subsequently attenuated to the null. The benefits of DACA for population health may not have been sufficient to counteract the impacts of threats to the program's future and heightened immigration enforcement occurring in parallel over time.

Do state laws reduce uptake of Medicaid/CHIP by U.S. citizen children in immigrant families: evaluating evidence for a chilling effect

Background

Restrictive state laws aimed at immigrants can have unintended consequences for health insurance coverage of United States citizens in immigrant families due to both actual barriers created by the laws and perceived barriers among immigrants. Increasing numbers of children in the U.S. are part of immigrant families, and these children are more likely to be living in poverty than their counterparts in native families. Immigrant restrictive policies could lead to reduced access to Medicaid and CHIP even for citizen children in immigrant families.

Methods

Using data from the Current Population Survey's (CPS) March Supplement, linear probability models with difference-in-differences (DD) estimates compare probability of enrollment in Medicaid/CHIP among low-income U.S. citizen children in immigrant families and low-income children in native families and U.S. citizen children in immigrant families in states that did not adopt restrictive legislation, in order to estimate the impact of restrictive state laws aimed at immigrants. An additional model explores the effect of mother’s citizenship on enrollment among all immigrant families in states with and without restrictive legislation.

Results

Results suggest a significant chilling effect where the magnitude of the effect varies according to family demographics and by the types of laws being passed. Immigrant restrictive social welfare laws being adopted have a strong negative effect on U.S. citizen children in immigrant families’ enrollment in Medicaid/CHIP, a 5.5 percentage point reduction in coverage. Among the subsample of only immigrant families, results point toward a global chilling effect created by an overall restrictive policy environment. All immigrant restrictive related laws, including those aimed at education, job restriction, identification access, and social welfare restrictions have a significant and negative impact on access to public insurance for U.S. citizen children with non-citizen mothers.

Conclusions

This research shows that the unintended consequence of restrictive state legislation aimed at immigrants is the reduction in access to Medicaid and CHIP by low-income U.S. citizen children living in immigrant families. Reduced access to health insurance can increase unmet medical needs for an already vulnerable group.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-022-01651-2.

Financial Barriers to Mental Healthcare Services and Depressive Symptoms among Residents of Washington Heights, New York City

Objectives: In the United States, Hispanics are more likely to experience financial barriers to mental health care than non-Hispanics. We used a unique survey to study the effect of these financial barriers on the severity of depressive symptoms among Hispanics who had previously been diagnosed as having depression. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2015 Washington Heights Community Survey, administered to 2,489 households in Manhattan, New York City. Multiple regression models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between financial barriers to mental health care and depressive symptoms and the likelihood of being clinically depressed. Results: Among those diagnosed with depression, those with financial barriers to mental health services or counseling had significantly higher (β = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.70) depressive symptoms. When propensity score matching was utilized, those with financial barriers to mental health services had significantly greater depressive symptoms (β = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.37, 0.89) and were significantly more likely to be currently depressed (OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.46, 3.89), in comparison to those who had access. Conclusions: Making mental health care more affordable and therefore more accessible to Hispanics is one step toward mitigating the burden on mental illness and decreasing health disparities.

Measuring structural xenophobia: US State immigration policy climates over ten years

There is an increasing need to understand the structural drivers of immigrant health inequities, including xenophobic and racist policies at the state level in the United States. Databases aggregate state policies related to immigration and research using single year indices examines state policy and immigrant health. Yet none of these sources use a theoretically informed social determinants of immigrant health approach to consider state environments longitudinally, include both exclusionary and inclusionary policies, and are relevant to immigrants from any region of the world or ethnic group. Using an established social determinants of immigrant health framework, a measure of structural xenophobia was created using fourteen policies across five domains: access to public health benefits, higher education, labor and employment, driver's licenses and identification, and immigration enforcement over a ten-year period (2009-2019). To create the Immigration Policy Climate (IPC) index, we used data from state legislatures as well as policy databases from foundations, advocacy organizations, and scholarly articles. We identified and coded 714 US state policies across the 50 US States and the District of Columbia from 2009 to 2019. We calculated annual IPC index scores (range: 12 - 12) as a continuous measure (negative scores: exclusionary; positive scores: inclusionary). Results show that the US has an exclusionary immigration policy climate at the state-level (mean IPC score of -2.5). From 2009 to 2019, two-thirds of state-level immigration policies are exclusionary towards immigrants. About 75% of states experienced a 4-point change or less on the IPC index, and no state changed from largely exclusive to largely inclusive. By aggregating comprehensive, detailed data and a measure of state-level immigration policies over time, the IPC index provides population health researchers with rigorous evidence with which to assess structural xenophobia and an opportunity for longitudinal research on health inequities and immigrant health.

Children in Immigrant Families: Advocacy Within and Beyond the Pediatric Emergency Department

In the United States, 1 in 4 children lives in an immigrant family. State and national policies have historically precluded equitable access to health care among children in immigrant families. More recently, increasingly restrictive policies, political rhetoric, and xenophobic stances have made immigrant families less able to access health care and less comfortable in attempting to do so, thus increasing the likelihood that patients will present to the emergency department. Once in the emergency department, language, cultural, and health literacy barriers make providing high-quality care potentially challenging for some families. Emergency care professionals can therefore glean critical insight regarding inequities from clinical work to inform advocacy and policy changes at institutional, community, regional, and national levels.