Who loses public health insurance when states pass restrictive omnibus immigration-related laws? The moderating role of county Latino density

Exploring the Links Between Immigration and Birth Outcomes Among Latine Birthing Persons in the USA

BACKGROUND

Birth outcomes are worse for birthing people and infants in the USA than other high-income economies and worse still for underprivileged communities. Historically, the Latine community has experienced positive birth outcomes, despite low socioeconomic status and other socio-political disadvantages, leading to what has been termed as the Hispanic birth paradox. However, this perinatal advantage and protective effect appears to have been shattered by unfavorable policies, structural conditions, societal attitudes, and traumatic events impacting Latine immigrants, leading to negative effects on the health and well-being of birthing Latines-regardless of citizenship status and increasing rates of preterm birth and low birth weight infants.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review and identified two pathways through which birth outcomes among Latine birthing persons may be compromised regardless of citizenship status: (1) a biological pathway as toxic levels of fear and anxiety created by racialized stressors accumulate in the bodies of Latines and (2) a social pathway as Latines disconnect from formal and informal sources of support including family, friends, health care, public health programs, and social services during the course of the pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Future research needs to examine the impact of immigration climate and policies on health and racial equity in birth outcomes among Latines regardless of citizenship status. Attaining health and racial equity necessitates increased awareness among health providers, public health practitioners, and policy makers of the impact of larger socio-political pressures on the health of Latine birthing persons.

Achieving Cancer Equity by Improving Health Insurance Access for All Latinos

Cancer is the top leading cause of death among Latino people. Lack of health insurance is a significant contributor to inadequate cancer detection and treatment. Despite healthcare policy expansions such as the Affordable Care Act, Latino people persistently maintain the highest uninsured rate among any ethnic and racial group in the US, especially among Latino individuals who are immigrants or part of a mixed immigration status household. Recognizing that immigration status is a critical factor in the ability of Latino community members to seek health insurance and access healthcare services, a few US states and the District of Columbia have implemented policies that have expanded coverage to children and adults regardless of immigration status. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility regardless of immigration status may significantly benefit Latino communities, however the facilitators and barriers to enrolling in these programs need to be evaluated to ensure reach and achieve health equity across the cancer control continuum for all Latinos.

The Intersection of State-Level Immigrant Policy Climates and Medicaid Expansion: an Examination Among Immigrants

States have broad discretion over the implementation of policies like Medicaid expansion and other policies that impact the well-being and integration of immigrants. While numerous studies document Medicaid expansion on immigrants' health insurance coverage and the role of state immigrant policy climates on immigrants' well-being, no research to date has studied whether the association between a state's Medicaid expansion on immigrants' health insurance coverage varies based on the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of a state's immigrant policy climate. We combine nationally representative data from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) with state policy data and estimate multivariate regression models. The results reveal a state immigrant policy climate gradient whereby ACA Medicaid expansion on noncitizens is negative and most severe in exclusionary climates. This study highlights how state policies intersect as important structural forces that influence immigrant health and well-being.

Omnibus or Ominous immigration laws? Immigration policy and mental health of the Hispanic population

This study examines the impact of Omnibus Immigration Laws on the mental health of the Hispanic populations in the U.S. We use a Difference-in-Differences framework and data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the 2000-2016 period that contains information on more than 400 thousand Hispanics residing in the U.S. We find that the most stringent provision, namely, "show me your papers" laws, adversely affects the mental health of Hispanics and contributes to an increase of 12%-16% in the number of unhealthy mental days and an increase of 13%-18% in the probability of having frequent mental distress in the states with "show me your papers" laws. OIL provisions that enforced the use of E-Verify or limited the use of public benefits to unauthorized immigrants did not have any effect on mental health. The study also examines (1) police stops, (2) physical health, insurance, and employment status, (3) co-ethnic density, and (4) immigration enforcement awareness as potential mechanisms that could lead to a deterioration in the mental health of Hispanics. The evidence indicates their vulnerability to strict immigration enforcement. The social and public health cost should be carefully evaluated when formulating and implementing immigration policies.

Public Benefit Use and Social Needs in Hospitalized Children With Undocumented Parents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Studies supporta recent decline in public benefit enrollment among immigrant families. We aimed to describe health and resource use, barriers to use, and immigration-related fear in families with undocumented parents compared with families without undocumented parents. We also aimed to assess associations with discontinuation of public benefits and fear of deportation.

METHODS

We assessed immigration concerns and enrollment in Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) with an 89-item anonymous, cross-sectional survey of English- and Spanish-speaking caregivers of hospitalized children. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with discontinuation of public benefits and fear of deportation.

RESULTS

Of 527 families approached, 399 enrolled (105 with 1 or more undocumented parent, 275 with no undocumented parent, and 19 with undisclosed immigration status). Compared with families without undocumented parents, families with undocumented parents had higher levels of poverty and food insecurity. Controlling for perceived eligibility, public benefit use was similar across groups. Of families with undocumented parents, 29% reported public benefit discontinuation because of immigration concerns, and 71% reported fear of deportation. Having an undocumented parent was associated with public benefit disenrollment (odds ratio: 46.7; 95% confidence interval: 5.9-370.4) and fear of deportation (odds ratio: 24.3; 95% confidence interval: 9.6-61.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Although families with undocumented parents had higher levels of poverty and food insecurity compared with families without undocumented parents, public benefit use was similar between groups. Immigration-related fear may be a barrier to public benefit use in this population.

Stringent immigration enforcement and the mental health and health-risk behaviors of Hispanic adolescent students in Arizona

This study investigates the impact of the enforcement of SB 1070, a stringent immigration law, on the mental health, health-risk behaviors, and academic performance of Hispanic adolescent residents in Arizona. Using the difference-in-differences method, this study finds that SB 1070 increases their probability of feeling sad and decreases their physical activeness. The impact of SB 1070 on sad feelings and level of physical activity could have serious repercussions while it lasts. In addition, obese male Hispanic adolescents are more likely than their female or non-obese counterparts to develop mental health problems and engage in health-risk behaviors attributable to the stringent immigration policy. This study's empirical evidence on adverse mental health repercussions for Hispanic adolescents of state-level immigration enforcement suggests the need to be careful in formulating and implementing immigration policies.

Latinos' deportation fears by citizenship and legal status, 2007 to 2018

Deportation has become more commonplace in the United States since the mid-2000s. Latin American noncitizens-encompassing undocumented and documented immigrants-are targeted for deportation. Deportation's threat also reaches naturalized and US-born citizens of Latino descent who are largely immune to deportation but whose loved ones or communities are deportable. Drawing on 6 y of data from the National Survey of Latinos, this article examines whether and how Latinos' deportation fears vary by citizenship and legal status and over time. Compared with Latino noncitizens, Latino US citizens report lower average deportation fears. However, a more complex story emerges when examining this divide over time: Deportation fears are high but stable among Latino noncitizens, whereas deportation fears have increased substantially among Latino US citizens. These trends reflect a growing national awareness of-rather than observable changes to-deportation policy and practice since the 2016 US presidential election. The article highlights how deportation or its consequences affects a racial group that the US immigration regime targets disproportionately.