A healthy migrant effect? Estimating health outcomes of the undocumented immigrant population in the United States using machine learning

Prevalence of Chronic Pain by Immigration Status and Latino Ethnicity

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the Latino paradox and healthy migrant hypotheses by estimating the association between the prevalence of chronic pain, immigration status, and Latino ethnicity.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed pooled data from 85,395 adult participants of the 2019-2021 National Health Interview Survey. The dependent variables were any pain and chronic pain in the past 3 months. The independent variables were immigration status (US born, naturalized citizen, non-citizen) and Latino ethnicity.

RESULTS

Chronic pain was prevalent for nearly a quarter of US born non-Latino adults (24%) and non-citizen non-Latino adults had the lowest prevalence at 8%. In multivariable adjusted models, US born non-Latino immigration status and ethnicity was associated with a higher probability of reporting chronic pain in the last 3 months compared to US born Latino adults (-3.0%; 95% CI = -4.4%, -1.6%), naturalized citizen non-Latino adults (-4.7%; 95% CI = -5.9%, -3.4%), naturalized citizen Latino adults (-6.7%; 95% CI = -8.5%, -4.9%), non-citizen non-Latino adults (-3.1%; 95% CI = -4.7%, -1.5%), and non-citizen Latino adults (-8.9%; 95% CI = -10.8%, -7.0%).

CONCLUSION

US Born non-Latino adults reported the highest prevalence of chronic pain and non-citizen Latino adults reported the lowest prevalence of chronic pain providing support for the Latino paradox and healthy migrant effect hypotheses.

Increasing Access to Medical Care for Hispanic Women Without Insurance: A Mobile Clinic Approach

The purpose of this study was to describe the health status and barriers of people who sought care on a free mobile health clinic for women without insurance in California. Participants were 221 women who attended the Salud para Mujeres (Women's Health) mobile medical clinic between 2019 and 2021. Medical chart abstractions provided data on sociodemographic factors, medical history, barriers to care, depressive symptoms, and dietary factors. Anthropometric measure, blood pressure, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic disease risk were also abstracted. Participants were young adult (29.1 [SD 9.3] years), Hispanic (97.6%), farm-working (62.2%) women from Mexico (87.0%). Prevalent barriers to accessing (non-mobile) medical care included high cost (74.5%), language (47.6%), hours of operation (36.2%), and transportation (31.4%). The majority (89.5%) of patients had overweight (34.0%) or obesity (55.5%), and 27% had hypertension. Among those (n = 127) receiving a lipid panel, 60.3% had higher than recommended levels of low-density lipoprotein and 89% had lower than recommended levels of high-density lipoprotein. Point-of-care HbA1c tests (n = 133) indicated that 9.0% had diabetes and 24.8% had prediabetes. Over half (53.1%) of patients reported prevalent occupational exposure to pesticides and 19% had moderate to severe depressive symptoms. Weekly or more frequent consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (70.9%) and fast food (43.5%) were also prevalent. Mobile health units have potential for reaching women who face several barriers to care and experience major risk factors for cardometabolic disease. Findings suggest a compelling need to assure that Hispanic and Indigenous women and farmworkers have access to healthcare.

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.

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.

Is use of a smuggler to cross the US-Mexico border associated with mental health problems among undocumented immigrants from Mexico?

Although numerous studies have found that Latine immigrants to the United States (US) have better health outcomes on average than persons born in the US, studies of persons living in Mexico have found that undocumented immigrants have worse health, especially those that were deported, compared to Mexican citizens that never migrated or migrated with authorization. However, the health outcomes of Mexican migrants using a smuggler to cross the US-Mexico border is a gap in the literature. We hypothesized that undocumented immigrant adults who used a smuggler to cross the US-Mexico border would be more likely to report mental health problems upon return to Mexico compared with undocumented immigrant adults that did not use a smuggler. We analyzed nationally representative, cross-sectional survey data of 1,563 undocumented immigrants currently living in Mexico. Most undocumented immigrants in the sample (87%) used a smuggler. Use of a smuggler by undocumented immigrant adults was associated with a 4.7% higher prevalence of emotional or psychiatric problems compared to undocumented immigrant adults that did not use a smuggler. We conclude that modality of ingress into the US is a risk factor for poorer mental health among undocumented immigrant adults.

Undocumented Latino Immigrants and the Latino Health Paradox

INTRODUCTION

Despite having worse healthcare access and other social disadvantages, immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes than U.S.-born individuals. For Latino immigrants, this is known as the Latino health paradox. It is unknown whether this phenomenon applies to undocumented immigrants.

METHODS

This study used restricted California Health Interview Survey data from 2015 to 2020. Data were analyzed to test the relationships between citizenship/documentation status and physical and mental health among Latinos and U.S.-born Whites. Analyses were stratified by sex (male/female) and length of U.S. residence (<15 years/>= 15 years).

RESULTS

Undocumented Latino immigrants had lower predicted probabilities of reporting any health condition, asthma, and serious psychological distress and had a higher probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born Whites. Despite having a higher probability of overweight/obesity, undocumented Latino immigrants did not have probabilities of reporting diabetes, high blood pressure, or heart disease different from those of U.S.-born Whites after adjusting for having a usual source of care. Undocumented Latina women had a lower predicted probability of reporting any health condition and a higher predicted probability of overweight/obesity than U.S.-born White women. Undocumented Latino men had a lower predicted probability of reporting serious psychological distress than U.S.-born White men. There were no differences in outcomes when comparing shorter- with longer-duration undocumented Latino immigrants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study observed that the Latino health paradox may express patterns for undocumented Latino immigrants that are different from those for other Latino immigrant groups, emphasizing the importance of accounting for documentation status when conducting research on this population.

Assessment of Immigrants' Premium and Tax Payments for Health Care and the Costs of Their Care

IMPORTANCE

Some worry that immigrants burden the US economy and particularly the health care system. However, no analyses to date have assessed whether immigrants' payments for premiums and taxes that fund health care programs exceed third-party payers' expenditures on their behalf.

OBJECTIVE

To assess immigrants' net financial contributions to US health care programs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis used 2017 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) and 2014 to 2018 data from the American Community Survey. The main analyses used data from the calendar year 2017. Data from the calendar years 2012 to 2016 were also reported. Data were analyzed from June 15, 2020, to August 14, 2022. Participants comprised 210 669 community-dwelling respondents to the MEPS and CPS (main analysis) and nursing home residents who were included in the American Community Survey (additional analysis).

EXPOSURES

Citizenship and immigration status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total and per capita payments for premiums and taxes that fund health care as well as third-party payers' expenditures for health care in 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

Among 210 669 participants, 51.0% were female, 18.3% were Hispanic, 12.3% were non-Hispanic Black, 60.3% were non-Hispanic White, and 9.2% were of other races and/or ethnicities. A total of 180 084 participants were respondents to the 2018 CPS, and 30 585 were respondents to the 2017 MEPS. Among the 180 084 CPS respondents, immigrants accounted for 14.1% (weighted to be nationally representative), with the subgroup of citizen immigrants accounting for 6.8%, documented noncitizen immigrants accounting for 3.7%, and undocumented immigrants accounting for 3.6%; US-born citizens constituted 85.9% of the population. Relative to US-born citizens, immigrants were more often age 18 to 64 years (79.6% vs 58.3%), of Hispanic ethnicity (45.0% vs 14.0%), and uninsured (16.8% vs 7.4%); similar percentages (51.4% vs 50.9%) were female. US-born citizens vs immigrants paid similar amounts in premiums and taxes ($6269 per capita [95% CI, $6185-$6353 per capita] vs $6345 per capita [95% CI, $6220-$6470 per capita]). However, third-party expenditures for immigrants' health care ($5061 per capita; 95% CI, $4673-$5448 per capita) were lower than their expenditures for the care of US-born citizens ($6511 per capita; 95% CI, $6275-$6747 per capita). Immigrants, in general, paid significantly more per person (net contribution, $1284; 95% CI, $876-$1691) than was paid on their behalf. Most of this surplus was accounted for by undocumented immigrants, whose contributions exceeded their expenditures by $4418 per person (95% CI, $4047-$4789 per person). US-born citizens collectively paid $67.2 billion (95% CI, -$2.3 to $136.3 billion) less in premiums and taxes than third-party payers paid for their care. This deficit was mostly offset by the $58.3 billion (95% CI, $39.8-$76.8 billion) net surplus of payments from immigrants, 89% of which ($51.9 billion; 95% CI, $47.5-$56.3 billion) was attributable to undocumented immigrants.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, immigrants appeared to subsidize the health care of other US residents, suggesting that concerns that immigrants deplete health care resources may be unfounded.