|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Left Out: Immigrants Access To Health Care And Insurance
Recent policy changes have limited immigrants access to insurance and to health care. Fewer noncitizen immigrants and their children (even U.S.-born) have Medicaid or job-based insurance, and many more are uninsured than is the case with native citizens or children of citizens. Noncitizens and their children also have worse access to both regular ambulatory and emergency care, even when insured. Immigration status is an important component of racial and ethnic disparities in insurance coverage and access to care.
Public attention has recently focused on racial and ethnic disparities in access to health care, and research indicates that Latinos have the highest uninsurance rates among racial/ethnic groups living in the United States.1 But there has been surprisingly little discussion of the importance of immigration status, although one-third of U.S. Hispanics and two-thirds of U.S. Asians are foreign-born. Immigrants are a large and growing segment of American society and are disproportionately low-income and uninsured.2 Thus, the status of immigrants has broader implications for national and state efforts to improve access to health care. The 1996 federal welfare reform law (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or PRWORA) restricted Medicaid eligibility of immigrants, so that those admitted to the United States after August 1996 cannot receive coverage, except for emergencies, in their first five years in the country.3 Historically, legally admitted immigrants were eligible for Medicaid and other benefits on the same terms as citizens were, but PRWORA signaled an important change in the social contract. These policies exacerbated immigrants fears that began after the enactment of Californias Proposition 187 and after publicity about the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) efforts to apply "public charge" enforcement to Medicaid, asking immigrants to repay the value of Medicaid benefits received or else jeopardize their U.S. residency status.4 Collectively, these policies signaled that legal immigrants should avoid Medicaid, even if they were uninsured and eligible.
The Medicaid participation of low-income noncitizens fell and uninsurance rates climbed from 1995 to 1998 (Exhibit 1
This paper presents data from the National Survey of Americas Families (NSAF) on how immigrant status affects insurance coverage and the use of medical, dental, and mental health services by adults and children. A key advantage of NSAF is that it includes data about citizenship, insurance status, and health care use. By contrast, the Current Population Survey (CPS) lacks information about health care use, while the National Health Interview and Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys do not report citizenship status.
More detail about the 1997 NSAF is provided elsewhere, but key features are that it has a sample size of 109,992 noninstitutionalized persons under age sixty-five and oversamples the low-income population.8 State-representative samples from thirteen states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), plus a wraparound sample for the balance of the nation, together comprise a nationally representative sample. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The survey had an overall response rate of 70 percent. All analyses presented are weighted and control for the complex NSAF survey design, using the method of balanced repeated replicates and sixty sets of replicate weights.9
Exhibit 2
The patterns are stark. More than half of the low-income noncitizen adults and children in the sample were uninsured. Noncitizen adults and their children were much less likely than native-born citizens were to have Medicaid and/or job-based or other insurance and were more likely to be uninsured.11 Some have claimed that immigrants are more likely than native-born citizens are to use Medicaid but fail to account for their disproportionate poverty.12 Noncitizens and their children also were less likely to have a usual source of health care. Given the low level of insurance coverage, it is not surprising that noncitizen families were relatively less likely to use private doctors or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Community clinics and hospital outpatient departments are the most common sources of ambulatory care for immigrants. Very few said that the emergency room was their usual source.
Effect of immigrant status.
To what extent are the differences in insurance status and usual source of care related to being an immigrant, as opposed to other social and economic differences? We used multivariate statistical methods to control for health status, income, race/ethnicity, and other factors that affect insurance status and utilization.13 Exhibit 3
For adults, being a noncitizen was associated with a 2.5 percent reduction in Medicaid coverage, an 8.9 percent decrease in job-based insurance coverage, and an 8.5 percent increase in the probability of being uninsured, compared with native citizens. Noncitizen adults were less likely to have a usual source of care than native citizens were. Naturalized citizens insurance status did not significantly differ from that of native citizens after multivariate controls, but they were more likely to lack a usual source of care. Noncitizen children had 14 percent less Medicaid, 15 percent less job-based insurance, and 16 percent greater risk of being uninsured, compared with children whose parents were citizens. They also were less likely to have a usual source of care. After controlling for the other factors, citizen children whose parents were noncitizens had about 5 percent less Medicaid and 8 percent less job-based insurance and were about 8 percent more likely to be uninsured. They also were more likely than children of citizens were to lack usual source of care. While citizen children with noncitizen parents were eligible for Medicaid, they were still less likely to participate, perhaps because of their parents fears or other perceived barriers. After we controlled for immigrant status and the other factors, the insurance coverage of Hispanics was not significantly different from that of non-Hispanic whites, except for employer-sponsored insurance for children. A major reason for the low insurance coverage of Latinos is that so many are in noncitizen families.
How is immigrant status related to access to and use of services? First, we examined what factors determined whether a person had any visits to a doctor/nurse or an emergency room in the past year, a measure of health care access. Next, we examined how these factors affected the number of visits, among those who had at least one visit, as a measure of the quantity of health care received.
Ambulatory care.
Exhibit 4
Noncitizen families had less initial access to ambulatory medical and emergency medical care and, even when they had access, often received less care. These data show that immigrants faced serious barriers in getting both regular ambulatory care and emergency room care. This is in contrast to the common assumption that people with less access to primary care use emergency rooms more often for routine problems. To help put this in perspective, the extent to which noncitizens and their children had no doctor/nurse or emergency room visits in a year (41 percent for noncitizen adults, 38 percent for noncitizen children, and 21 percent for citizen children with noncitizen parents) was roughly double the rate of native adults (21 percent) and children of citizens (13 percent). Hispanics access to care. Even after immigration status was controlled for, being Hispanic was associated with getting less medical care. Both citizen and noncitizen Latinos had poorer access to care than white citizens had (in contrast to the findings for insurance coverage). Being Hispanic also modified the relationship of health status to medical care use. In the NSAF, as in most other surveys, Latinos reported poorer health status than non-Latinos did. It has been speculated that this might be caused by cultural differences in how Hispanics describe their health status, as compared to differences in more clinical or objective measures of health.14 People who reported fair or poor health status used much more health care, but this relationship was smaller for Hispanics.15 This is consistent with the view that Latinos report health status differently than non-Latinos do, although an alternative interpretation is that a similar level of impairment leads to less additional medical care for Latinos. In the models, having health insurance was associated with much better access to regular ambulatory care for immigrants and non-immigrants alike but had relatively little effect (except for Medicaid) on emergency room access.16 Although insured noncitizens had less access to care than insured citizens did, they have much better access to care than uninsured noncitizens. General patterns. Looking across the analyses, general patterns can be inferred. Being a noncitizen adult or the child of noncitizen parents reduces access to ambulatory medical care and emergency room care, after factors such as health status, income, and race/ethnicity are controlled for. For children of noncitizen parents, the access gaps are larger for noncitizen children than for citizen children, but both types of children have less access to medical care than do children of citizens. The health care access of naturalized citizens is generally similar to that of native-born citizens, suggesting that immigrants health care use increases as they acculturate.
Noncitizen immigrants and their children have large gaps in their health insurance coverage and access to health care, even when the children are citizens. The disparity in access has two components. First, noncitizens and their children are much more likely to be uninsured. Since insurance strongly increases access to care, uninsurance reduces immigrants ability to get care. Second, even insured noncitizens and their children have less access to medical care than insured native-born citizens have. Immigrants encounter non-financial health care barriers. From a policy perspective, the insurance gaps for citizen children in immigrant families are distressing, since they are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP and are a major target of outreach campaigns. The insurance coverage of U.S.-born children of immigrants has fallen in recent years.17 Noncitizen families have poor access to both ambulatory medical and emergency room care. The gap in emergency care is particularly relevant because federal policy lets noncitizen immigrants, including undocumented aliens, receive emergency Medicaid services, even if they are ineligible for full coverage. In principle, this policy should permit more Medicaid emergency room care as a "safety valve" for both patients and providers. Our finding suggests that the current policies are not effective and that states could do more to facilitate emergency Medicaid access for immigrants. An earlier study found that use of emergency Medicaid benefits appeared to be higher in California, which provides a Medicaid card that gives immigrants limited emergency coverage, than in other states that mostly determine Medicaid eligibility only after an emergency occurs.18 Even before the welfare reform changes of the mid-1990s, immigrant families had problems with insurance coverage and access to care.19 Their situation appears to have worsened during the late 1990s. It is hard to disentangle the comparative effects of immigrant eligibility changes under welfare reform, public charge, and other factors, since the policies occurred in roughly the same time period and all sought to discourage immigrants from using public services. 20 Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that the combined effect was negative. Some remedial actions have begun or have been proposed. In 1999 the INS clarified that getting Medicaid should not endanger immigrants legal status under public charge provisions, and the governor of California cancelled efforts to implement Proposition 187. Many states, such as California, Washington, and Massachusetts, have chosen to use state funds to provide Medicaid or SCHIP coverage to postenactment immigrants, supplementing federally funded benefits. Recent congressional proposals would give states the option to restore immigrants eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP for children and pregnant women. It also is important to consider strategies to foster private job-based health insurance for immigrant workers and their families. A recent study found that noncitizen workers in California were offered health insurance less often than citizens were, but that their take-up of insurance offers was similar.21 Finally, health care systems need to reduce access barriers. Language problems were the leading barrier to child health services cited by Latino parents; they may also increase medical errors because of misdiagnosis and misunderstanding of physicians orders.22 Federal policy already states that providers must ensure that people with limited English proficiency can get interpreter services, but problems remain commonplace. Clinics, hospitals, managed care plans, and Medicaid eligibility offices need to provide adequate interpreter and translation services.
Leighton Ku is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in Washington, D.C. Sheetal Matani works at the Washington Free Clinic. Both authors were with the Urban Institute at the time of this writing. This research was funded by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured and the Assessing the New Federalism project, which has been supported by a number of foundations. This work was done while the authors were on the staff of the Urban Institute. They gratefully acknowledge constructive comments and reviews of drafts from John Holahan, Freya Sonenstein, and Wendy Zimmermann and technical help or advice from Niall Brennan, Emily Greenman, Rajeev Ramchand, and Fritz Scheuren.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||