Article

Health care expenditures of immigrants in the United States: a nationally representative analysis.

Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric and General Internal Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Ave, IRD 627, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 09/2005; 95(8):1431-8. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044602
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compared the health care expenditures of immigrants residing in the United States with health care expenditures of US-born persons.
We used the 1998 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey linked to the 1996-1997 National Health Interview Survey to analyze data on 18398 US-born persons and 2843 immigrants. Using a 2-part regression model, we estimated total health care expenditures, as well as expenditures for emergency department (ED) visits, office-based visits, hospital-based outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and prescription drugs.
Immigrants accounted for $39.5 billion (SE=$4 billion) in health care expenditures. After multivariate adjustment, per capita total health care expenditures of immigrants were 55% lower than those of US-born persons ($1139 vs $2546). Similarly, expenditures for uninsured and publicly insured immigrants were approximately half those of their US-born counterparts. Immigrant children had 74% lower per capita health care expenditures than US-born children. However, ED expenditures were more than 3 times higher for immigrant children than for US-born children.
Health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants than for US-born persons. Our study refutes the assumption that immigrants represent a disproportionate financial burden on the US health care system.

0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The United States offers near-universal coverage for treatment of ESRD. Undocumented immigrants with ESRD are the only subset of patients not covered under a national strategy. There are 2 divergent dialysis treatment strategies offered to undocumented immigrants in the United States, emergent dialysis and chronic outpatient dialysis. Emergent dialysis, offering dialysis only when urgent indications exist, is the treatment strategy in certain states. Differing interpretations of Emergency Medicaid statute by the courts and state and federal government have resulted in the geographic disparity in treatment strategies for undocumented immigrants with ESRD. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ignored the health care of undocumented immigrants and will not provide relief to undocumented patients with catastrophic illness like ESRD, cancer, or traumatic brain injuries. The difficult patient and provider decisions are explored in this review. The Renal Physicians Association Position Statement on uncompensated renal-related care for noncitizens is an excellent starting point for a framework to address this ethical dilemma. The practice of "emergent dialysis" will hopefully be found unacceptable in the future because of the fact that it is not cost effective, ethical, or humane. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease 01/2015; 22(1). DOI:10.1053/j.ackd.2014.07.003 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Temporary and unauthorized migrants may face unique obstacles to access health care services in the U.S.
    01/2014; 1(1):57-108. DOI:10.1504/IJMBS.2014.065069
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Health systems have the responsibility not just to improve peoples' health but also to treat them with dignity and to protect them against the financial costs of illness. Health systems thus have three fundamental objectives [1]. These are: • improving the health of the population they serve; • responding to peoples' expectations; • providing financial protection against the costs of ill-health. Since these objectives are not always met, public dissatisfaction with the way health services are run or financed is often widespread: there are numerous accounts of errors, delays, rudeness, hostility and indifference exercised by healthcare personnel, as well as accounts of denial of care or exposure to calamitous financial risks by insurers and governments on a grand scale [1]. Patient satisfaction is a component of health care quality and is increasingly being used to assess medical care in many countries around the world. Until recently, the rating of medical care was done purely in terms of technical and physiological outcomes [2-4]. Patient satisfaction is, on the other hand, an expression of the gap between the expected and the perceived quality of a service. Satisfaction is a subjective phenomenon which can be elicited by simply asking how satisfied or not patients are about a service [2,5]. Patient satisfaction level depends on a number of factors [3] that must be considered during its assessment: patient's age, socioeconomic position and expectations, timing of satisfaction measurement, aspects of the provided services, are all important variables that influence satisfaction. Apart from legal considerations, assessing patient satisfaction is even more justified by the fact that high levels of satisfaction have been reported to be strongly associated to better understanding and memorization of medical information by patients, which consequently results in a higher compliance to the proposed treatments [6]. However, even if assessing patient satisfaction is an important part of health care quality assessment, it cannot replace it totally. Health service quality has, in fact, three dimensions: client quality, professional quality and management quality. Client quality is the dimension that receives most attention in discussions of healthcare quality based on how satisfied clients are with the healthcare received [2,5,7,8]. From a management perspective, patient satisfaction with health care services is important for several reasons. Firstly, satisfied patients are Migrant patients' satisfaction with health care services: a comprehensive review
    Italian Journal of Public Health 08/2010; 7:333-345.