Search

There has been a great deal of state-level legislative activity focused on immigration and immigrants over the past decade in the United States. Some policies aim to improve access to education, transportation, benefits, and additional services while others constrain such access. From a social determinants of health perspective, social and economic policies are intrinsically health policies, but research on the relationship between state-level immigration-related policies and Latino health remains scarce. This paper summarizes the existing evidence about the range of state-level immigration policies that affect Latino health, indicates conceptually plausible but under-explored relationships between policy domains and Latino health, traces the mechanisms through which immigration policies might shape Latino health, and points to key areas for future research. We examined peer-reviewed publications from 1986 to 2016 and assessed 838 based on inclusion criteria; 40 were included for final review. These 40 articles identified four pathways through which state-level immigration policies may influence Latino health: through stress related to structural racism; by affecting access to beneficial social institutions, particularly education; by affecting access to healthcare and related services; and through constraining access to material conditions such as food, wages, working conditions, and housing. Our review demonstrates that the field of immigration policy and health is currently dominated by a “one-policy, one-level, one-outcome” approach. We argue that pursuing multi-sectoral, multi-level, and multi-outcome research will strengthen and advance the existing evidence base on immigration policy and Latino health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing “patient engagement” has become a priority for health care organizations and policy-makers seeking to reduce cost and improve the quality of care. While concepts of patient engagement have proliferated rapidly across health care settings, little is known about how health care providers make use of these concepts in clinical practice. This paper uses 20 months of ethnographic and interview research carried out from 2015 to 2016 to explore how health care providers working at two public, urban, safety-net hospitals in the United States define, discuss, and assess patient engagement. We investigate how health care providers describe engagement for high cost patients—the “super-utilizers” of the health care system—who often face complex challenges related to socioeconomic marginalization including poverty, housing insecurity, exposure to violence and trauma, cognitive and mental health issues, and substance use. The health care providers in our study faced institutional pressure to assess patient engagement and to direct care towards engaged patients. However, providers considered such assessments to be highly challenging and oftentimes inaccurate, particularly because they understood low patient engagement to be the result of difficult socioeconomic conditions. Providers tried to navigate the demand to assess patient engagement in care by looking for explicit positive and negative indicators of engagement, while also being sensitive to more subtle and intuitive signs of engagement for marginalized patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses increasing differentiation of U.S. dietary components by socioeconomic strata and its health implications. While upper-income groups have had increasing access to higher-quality foods, lower-to-middle-income class diets are heavily focused on “energy-dense” fares. This neoliberal diet is clearly associated with the proliferation of obesity that disproportionately affects the poor. We provide a critical review of the debate about obesity from within the critical camp in food studies, between individual-focused and structural perspectives. Using official data, we show how the US diet has evolved since the 1960s to a much greater emphasis on refined carbohydrates and vegetable oils. Inequality is demonstrated by dividing the population into households-income quintiles and how they spend on food. We then introduce our Neoliberal Diet Risk Index (NDR), comprised of measures of food-import dependency, the Gini coefficient, rates of urbanization, female labor-force participation, and economic globalization. Our index serves to measure the risk of exposure to the neoliberal diet comparatively, across time and between nations. We conclude that only a societal actor like the state can redirect the food-production system by modifying its agricultural subsidy policies. Inequality-reducing policies will make the healthier food involved in such change widely available for all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]