Immigration is a key political issue in the United Kingdom. The 2014 Immigration Act includes a number of measures intended to reduce net immigration, including removing the right of non-European Economic Area migrants to access free health care. This change risks widening existing health and social inequalities. This study explored the experiences of undocumented migrants trying to access primary care in the United Kingdom, their perspectives on proposed access restrictions, and suggestions for policymakers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 undocumented migrants and four volunteer staff at a charity clinic in London. Inductive thematic analysis drew out major themes. Many undocumented migrants already faced challenges accessing primary care. None of the migrants interviewed said that they would be able to afford charges to access primary care and most said they would have to wait until they were much more unwell and access care through Accident & Emergency (A&E) services. The consequences of limiting access to primary care, including threats to individual and public health consequences and the additional burden on the National Health Service, need to be fully considered by policymakers. The authors argue that an evidence-based approach would avoid legislation that targets vulnerable groups and provides no obvious economic or societal benefit.

Background Structured education for people with type 2 diabetes improves outcomes, but uptake is low globally. In the United Kingdom in 2016, only 8.3% of people who were referred to education programs attended the program. We have developed a Web-based structured education program named Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes): Starting Out (HDSO), as an alternative to face-to-face courses. A Web-based program gives people more options for accessing structured education and may help improve overall uptake. Objective The aim was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a Web-based structured education program (named HeLP-Diabetes: Starting Out) in routine primary health care and its potential impact on self-efficacy and diabetes-related distress. Methods HDSO was delivered as part of routine diabetes services in primary health care in the United Kingdom, having been commissioned by local Clinical Commissioning Groups. Quantitative data were collected on uptake, use of the program, demographic characteristics, self-reported self-efficacy, and diabetes-related distress. A subsample of people with type 2 diabetes and health care professionals were interviewed about acceptability of the program. Results It was feasible to deliver the program, but completion rates were low: of 791 people with type 2 diabetes registered, only 74 (9.0%) completed it. Completers improved their self-efficacy (change in median score 2.5, P=.001) and diabetes-related distress (change in median score 6.0, P=.001). Interview data suggested that the course was acceptable, and that uptake and completion may be related to nonprioritization of structured education. Conclusions The study provides evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of a Web-based structured education. However, uptake and completion rates were low, limiting potential population impact. Further research is needed to improve completion rates, and to determine the relative effectiveness of Web-based versus face-to-face education.

Background: Recent British National Health Service (NHS) reforms, in response to austerity and alleged 'health tourism, ' could impose additional barriers to healthcare access for non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants. This study explores policy reform challenges and implications, using excerpts from the perspectives of non-EEA migrants and health advocates in London. Methods: A qualitative study design was selected. Data were collected through document review and 22 indepth interviews with non-EEA migrants and civil-society organisation representatives. Data were analysed thematically using the NHS principles. Results: The experiences of those 'vulnerable migrants' (ie, defined as adult non-EEA asylum-seekers, refugees, undocumented, low-skilled, and trafficked migrants susceptible to marginalised healthcare access) able to access health services were positive, with healthcare professionals generally demonstrating caring attitudes. However, general confusion existed about entitlements due to recent NHS changes, controversy over 'health tourism, ' and challenges registering for health services or accessing secondary facilities. Factors requiring greater clarity or improvement included accessibility, communication, and clarity on general practitioner (GP) responsibilities and migrant entitlements. Conclusion: Legislation to restrict access to healthcare based on immigration status could further compromise the health of vulnerable individuals in Britain. This study highlights current challenges in health services policy and practice and the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in healthcare advocacy (eg, helping the voices of the most vulnerable reach policy-makers). Thus, it contributes to broadening national discussions and enabling more nuanced interpretation of ongoing global debates on immigration and health.