The role of health insurance in explaining immigrant versus non-immigrant disparities in access to health care: Comparing the United States to Canada

Siddiqi, Arjumand; Zuberi, Daniyal; Nguyen, Quynh C.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.030

Cited by 102 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rates vary with factors of demographics, deprivation, barriers and primary care, as has been shown repeatedly in several countries. 10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Current levels of participation have been attained pri marily by physician recommendation and promotion of screening programs to individuals. Studies of financial incentives to physicians for screening and primary care reforms between the years 2000 and 2009 have not had an impact on screening participation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are not barriers for most middle and upperincome people, but are barriers in lowincome areas. 10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] …”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was beyond the scope of this work to evaluate the followup of abnormal screening tests; however, followup of abnormal tests might also vary by the same demographic, socioeco nomic and primary care factors. 10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] There is no consensus about a benchmark level of partici pation for individual screening tests or for all tests which are age and sex appropriate. The benchmark would be less than 100% because individuals might have contraindications to procedures precipitated by an abnormal screening result, and some might decline screening.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Small-area variation in screening for cancer, glucose and cholesterol in Ontario: a cross-sectional study

Fernandes¹,

Sutradhar²,

Borkhoff³

et al. 2015

CMAJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Screening for cervical, breast and colon cancers, and elevations of cholesterol and glucose, reduces pre mature causespecific mortality from these cancers and circulatory diseases. Despite primary care reforms and incentives, and promotion of cancer-screening programs among individuals, participation is suboptimal. We aimed to examine participation as of Dec. 31, 2011, by factors of deprivation, demographics and primary care at the small-area level. Methods:From health care administrative databases, we identified people eligible for each screening test, and their participation, in each dissemination area (referred to as small areas, n = 18 950) in Ontario. We calculated rates for each test among small areas (overall and stratified by demographic, socioeconomic and primary care descriptors) and stratified by sex for all tests combined. We loaded all data into a geographic information system. Funnel plots were generated showing the percentage of eligible people who completed screening for all tests by small area, stratified by sex. Overall and stratified screening prevalence ratios were calculated among small areas.Results: Among small areas, the mean and SD for participation in all tests combined was 31.6% (SD 11.0%) for women and 41.2% (SD 12.0%) for men. Screening prevalence among small areas, for each test and for all tests combined, overall and stratified by sex, declined with decreasing percentage with high school completion, decreasing socioeconomic quintile, and decreasing percentage with an identifiable primary care physician. Interpretation:Our results show that the rate of participation in all eligible screening tests among small areas is much lower than the rate of participation in any one particular test. This finding has implications for the design and implementation of strategies to improve rates of screening. Abstract Research CMAJ OPEN E374CMAJ OPEN, 3(4) Study designThis is a crosssectional study of smallarea variation in screening participation in Ontario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are not barriers for most middle and upperincome people, but are barriers in lowincome areas. 10,11,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] …”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Small-area variation in screening for cancer, glucose and cholesterol in Ontario: a cross-sectional study

Fernandes¹,

Sutradhar²,

Borkhoff³

et al. 2015

CMAJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When health entitlements are different in the country of origin and the host country, immigrants seem to delay seeking health care, as they are unfamiliar with how the services function (De Luca, Ponzo, and Andres 2013;Siddiqi, Zuberi, and Nguyen 2009). For instance, immigrants in Norway are less likely than the host population to seek somatic and/or mental primary care for both ordinary and emergency purposes, but substantial variation is observed according to country of origin, reason for immigration, and duration of residence Sandvik, Hunskaar, and Diaz 2012;Straiton, Reneflot, and Diaz 2014).…”

Section: Acculturation Social Status and Social Causationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in all-cause mortality

Syse¹,

Strand²,

Næss³

et al. 2016

DemRes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDDifferences in all-cause mortality between immigrants and host populations may provide insight into health inequities that could be reduced. OBJECTIVEDeath risks of adult immigrants were compared to those of the host population to assess effects of country of origin, duration of residence, calendar period, and sociodemographic characteristics, i.e., sex, education, and marital and parental status. METHODSRegistry data encompassing the entire Norwegian population age 25-79 in 1990-2012 were used to compare death risks in various immigrant groups and the host population, using discrete-time hazard regression models with time-varying covariates. RESULTSOver 451,000 deaths occurred in around 4.4 million individuals. After adjusting for sex, age, and calendar period, immigrants had an 8% survival advantage (odds ratio (OR) 0.92). Death-risk estimates for immigrants were lowered pronouncedly by further adjustment of sociodemographic factors (OR 0.81). The greatest survival advantage was observed among immigrants with a short duration of residence. With increasing lengths of stay, immigrants' risk of death became similar to that of the host population. The CONCLUSIONSImmigrants have a 20% survival advantage compared to the host population. The convergence in mortality with increasing duration of residence suggests that 'healthy migrant' and 'acculturation' effects counteract each other, and warrants further research on the health and welfare of long-term immigrants.

show abstract

“…A study also brings up the point that cross-national comparisons in this discourse are very stimulating in finding data (Siddiqi et al 2009). The coverage of healthcare under the modern knowledge surrounding the Affordable Care Act has yet to evolve as many challenges to this law are either pending, forthcoming, or possible (Tanner, 2014).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 91%

The Economy of Healthcare: Disparity of Insured/Uninsured Profiles among European Immigrants in the United States

Goonatilake¹,

Herath²

2016

EJSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immigration over the last seven years has been the highest for any seven-year period in the history of the United States (US), totaling 10.3 million immigrants. Of which, it is estimated that more than 50% are accounted as immigrants without legal status, according to the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington (Camarota, 2002). Data gathered in early 2000 provides a glimpse of the situation to bring in the disparity of insured and uninsured among European immigrants in the United States as the 9/11 attacks, the Obama care (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or Affordable Care Act (ACA) for short), and the (DREAM Act of 2010) the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act have significantly changed the patterns and profiles of this phenomenon as someone would shed light on the situation. This paper compares and contrasts the extent of health insurance coverage for the citizens, naturalized citizens, and non-citizens as identified in terms of the world regions of birth, of course, for the European descendants. Finally, the analysis is concluded by examining the extent of health insurance coverage among all foreign born population based on race, educational attainment, and family income in 2005.

show abstract

The role of health insurance in explaining immigrant versus non-immigrant disparities in access to health care: Comparing the United States to Canada

Cited by 102 publications

References 24 publications

Small-area variation in screening for cancer, glucose and cholesterol in Ontario: a cross-sectional study

Small-area variation in screening for cancer, glucose and cholesterol in Ontario: a cross-sectional study

Differences in all-cause mortality

The Economy of Healthcare: Disparity of Insured/Uninsured Profiles among European Immigrants in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About