In this qualitative study, authors aim to examine how mis- and disinformation about the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule ("public charge rule") influences health care access for Latino immigrants in California. Between May 2024 and April 2025, primary data were collected from 32 interviews (38 participants) with healthcare and community-based organizational leaders serving Latino immigrants in California.

Findings: Participants identified the public charge rule as a significant barrier to health care access for Latino immigrants. The policy has discouraged many Latinos from accessing public benefits, particularly the state's Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In addition, immigrants' trusted sources of information (e.g., family, friends, and attorneys) were often misinformed about the policy, which amplified confusion and fear. Organizations respond by providing accurate information and connecting individuals with reliable resources to clarify that using public benefits would not necessarily result in being classified as a public charge. However, most efforts focused on education rather than directly countering mis- and disinformation. 

Authors examined the relationship between county-level immigration policy contexts and health insurance coverage of Latino adults and youth in California using two measures that capture local-level policy decisions and immigration policy–related social inequity. In this study, authors constructed two measures of local-level immigration policy contexts by developing seven indicators of local policy enactment and implementation and 11 indicators of immigration-related social inequity. Data were collected on each indicator for California's 58 counties. Each indicator was coded and counties scored to construct two indices. The county data were merged with a sample of Latino adults and youth in the 2021 American Community Survey (n = 249,979). Authors then conducted mixed-effects modeling to test the associations between the local policymaking and social inequity indices and health insurance and tested interactions by citizenship for both adults and youth.  

Findings: There were no significant associations or interactions by citizenship between county-level policymaking and health insurance for Latino adults or youth. In contrast, there were significant associations and interactions by citizenship between immigration-related social inequity and health insurance. Among adults, naturalized and U.S. citizens had higher predicted probabilities of being uninsured in counties with high compared with low social inequity, but there were no differences for noncitizens. Among youth, noncitizens and those with noncitizen parents had higher predicted probabilities of being uninsured in counties with high social inequity. 

Few studies have investigated the effects of local policies that shape access to services, resources, and opportunities among Latino and immigrant populations. This article presents a framework and measures to describe county-level immigration policy contexts. Authors developed multisectoral indicators of immigration policy contexts by linking policies and social conditions of inequity to immigration policy through mechanisms of structural racism. Using the indicators, authors constructed measures of county-level immigration policy contexts in California. Two indices measured the extent of local 1) inclusive policymaking and 2) social inequity that is reinforced by immigration policy. Counties were categorized into four typologies of local immigration policy contexts using the index scores.  

Findings: Counties in metropolitan regions had the highest inclusive policymaking scores. Rural or agricultural counties had the highest social inequity scores. Inclusive policymaking and social inequity did not always align; some counties with many inclusive policies also had high social inequity. The counties represented in each typology of local immigration policy contexts shared unique geographic characteristics. Ultimately, the findings show that local immigration policy contexts are the product of two distinct mechanisms, and they vary across California, an inclusive state. Researchers must consider local contexts when investigating the social determinants of Latino health. State policymakers should address local conditions of inequity that are reinforced by immigration policy. 

Authors examine differences in the utilization of low‐value care among Asian and Latino subpopulations compared to the white population. They analyzed data from a repeated cross‐sectional national survey. The study sample included a non‐Latino, white population and Asian and Latino subpopulation groups using data from the 2013–2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Findings: Asian and Latino subpopulations used health care services less frequently than the white population. Although certain low‐value services were reported less among Asian and Latino subpopulations, there were no differences in almost 6 out of 12 services when compared to the white population. These patterns were notable among Asian subpopulations (Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, and other Asians). Additionally, Asian and Latino subpopulation groups had distinct patterns in the use of low‐value care. Compared to the white population, Asian subpopulation groups had lower utilization of low‐value medications including benzodiazepines for depression and opioids for back pain. Latino subpopulation groups had higher utilization of low‐value cervical cancer screening and lower utilization of magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography for back pain than the white population.

Despite lower overall health care utilization, Asian and Latino subpopulations do not necessarily use the low‐value care examined in this study less than the white population. This suggests that lower overall health care utilization among Asian and Latino subpopulations may not solely be attributed to lower use of low‐value care.