The author discusses how state and federal governments have for decades shared responsibility for funding public health care through programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as through federal grants. However, recent cuts to federal health and safety net programs mandated in legislation, such as H.R. 1, will weaken the country's future response to crises such as pandemics and natural disasters, and leave states to bear a bigger share of the cost. As a result fewer people will have access to health care or nutrition benefits. The author says that the short-term funding that immediately addressed the COVID-19 pandemic stabilized family incomes, insurance coverage, food availability, and nonprofit support organizations. Long-term interventions by governments could have replicated those short-term efforts, and supported broad health and economic improvements, Instead, under legislation such as H.R. 1, program funding has been cut, and the opportunity has been lost. 

This article introduces a special section in the American Journal of Public Health about health and social policy changes driven by the urgency of the pandemic.

Many Latino immigrants avoid public benefits because of fears about their immigration status or that of family members, which is heightened by anti-immigration rhetoric. This study used data from the Latino Youth Health Study and the 2021–2022 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to examine decisions not to apply for noncash public benefits, such as Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, as well as safety perceptions among income-eligible Latino families in California. Authors also analyzed differences by parental citizenship and household language. 

Findings: Compared to families with two U.S. citizen parents, families with one or both noncitizen parents were more likely (by 38.4 and 46.7 percentage points, respectively) to avoid applying for benefits because of immigration-related concerns, and such families were also more likely to fear deportation for themselves or a family member or close friend. Spanish-only and bilingual households showed similar patterns. These findings underscore the need for accurate information on public benefit eligibility and immigration policies to ensure that immigrant families can access health care and resources to which they are legally entitled.

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. 

This study examines health care access, utilization, and experiences among Latino children in California by parental citizenship and household language analyzing merged data from the 2021–2022 California Health Interview Survey and the follow-up Latino Youth Health Study of the same years. Primary outcomes were parental reports of children's health care access, utilization, and experiences in the past year. The main predictors were variables stratified by parental citizenship status (both citizen parents versus one citizen and one noncitizen parent versus both noncitizen parents) and household language (English-only versus English and Spanish versus Spanish-only). Multivariable analyses adjusted for parental education, family income, parent-reported child's health status, child's age, and child's insurance.

Findings: Findings showed no significant differences in health care access across groups. However, children with both noncitizen parents and from Spanish-only households were more likely to have had well-child visits and general doctor visits than children with both citizen parents and in English-only households. Additionally, parents of children with both noncitizen parents were more likely to feel respected by doctors than those with both citizen parents. Conversely, compared to parents with both citizen parents, parents of children with one citizen and one noncitizen parent were less likely to report that doctors spent enough time with their children and less likely to express high satisfaction with their children's health care.

Patterns of health care access, utilization, and experiences among Latino children in immigrant families in California are improving, which are likely associated with recent inclusive health policies in the state.