"Everybody Knows" Is Not a Credible Source on Immigrant Health Care
Published May 16, 2009 @ 12:51PM PT

I’m on a “mythbusting bender” of sorts this weekend. Talk to some people, and they’ll tell you with a straight face that our poor health outcomes as a nation are related to how many immigrants we have. Immigration, we’re told, is to blame for skyrocketing costs and “over-inflating” the number of uninsured number we usually cite. Look into the numbers, though, and surprise – this “everybody knows” theory is blown to smithereens.
Look, sometimes clear falsehoods go unchallenged because people like you and me just don’t know enough. For example, a while back, I compare US health outcomes (good for infrequent but costly interventions, mediocre overall, and terrible for preventable illness) to Canadian health outcomes (pretty good on the costly stuff, very good over all, very good for preventable illness), and a number of commenters jumped on to say you can’t compare Canada and the U.S. because we have more people crossing the border. The charitable folks meant we were a melting pot. The uncharitable folks meant Canada is more “monochromatic,” shall we say (those comments were deleted, per the site policy). Now what I should have done was spend some hours researching this. I didn’t, and that’s my bad.
Luckily, the American Journal of Public Health did my job for me. Looking at the health expenditure data for immigrants and comparing it to that for American-born patients, an article printed in the most recent issue found that, “that immigrants’ medical costs averaged about 14% to 20% less than those who were US born.”
Now you might jump to the conclusion that this is because the immigrant population is disproportionately uninsured or might have complications getting insurance because of their status, and that they’re just not showing up at the hospital or doctor’s office. First, this would make them, basically, a miracle segment of the population. Your health conditions don’t disappear because you don’t have insurance, and the uninsured generally have higher per-head costs than the insured for the simple fact that if they forgo care, they ultimately have to get much more expensive treatment and interventions later on. Second, it turns out these lower cost rations are true even when the person is fully insured. In fact, try this jaw-dropping statistic out for size: “Approximately 44% of recent immigrants and 63% of established immigrants were fully insured over the 12-month period analyzed.” That makes them more at-risk – the national average for everybody is 84% with coverage – but a far cry from the “freeloading” caricature of the talking points. (Keep in mind that this data was collected in 2003 and 2004, when there was still a 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants with “green cards” for Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal health services. The recent expansion of SCHIP did away with that description.)
So that’s all immigrants, but what about the undocumented? New England Journal of Medicine has the answers in an article a few years back: “In a study from the RAND Corporation, researchers estimated that undocumented adult immigrants, who make up about 3.2% of the population, account for only about 1.5% of U.S. medical costs.” In case it’s not obvious, that means undocumented workers also make up less of our health care costs. And though there are variances state by state, undocumented workers make up about 20% of the uninsured – meaning that half of those who are in this country to work, even if they don’t have the right paperwork, do have some form of health coverage.
Immigrants as a group have often been America’s scapegoats – and I say this as an Irish-American who 100 years ago would have been told he “need not apply” for jobs. But we’re going to have to find someone else to pick on for our high-cost, underperforming health care system. The evidence doesn’t support it.
(Photo credit: Korean Resource Center on Flickr.)
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Traveling for Care -- Outside the U.S.
-
As Expensive As We Want It to Be
-
Rep. Grayson and the Face of Uncompromising Reform
Comments (5)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















"But we’re going to have to find someone else to pick on for our high-cost, under-performing health care system."
How about big pharma?
Least we ignore the pharmaceutical industry, changes need to be made to the patent system from which they benefit. Patents are government grated privileges to help inventors (in our case, drug companies) recoup the costs of R&D and, more importantly, make huge profits by artificially maintaining the high cost of drugs.
Perhaps patent lives should be shorter, but they were lengthened in the 1990's because clinical trial procedures take so long due to the requirement of three clinical stages: the first to determine safety, the second to determine efficacy, and the third randomized trials to check safety and efficacy. It has been estimated that perhaps 40% of all R&D costs are spent on these trials. Some experts have proposed that the FDA trust patients more, and allow them more freedom to use new drugs by granting approval without the efficacy and randomized stages - this was the situation prior to 1962. At the same time, the FDA can tighten up safety standards, especially by putting resources into following more closely possible side effects over long time periods. Were these suggestions implemented, R&D costs would go down considerably, patent length could be considerably reduced, and companies would have more incentive to invest in finding new drugs.
Then again:
Data from financial reports submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission by nine of the largest U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies show the hollowness of their rationale for exorbitant prices. They cite a 2002 report by Families, USA, which indicated that these companies spent the greatest proportion of their revenues (27 percent) on marketing, advertising and administration. Next came profits at 18 percent a rate of return that almost no other industry expects or can match. Money spent on research and development ran a distant third, at 11 percent of revenues. No matter how hard drug companies spin these numbers, they reveal priorities that serve neither patients nor the general public.
Many new drugs are only minor variants of old ones, and that advertising not only raises the price of drugs, but tends to mislead consumers into taking expensive drugs when cheaper generics would do.
I certainly don't know enough to make an independent judgement. But a convincing defense of the pharmaceutical industry is going to have to take these arguments head-on. What are the finances? How much of this money is actually spent on useful research? Perhaps some rule changes (such as forbidding television advertising) would reduce waste? Unfortunately, a convincing answer to these questions would take more research than is really suitable for a weblog, unless folks already familiar with the industry care to comment.
Posted by Martin Bring on 05/16/2009 @ 01:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lou Dobbs is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to scapegoating undocumented immigrants. The other side of the equation is the people who are happy to employ them. Few suggest cracking down on the latter.
Posted by Martin Bring on 05/17/2009 @ 07:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've said this before on here but I will say it again. I ended up unemployed.. I needed dental work done, I couldn't get health care from DHS , as they sayed to me "it is because you are neither a child,woman or illegal alien.." I think that says enough.. I wish all those that stand up for undocumented workers, or undocumented citizens, or whatever you want to call the "ILLEGAL ALIENS" would stop playing the politically correct game.. I mean they are illegal, they are not citizens to begin with so undocumented citzen is not true, it a change in words to an ends ... "citizen", then all they need is documents. then I guess the world is citizens too... give emm documents..
Posted by Joe Wilson on 05/17/2009 @ 11:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I use the term undocumented immigrants as the term is inclusive of illegal immigrants or "illegal aliens," the latter term being easily applied to U.S. forces in Iraq.
Some illegal immigrants enter a country legally and then overstay or violate their visa. For example, most of the estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada (perhaps as high as 500,000), are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected but who have not yet been ejected from the country.
A related way of becoming an illegal immigrant is through bureaucratic means. For example, a person can be allowed to remain in a country - or be protected from expulsion - because he/she needs special pension for a medical condition, etc., without being able to regularize his/her situation and obtain a work and/or residency permit, let alone naturalization Hence, categories of people being neither "illegal" immigrants nor legal citizens are created, living in a judicial "no man's land". Another example is formed by children of foreigners born in countries observing jus soli ("right of territory"), such as was the case in France till 1994. In that country, it was possible to obtain French nationality if one was born in France before 1994. At present, a french born child of foreign parents does not automatically obtain french nationality until residency duration conditions are met.
Posted by Martin Bring on 05/18/2009 @ 11:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hey - this is Yongho from the Korean Resource Center. That photo is actually from the Associated Press ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/krcla/239351912 ), but we uploaded it to our Flickr to resize it easily..
Posted by Yongho Kim on 05/21/2009 @ 07:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.