Intellectual disability: A quandary for immigration

Current immigration options for individuals with intellectual disabilities do not adequately address their special needs and under existing immigration laws, intellectually disabled adult dependents of United States citizens suffer an excessive burden. This problem causes undue hardship of persons whose families lawfully reside in the United States or have the opportunity to immigrate to the United States. The aim of this review is to examine materials relevant to the issue and answer the question: What are the barriers and pathways for adults with intellectual disability within the family-based preference system under United States immigration law? ^ Adults with intellectual disability are a vulnerable population that often relies upon family members to be their principle caregiver and provide financial support. Under the family-based preference system, the United States has maintained that the reunion of family members with their close relatives promotes the health and welfare of the United States, but a review of the number of findings of inadmissibility due to a mental/physical disorder with associated harmful behavior and the number of waivers granted show otherwise. The lack of reviewability of the decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals in addition to the lack of transparency surrounding the immigration process only serve to compound this problem. ^

Human Trafficking: What is the Role of the Health Care Provider?

The article will address the global and local issue of human trafficking. An estimated 20,000 people are trafficked within the U.S. each year. Trafficked people are forced, defrauded and coerced into labor and sexual service for profit of others. Traffickers use individual vulnerabilities and immigration status, language ability and poor understanding of U.S. laws to identify future victims. One case in 2005 in Texas resulted in 100 victims being identified, none of whom revealed themselves to health care professionals. Health care professionals need contemporary and updated information and resources about health risks, screening methods, and identification of trafficked persons. Readers will learn about common medical problems experienced by individuals who are leaving trafficking situations. Legal and health care intersections will be explored. Implementation of a response protocol to assist those who may currently be enslaved will be introduced. Real case examples from trafficking survivors will be presented and discussed. Participants will learn how to reach out, look beneath the surface, provide assistance, and access resources to help victims, and gain a better understanding of the health challenges faced by trafficked victims.

The effect of immigration status on racial differences in health insurance coverage, access to care, and utilization in the United States

Background. Lack of coverage, lack of access, and failure to utilize health care services have all been linked to dismal health outcomes in the US. Such consequences have been a longstanding challenge that US minorities are faced with, in the context of a health care system believed to be lacking efficiency and equity. National population surveys in the US suggest that the number of uninsured approaches 50 millions, while some concerns and suspicions are raised by opponents to the growing number of foreign born US residents, many of whom are Hispanic. Research shows that race is a significant predictor of lack of coverage, access, and utilization, while age, gender, education, and income are also linked to these outcomes. We investigated the potential effect of immigration status or duration in the US on the association between coverage, access, use, and race. Methods. Using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data of 2006, we selected 22, 667 individuals of Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Non-Hispanic White descent, at least 18 years of age, US-born and foreign-born who reported their duration of residence in the US. Through complex sample survey logistic regression analysis, we computed odds ratios, beta coefficients, and 95% confidence intervals using models which excluded then included immigration status. Results. Although a significant predictor of the outcomes, immigration status did not change the relationship between each of the dependent variables (coverage, access, utilization), and the factor race, while adjusting for age, gender, education, and income. Our results show that Hispanics were least likely to have coverage (OR=.58; 95% CI[.49, .68]), access (OR=.62; 95% CI[.50, .76]), and to utilize services (OR=.60; 95% CI[.46, .79]) followed by Non-Hispanic Blacks, and Non-Hispanic Whites. These results were not changed by stratification, or the inclusion of interaction terms to eliminate the potential effect of relationships between independent variables. Recent immigrants (<5 years in US) were 0.12 times less likely to be insured, but also 0.26 times less likely to utilize services (p<0.001), and in addition they represented only 7.3% of the uninsured and 1.9% of the US population in 2006. Furthermore, 12% of the Non-Hispanic White population in the US was not covered, and 65% of the uninsured individuals were US-Born Citizens. Other predictors of lack of coverage, access and use were age below 45, male gender, education at high school or below, and income of less than $20,000. Conclusion. This investigation shows that the high percentage of uninsured was not directly caused by Hispanics, and immigration status alone could not explain racial differences in coverage, access, and utilization. An immigration reform may not be the solution to the healthcare crisis, and more specifically, will not stop the increase in the number of uninsured in the US, nor reduce the cost of health care. As a better alternative, universal health insu rance coverage should be considered, when aiming to eliminate racial disparities, and to solve the health care crisis. ^ Keywords. health insurance, coverage, access, utilization, race, immigration, disparities.^

Effects of congressional modernization laws on public access to innovative medical device technologies

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) play key roles in making Class III, medical devices available to the public, and they are required by law to meet statutory deadlines for applications under review. Historically, both agencies have failed to meet their respective statutory requirements. Since these failures affect patient access and may adversely impact public health, Congress has enacted several “modernization” laws. However, the effectiveness of these modernization laws has not been adequately studied or established for Class III medical devices. ^ The aim of this research study was, therefore, to analyze how these modernization laws may have affected public access to medical devices. Two questions were addressed: (1) How have the FDA modernization laws affected the time to approval for medical device premarket approval applications (PMAs)? (2) How has the CMS modernization law affected the time to approval for national coverage decisions (NCDs)? The data for this research study were collected from publicly available databases for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2008. These dates were selected to ensure that a sufficient period of time was captured to measure pre- and post-modernization effects on time to approval. All records containing original PMAs were obtained from the FDA database, and all records containing NCDs were obtained from the CMS database. Source documents, including FDA premarket approval letters and CMS national coverage decision memoranda, were reviewed to obtain additional data not found in the search results. Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the pre- and post-modernization laws on time to approval. Secondary analyses of FDA subcategories were conducted to uncover any causal factors that might explain differences in time to approval and to compare with the primary trends. The primary analysis showed that the FDA modernization laws of 1997 and 2002 initially reduced PMA time to approval; after the 2002 modernization law, the time to approval began increasing and continued to increase through December 2008. The non-combined, subcategory approval trends were similar to the primary analysis trends. The combined, subcategory analysis showed no clear trends with the exception of non-implantable devices, for which time to approval trended down after 1997. The CMS modernization law of 2003 reduced NCD time to approval, a trend that continued through December 2008. This study also showed that approximately 86% of PMA devices do not receive NCDs. ^ As a result of this research study, recommendations are offered to help resolve statutory non-compliance and access issues, as follows: (1) Authorities should examine underlying causal factors for the observed trends; (2) Process improvements should be made to better coordinate FDA and CMS activities to include sharing data, reducing duplication, and establishing clear criteria for “safe and effective” and “reasonable and necessary”; (3) A common identifier should be established to allow tracking and trending of applications between FDA and CMS databases; (4) Statutory requirements may need to be revised; and (5) An investigation should be undertaken to determine why NCDs are not issued for the majority of PMAs. Any process improvements should be made without creating additional safety risks and adversely impacting public health. Finally, additional studies are needed to fully characterize and better understand the trends identified in this research study.^