Immigrant legal status determines access to the rights and privileges of U.S. society. Legal status may be conceived of as a fundamental cause of health, producing a health disparity whereby unauthorized immigrants are disadvantaged relative to authorized immigrants, a perspective that is supported by research on legal status disparities in self-rated health and mental health. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on legal status disparities in physical health and examined whether a legal status disparity exists in chronic conditions and musculoskeletal pain among 17,462 Mexican-born immigrants employed as farm workers in the United States and surveyed in the National Agricultural Workers Survey between 2000 and 2015. We found that unauthorized, Mexican-born farm workers have a lower incidence of chronic conditions and lower prevalence of pain compared with authorized farm workers. Furthermore, we found a legal status gradient in health whereby naturalized U.S. citizens report the worst health, followed by legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants. Although inconsistent with fundamental cause theory, our results were robust to alternative specifications and consistent with a small body of existing research on legal status disparities in physical health. Although it is well known that Mexican immigrants have better-than-expected health outcomes given their social disadvantage, we suggest that an epidemiologic paradox may also apply to within-immigrant disparities by legal status. We offer several explanations for the counterintuitive result.

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests risk of cognitive impairment is declining in high-income countries. Much of this research uses longitudinal surveys in which learning over repeated tests may bias results. We analyze trends in cognitive impairment in the United States, accounting for prior test experience and selective mortality. Methods: We use the Health and Retirement Study, a populationbased, nationally representative panel dataset and include individuals ages 50 years and older in 1996-2014 (n = 32,784). We measure cognitive impairment and dementia using standard cutpoints of the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. We estimate logistic regression models for any impairment and dementia over time, adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, comparing models with and without adjustment for practice effects and education. We examine heterogeneity in trends by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education. Results: Models not controlling for test experience suggest that risk of cognitive impairment and dementia decreased over the study period. Controlling for test experience reverses the trend. In our primary models, prevalence of any cognitive impairment increased for women from 18.7% to 21.2% (annual change 0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%, 1.3%) and for men from 17.6% to 21.0% (annual change 1.0%, CI, 0.5%, 1.4%). For dementia, women's annual increase was 1.7% (CI, 0.8%, 2.6%) and men's 2.0% (CI, 1.0%, 2.9%). If not for education, the increase would have been stronger. Increased risk was particularly rapid for Latinas, the least educated, and older ages. Conclusions: Risk of cognitive impairment increased from 1996 to 2014. Uncovering determinants of increasing cognitive impairment risk should become a research priority. See video abstract: http://links.lww.com/EDE/B702.

No abstract