Expanded health insurance coverage for pregnant immigrant women who are in the United States lawfully as well as those who are in the country without documentation may address barriers in access to pregnancy-related care. We present new evidence on the impact of states' public health insurance expansions for pregnant immigrant women (both state-funded and expansions under the Children's Health Insurance Program) on their prenatal care use, mode of delivery, and infant health. Our quasi-experimental design compared changes in immigrant women's outcomes in states expanding coverage to changes in outcomes for nonimmigrant women in the same state and to women in nonexpanding states. We found that prenatal care use increased among all immigrant women following coverage expansion and that cesarean section increased among immigrant women with less than a high school diploma. We found no effects on the incidence of low birthweight, preterm birth, being small for gestational age, or infant death. State public insurance programs that cover pregnant immigrant women appear to have improved prenatal care utilization without observable changes in infant health or mortality.

Introduction Refugees often face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to their disproportionate representation in the essential workforce and crowded household conditions. There is a paucity of data about risk factors for under-immunization for COVID-19 among refugees. Methods Refugees were surveyed in two phases that corresponded to before and after wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Participants were asked about their attitudes, and perceptions about COVID-19, previous acceptance of vaccines, sources utilized to obtain trusted health information, and intent to get vaccinated. The overall participant vulnerability was assessed using the social vulnerability index. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with key stakeholders through snowball sampling. Results Of 247 refugees, 244 agreed to participate in the initial survey. Among those, 140 (57.4%) intended to get vaccinated, 43 (17.6%) were unsure, and 61 (25%) did not intend to get vaccinated. In the follow up survey, all 215 who were reached, agreed to provide information about their vaccination status. Among those respondents, 141 (65.6%) were either vaccinated or expressed intent to do so, and 74 (34.4%) remained hesitant. We did not observe any significant correlation between socio-demographic variables, country of origin, and vaccination status/intent. Among those who initially intended to get vaccinated, nearly 1 in 5 changed their mind and decided to forego vaccination, and among those who initially did not plan getting vaccinated, 1 in 3 changed their mind and got vaccinated. Fears related to the vaccine, concerns that the vaccine is religiously prohibited, “wait and see” how others did with the vaccine, communication and transportation barriers were commonly cited as reason not to get vaccinated. Conclusions Over a third of refugees in our study were hesitant to get vaccinated. Refugees desired additional education about the benefits and safety of vaccines along with easier access to vaccination clinics in their communities.

Background: Informed consent requirements generally require a lengthy process and signed documentation for patients to participate in clinical research. With growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), whereby patients receive approved (nonexperimental) medicines for their medical condition, questions have been raised whether the same consent requirements should apply. Little input from patients has been part of these debates. Methods: We conducted two "deliberative engagement sessions" with patients from Johns Hopkins Community Physicians (JHCP) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Full-day sessions introduced participants to two different CER designs (observational vs. randomized) comparing two antihypertensive medications and three disclosure or consent approaches: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and "General Approval." Sessions consisted of presentations and extensive discussion at small group tables. Pre-and posttest surveys were completed by participants before and after all-day discussions measuring attitudes about research and about each of the three disclosure/ consent options. Results: One hundred thirty-seven adults over age 40 years participated. Attitudes were similar between JHCP and GHS. Participants strongly preferred Opt-In or Opt-Out consent options to General Approval for both observational and randomized designs. For the randomized CER study, 70% liked Opt-In, 65% liked Opt-Out, and 40% liked General Approval. In discussing disclosure/consent options, patients cared most about choice, information, privacy and confidentiality, quality of the research, trust, respect, and impact of the study on patient care. Conclusions: The majority of participants from two different types of health systems liked both Opt-In and Opt-Out approaches for observational and randomized designs for low-risk CER. There were no posttest differences in the proportion liking Opt-In versus Opt-Out. Patients in this study wanted to be told about research and have a choice, but were very open to such disclosures being streamlined. Policymakers may find patients' views about what matters to them in the context of consent and CER relevant.

No abstract