Objective The present paper investigated the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on food security in Mexico and how it disproportionally affected vulnerable households. Design A generalized ordered logistic regression was estimated to assess the impact of the crisis on households’ food security status. An ordinary least squares and a quantile regression were estimated to evaluate the effect of the financial crisis on a continuous proxy measure of food security defined as the share of a household’s current income devoted to food expenditures. Setting Both analyses were performed using pooled cross-sectional data from the Mexican National Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2008 and 2010. Subjects The analytical sample included 29 468 households in 2008 and 27 654 in 2010. Results The generalized ordered logistic model showed that the financial crisis significantly (P < 0·05) decreased the probability of being food secure, mildly or moderately food insecure, compared with being severely food insecure (OR = 0·74). A similar but smaller effect was found when comparing severely and moderately food-insecure households with mildly food-insecure and food-secure households (OR = 0·81). The ordinary least squares model showed that the crisis significantly (P < 0·05) increased the share of total income spent on food (β coefficient of 0·02). The quantile regression confirmed the findings suggested by the generalized ordered logistic model, showing that the effects of the crisis were more profound among poorer households. Conclusions The results suggest that households that were more vulnerable before the financial crisis saw a worsened effect in terms of food insecurity with the crisis. Findings were consistent with both measures of food security – one based on self-reported experience and the other based on food spending.

IMPORTANCE Housing insecurity induced by evictions may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To estimate the association of lifting state-level eviction moratoria, which increased housing insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study included individuals with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage who lived in a state that issued an eviction moratorium and were diagnosed with COVID-19 as well as a control group comprising an equal number of randomly selected individuals in these states who were not diagnosed with COVID-19. Data were collected from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a database of deidentified administrative claims. The study used a difference-in-differences analysis among states that implemented an eviction moratorium between March 13, 2020, and September 4, 2020.EXPOSURES Time since state-level eviction moratoria were lifted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was a binary variable indicating whether an individual was diagnosed with COVID-19 for the first time in a given week with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code U07.1. The study analyzed changes in COVID-19 diagnosis before vs after a state lifted its moratorium compared with changes in states that did not lift it. For sensitivity analyses, models were reestimated on a 2% random sample of all individuals in the claims database during this period in these states. RESULTSThe cohort consisted of 509 694 individuals (254 847 [50.0%] diagnosed with COVID-19; mean [SD] age, 47.0 [23.6] years; 239 056 [53.3%] men). During the study period, 43 states and the District of Columbia implemented an eviction moratorium and 7 did not. Among the states that implemented a moratorium, 26 (59.1%) lifted their moratorium before the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their national moratorium, while 18 (40.1%) maintained theirs. In a Cox difference-in-differences regression model, individuals living in a state that lifted its eviction moratorium experienced higher hazards of a COVID-19 diagnosis beginning 5 weeks after the moratorium was lifted (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.76; P = .004), reaching an HR of 1.83 (95% CI, 1.36-2.46; P < .001) 12 weeks after. Hazards increased in magnitude among individuals with preexisting comorbidities and those living in nonaffluent and rent-burdened areas. Individuals with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 3 or greater had an HR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.67-3.36; P < .001) at the end of the study period. Those living in nonaffluent areas had an HR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.51-3.05; P < .001), while those living in areas with a high rent burden had an HR of 2.31 (95% CI, 1.64-3.26; P < .001).

No abstract