Maria-Elena De Trinidad Young, PhD, MPH, is a faculty associate at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and an assistant professor at UC Merced. Young focuses on the impact of the U.S. immigration system on the health of immigrant populations. Her research examines the relationship between health inequities and factors such as citizenship and legal status and state and local policies. Her current research seeks to understand the various structural, institutional, and individual mechanisms that link policy with health outcomes. 

Young was formerly the project director of the NIH-funded Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study which seeks to understand the experiences of Latino and Asian immigrants in California in the areas of health care, social services, employment, education, and law enforcement and how these experiences have had an impact on their health and access to health care. Young was also the Chancellor’s postdoctoral fellow at UC Merced where she lead a study to examine how media coverage of immigration policy may influence immigrant well-being.

Young earned her PhD in community health sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, where she was a graduate student researcher at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and contributed to the Remaining Uninsured Access to Community Health Centers (REACH) Project. She received a master's degree in public health with an emphasis on maternal and child health from UC Berkeley School of Public Health and an undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.

Discover, Connect:

Explore

The "Disproportionate Costs" of Immigrant Policy on the Health of Latinx and Asian Immigrants
Journal Article
Journal Article

The "Disproportionate Costs" of Immigrant Policy on the Health of Latinx and Asian Immigrants

There is growing evidence that Asian and Latinx immigrants' health and health care access is shaped by immigrant policies that determine their rights, protections, and access to resources and the extent to which they are targeted by policing or deportation based on citizenship/legal status and other immigration-related social categories. However, there is limited population-based evidence of how immigrants experience the direct consequences of policies, nor of the impact of such consequences on their health.

Between 2018 and 2020, researchers conducted the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, developing a population-based survey of Asian and Latinx immigrants in California that measured 23 exclusionary experiences under health care and social services, education, labor/employment, and immigration enforcement policies. Applying Ruth Wilson Gilmore's concept of "disproportionate costs," authors conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) and regression models of the RIGHTS data to 1) describe patterns of immigrant policy exclusion experienced by Asian and Latinx immigrants and 2) test relationships between patterns of policy exclusion and health care access and health status.

LCA analyses identified six classes of distinct combinations of policy exclusions. In regression analyses, respondents in the class with cumulative exclusions across all policy sectors had the worst health care access and highest level of psychological distress, but the best self-rated health, while those in the class with employment and enforcement exclusions also had poor health care access. Respondents in the other three classes experienced combinations of health and social services exclusions, but these alone were not associated with worse outcomes.

Findings: Results show that the consequences of immigrant policies harm health through both cumulative exposure to and intersections of exclusions across policy sectors. Labor/employment and immigration enforcement policies, specifically, likely drive health inequities within immigrant populations. The RIGHTS study highlights the need to measure the cumulative and intersecting "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy within diverse immigrant populations.
 

Persistent Effects of Legal Status on Healthcare Access and Outcomes: Findings from a State-Wide Representative Cross-Sectional Survey in California (BMJ Public Health)
Journal Article
Journal Article

Persistent Effects of Legal Status on Healthcare Access and Outcomes: Findings from a State-Wide Representative Cross-Sectional Survey in California (BMJ Public Health)

Summary: This study examines how legal status and past undocumented status are associated with health care access and health outcomes. Data were collected between 2018 and 2020 as a follow-on, cross-sectional survey to the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). Researchers assess associations between past and current legal status and usual source of care, delayed medical care and psychological distress.

Findings: Overall, 26.2% of the sample had ever been undocumented. Compared with citizens who have always held lawful status (CLS), noncitizens who were previously undocumented and noncitizens who have always held lawful status (NLS) were less likely to have a usual source of care. Citizens who were previously undocumented were more likely to delay medical care compared with CLS. NLS were more likely to have moderate and above distress compared with CLS.

Public health efforts are needed to address the burden of trauma and disadvantage among those experiencing persistent effects of undocumented status.

Read the Publication:

The Legacy of Immigration Policies and Employment Exclusion: Assessing the Relationship Between Employment Exclusions and Immigrant Health
Journal Article
Journal Article

The Legacy of Immigration Policies and Employment Exclusion: Assessing the Relationship Between Employment Exclusions and Immigrant Health

Summary: Restrictive federal and state immigration policies create conditions of employment exclusion that may negatively influence the health of immigrants. In particular, these policy effects are reflected in labor market and workplace experiences that determine the types of work and employment opportunities that immigrants are able to access and pursue.

This study examines the relationship between both cumulative and individual measures of employment exclusion and self-rated health and psychological distress among Asian and Latino immigrants in California, and whether this relationship is modified by legal status. The authors used data from the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) study.

Findings: For individual measures of employment exclusion, settling for a job — a labor market exclusion — and working in a dangerous job and experiencing wage theft — workplace exclusions — were associated with poor health and increased psychological distress. There was no evidence that the association between employment exclusions and health varied by legal status. These findings demonstrate that the combined effect of employment exclusions is detrimental to immigrant health.

To improve population health, public health researchers should continue to interrogate the policy conditions at the federal, state, and local level that exclude immigrants from employment opportunities and workplace protections.

Health Care Access and Utilization and the Latino Health Paradox (Medical Care)
Journal Article
Journal Article

Health Care Access and Utilization and the Latino Health Paradox (Medical Care)

Summary: The Latino health paradox is the phenomenon whereby recent Latino immigrants have, on average, better health outcomes on some indicators than Latino immigrants who have lived in the United States longer and U.S.-born Latinos and non-Latino whites. This study examined whether the paradox holds after accounting for health care access and utilization.

Researchers used 2019–2020 National Health Interview Survey data. The main predictors included population groups of foreign-born and U.S.-born Latinos (Mexican or non-Mexican) versus U.S.-born non-Latino whites. 

Findings: After adjusting for health care access, utilization, and predisposing and enabling factors, foreign-born Latinos, including those living in the United States ≥15 years, had lower predicted probabilities for most health outcomes than U.S.-born non-Latino whites, except overweight/obesity and diabetes. U.S.-born Latinos had higher predicted probabilities of overweight/obesity and diabetes and a lower predicted probability of depression than U.S.-born non-Latino whites.

In this national survey, the Latino health paradox was observed after adjusting for health care access and utilization and predisposing and enabling factors, suggesting that, although these are important factors for good health, they do not necessarily explain the paradox.

Read the Publications:

The "Disproportionate Costs" of Immigrant Policy on the Health of Latinx and Asian Immigrants
Journal Article
Journal Article

The "Disproportionate Costs" of Immigrant Policy on the Health of Latinx and Asian Immigrants

There is growing evidence that Asian and Latinx immigrants' health and health care access is shaped by immigrant policies that determine their rights, protections, and access to resources and the extent to which they are targeted by policing or deportation based on citizenship/legal status and other immigration-related social categories. However, there is limited population-based evidence of how immigrants experience the direct consequences of policies, nor of the impact of such consequences on their health.

Between 2018 and 2020, researchers conducted the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) Study, developing a population-based survey of Asian and Latinx immigrants in California that measured 23 exclusionary experiences under health care and social services, education, labor/employment, and immigration enforcement policies. Applying Ruth Wilson Gilmore's concept of "disproportionate costs," authors conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) and regression models of the RIGHTS data to 1) describe patterns of immigrant policy exclusion experienced by Asian and Latinx immigrants and 2) test relationships between patterns of policy exclusion and health care access and health status.

LCA analyses identified six classes of distinct combinations of policy exclusions. In regression analyses, respondents in the class with cumulative exclusions across all policy sectors had the worst health care access and highest level of psychological distress, but the best self-rated health, while those in the class with employment and enforcement exclusions also had poor health care access. Respondents in the other three classes experienced combinations of health and social services exclusions, but these alone were not associated with worse outcomes.

Findings: Results show that the consequences of immigrant policies harm health through both cumulative exposure to and intersections of exclusions across policy sectors. Labor/employment and immigration enforcement policies, specifically, likely drive health inequities within immigrant populations. The RIGHTS study highlights the need to measure the cumulative and intersecting "disproportionate costs" of immigrant policy within diverse immigrant populations.
 

View All Publications

The Legacy of Immigration Policies and Employment Exclusion: Assessing the Relationship Between Employment Exclusions and Immigrant Health
Journal Article
Journal Article

The Legacy of Immigration Policies and Employment Exclusion: Assessing the Relationship Between Employment Exclusions and Immigrant Health

Summary: Restrictive federal and state immigration policies create conditions of employment exclusion that may negatively influence the health of immigrants. In particular, these policy effects are reflected in labor market and workplace experiences that determine the types of work and employment opportunities that immigrants are able to access and pursue.

This study examines the relationship between both cumulative and individual measures of employment exclusion and self-rated health and psychological distress among Asian and Latino immigrants in California, and whether this relationship is modified by legal status. The authors used data from the Research on Immigrant Health and State Policy (RIGHTS) study.

Findings: For individual measures of employment exclusion, settling for a job — a labor market exclusion — and working in a dangerous job and experiencing wage theft — workplace exclusions — were associated with poor health and increased psychological distress. There was no evidence that the association between employment exclusions and health varied by legal status. These findings demonstrate that the combined effect of employment exclusions is detrimental to immigrant health.

To improve population health, public health researchers should continue to interrogate the policy conditions at the federal, state, and local level that exclude immigrants from employment opportunities and workplace protections.

Persistent Effects of Legal Status on Healthcare Access and Outcomes: Findings from a State-Wide Representative Cross-Sectional Survey in California (BMJ Public Health)
Journal Article
Journal Article

Persistent Effects of Legal Status on Healthcare Access and Outcomes: Findings from a State-Wide Representative Cross-Sectional Survey in California (BMJ Public Health)

Summary: This study examines how legal status and past undocumented status are associated with health care access and health outcomes. Data were collected between 2018 and 2020 as a follow-on, cross-sectional survey to the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). Researchers assess associations between past and current legal status and usual source of care, delayed medical care and psychological distress.

Findings: Overall, 26.2% of the sample had ever been undocumented. Compared with citizens who have always held lawful status (CLS), noncitizens who were previously undocumented and noncitizens who have always held lawful status (NLS) were less likely to have a usual source of care. Citizens who were previously undocumented were more likely to delay medical care compared with CLS. NLS were more likely to have moderate and above distress compared with CLS.

Public health efforts are needed to address the burden of trauma and disadvantage among those experiencing persistent effects of undocumented status.

Read the Publication:

Q&A
Ask the Expert

Three Questions with ​Maria-Elena Young on Community Health Centers

​Maria-Elena Young is a graduate student researcher at the Center and lead author of a new policy brief about how federally qualified health centers, also called community health centers (CHCs), formed partnerships to expand coverage to the uninsured. CHCs are the main providers of health care to 25 million low-income and uninsured people in the U.S. In this brief interview, Young discusses how partnerships increased CHCs' capacity to serve patients and how ongoing attempts to repeal and replace the ACA may undermine these efforts.

Q:  Community health centers gained under the Affordable Care Act. What do they face if the current administration repeals the ACA? How will forming partnerships help?

A Congressional Budget Office report estimated that 19 million Americans would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2026 if the ACA's Medicaid expansion is repealed. Nationally, most CHC patients are insured through Medicaid — including the Medicaid expansion — and the revenue from insured patients allows CHCs to serve those who still lack insurance. So, the loss of Medicaid funding under an ACA repeal is a major threat to CHCs and the people that they serve.

Partnerships could never fill in the gap, but our findings suggest that CHCs and their partners are a key line of defense for protecting safety net services in the health care system. For example, as highlighted by the advocacy work being done in New York State, CHCs around the country are active in making the case for health care funding and speaking up for their patients. We also saw that non-CHC partners, from hospitals to foundations to local government, recognized the value of funding and supporting infrastructure for CHC-led primary care services.

The more momentum there is to make CHCs integral to the overall health care system, the more support, funding and political will there is to ensure that CHCs and their patients are not thrown under the bus to fund tax breaks for the wealthy.

Q:  Instead of competing, your policy brief talks about how some community health centers found success by sharing and collaborating with other CHCs, hospitals and governments. What are some main results?

​Community health centers are mission-driven, which means that they seek partnerships that are not only good financially for their organizations, but that will have the most beneficial impact for the people that they serve. While our results show that CHCs were incentivized to partner with others to support their organizational well-being, they were also driven by their mission of making health care available to everyone. We heard over and over again how important it was to find partners that share the same mission to serve the underserved. To make this happen, it was critical to have the opportunities — and the resources — to build relationships with like-minded organizations.

That said, however, CHCs often have limited budgets for relationship building, so partnerships with non-CHCs, such as hospitals or health departments, were the most successful and most easily facilitated when potential partners had a common challenge that benefited from a team approach. CHCs spent time and resources educating potential partners. Our findings are a reminder that individuals and organizations in other parts of the health care system could support building CHC partnerships.

Q:  If the ACA is left in place, what is the outlook for CHCs? Can the federal government still cut funding?

​If the ACA is left in place, we may see more states expand Medicaid. This would benefit both CHCs and their patients, whether insured or uninsured. The remaining uninsured would have better access to primary care and any needed specialty care. Also by increasing insurance revenue, CHCs can direct resources towards other aspects of their work, such as preventative services or quality improvement, instead of having only enough funding to cover the costs of care for the uninsured. Furthermore, it means more opportunities to expand partnerships. The flexibility in both staffing and financial resources is essential to give CHCs the organizational capacity to develop the innovative types of partnerships that we examined in our policy brief.

The other scenario is that the ACA remains in place but is undermined in order to wreck the program.  If that happens, CHCs will be more crucial than ever to handle the overflow of patients needing care.

Regardless of what happens, CHCs receive funding from the Community Health Center Fund that needs reauthorization from Congress. CHCs have historically had bipartisan support, but CHCs and their partners will continue to have to work to ensure that this funding is maintained.

They have to make the case that their services are critical regardless of what health coverage system we have in place.

View All Blogs

Center in the News

Opinion and Commentary: To improve public health, the entanglement between local sheriffs and ICE agents must end

But studies show that, for immigrant families, the presence of policing, arrests and deportations in their communities does not go hand-in-hand with good physical or mental health. It is destructive to their well-being.

News https://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article264623301.html

View all In the News

Online & In-Person

Partnership Strategies of CHCs: Building Capacity in Good Times and Bad

View All Events

Online

Experiences of Exclusion: How Policy Shapes the Lives of Latinx and Asian Immigrants

In-Person

The Healthiest (and Most Unhealthy) Places to Be an Undocumented Immigrant: A Review of State Health Policies