RESUMEN
Following the 2016 US Presidential election, immigration enforcement became more aggressive, with variation by state and region depending on local policies and sentiment. Increases in enforcement created an environment of risk for decreased use of health care services among especially among Latino families. of Hispanic ethnicity and/or from Latin American origin (as a group subsequently referred to as Latino). For Latino children with chronic health conditions, avoidance of routine health care can result in significant negative health consequences such as disease progression, avoidable use of acute health care services, and overall increased costs of care. To investigate for changes in visit attendance during the periods before and since increased immigration enforcement, we extracted data on children followed by subspecialty clinics of one healthcare system in the US state of North Carolina during 2015-2019. For each patient, we calculated the proportion of cancelled visits and no-show visits out of all scheduled visits during the 2016-2019 follow-up period. We compared patient characteristics (at the 2015 baseline) according to whether they cancelled or did not show to any visits in subsequent years by clinic and patient factors, including ethnicity. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression of attendance at each visit, including an interaction between visit year and patient ethnicity. Among 852 children 1 to 17 years of age (111 of Latino ethnicity), visit no-show was more common among Latino patients, compared to non-Latino White patients; while visit cancellation was more common among non-Latino White patients, compared to Latino patients. There was no significant interaction between ethnicity and trends in visit no-show or cancellation. Although differences in pediatric specialty clinic visit attendance by patient ethnicity were seen at study baseline, changing immigration policy and negative rhetoric did not appear to impact use of pediatric subspecialty care.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reduced access to maternity care in rural areas of the United States presents a significant burden to pregnant persons and infants. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of family physicians (FPs) on access to maternity care in rural United States hospitals, especially where other providers may not be available. METHODS: We administered a survey to 216 rural hospitals in 10 US states inquiring about the number of babies delivered from 2013 to 2017, the types of delivering physicians, and the maternity services offered. We calculated the percentage of rural hospitals in our sample where FPs performed vaginal deliveries, cesareans, and vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs), and the percentage of all babies delivered by FPs. We estimated the distance patients would have to travel for care if FPs were not providing care locally. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 185 rural hospitals. FPs delivered babies in 67% of these hospitals and were the only physicians who delivered babies in 27% of these hospitals. FPs provided VBAC at 18% and cesarean birth services at 46% of the rural hospitals, but with wide geographic differences. Many patients would have to drive an average of 86 miles round-trip to access care if those FPs were to stop delivering. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians are essential providers of maternity care in the rural United States. Family Medicine residency programs should ensure that trainees who intend to practice in rural locations have adequate maternity care training to maintain and expand access to maternity care for rural patients and their families.