Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of General Internal Medicine logoLink to Journal of General Internal Medicine
. 2022 Jul 26;38(3):592–599. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07690-3

Access to Care Among Adults with Limited English Proficiency

Natalia Ramirez 1,2, Kewei Shi 1, K Robin Yabroff 1, Xuesong Han 1, Stacey A Fedewa 1, Leticia M Nogueira 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9971409  PMID: 35882706

Abstract

Background

There are approximately 25.6 million individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the USA, and this number is increasing.

Objective

Investigate associations between LEP and access to care in adults.

Design

Cross-sectional nationally representative survey.

Participants

Adults with (n = 18,908) and without (n = 98,060) LEP aged ≥ 18 years identified from the 2014–2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

Main Measures

Associations between LEP and access to healthcare and preventive services were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by age group (18–64 and ≥ 65 years). The official government definition of LEP (answers “not at all/not well/well” to the question “How well do you speak English?”) was used. Access to care included having a usual source of care (and if so, distance from usual source of care, difficulty contacting usual source of care, and provision of extended hours), visiting a medical provider in the past 12 months, having to forego or delay care, and having trouble paying for medical bills. Preventive services included blood pressure and cholesterol check, flu vaccination, and cancer screening.

Key Results

Adults aged 18–64 years with LEP were significantly more likely to lack a usual source of care (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.27–2.70), not have visited a medical provider (aOR = 2.02; CI = 1.89–2.16), and to be overdue for receipt of preventive services, including blood pressure check (aOR = 2.00; CI = 1.79–2.23), cholesterol check (aOR = 1.22; CI = 1.03–1.44), and colorectal cancer screening (aOR = 1.58; CI = 1.37–1.83) than adults without LEP. Results were similar among adults aged ≥ 65 years.

Conclusions

Adults with LEP had consistently worse access to care than adults without LEP. System-level interventions, such as expanding access to health insurance coverage, providing language services, improving provider training in cultural competence, and increasing diversity in the medical workforce may minimize barriers and improve equity in access to care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07690-3.

KEY WORDS: limited English proficiency, access to care, disparities, health equity

INTRODUCTION

There were approximately 25.6 million individuals living in the USA with limited English proficiency in 2019, an increase of nearly a million from 2010.1,2 Adults with limited English proficiency (LEP) are more likely to face structural barriers in access to healthcare including ineffective patient-physician communication,3–5 inadequate health insurance coverage,1,6,7 lack of usual source of care,1 and worse receipt of preventive services.8

Under federal law and the civil rights provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), healthcare providers receiving federal funds are required to provide equal access to care for individuals with LEP.9,10 Additionally, improving access to healthcare for adults with LEP is a public health priority included in the Healthy People 2030 developing goals.11

Prior studies evaluating the association between LEP and access to healthcare and preventive services were conducted prior to implementation of the ACA.12–15 Among these pre-ACA studies, two used data from nationally representative samples.14,15 One study found individuals with LEP (defined as primary spoken language of Spanish) had more difficulty contacting the healthcare provider by phone or after hours and were less likely to receive preventive health services than English-proficient individuals.14 The other study found that individuals with LEP (defined as choosing to be interviewed in Spanish) were less likely to have a medical visit.15 Other pre-ACA studies evaluating the association between LEP and access to healthcare were restricted to a single state or city.12,13 In California, individuals with LEP (defined as speaking English not well or not at all) were more likely to lack a usual source of care,13 and in Chicago, individuals with LEP (defined as choosing to be interviewed in Spanish) were less likely to receive cardiovascular-disease-related screenings. However, previous studies did not use the official US government definition of LEP (i.e., speaking English less than “very well”) 16 to evaluate the association between LEP and healthcare access.

The present study uses contemporary nationally representative data to test the hypothesis that LEP is associated with worse access to healthcare, including preventive services use.

METHODS

Study Sample

We identified adults aged ≥ 18 years (n = 117,043) from the 2014–2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component, a nationally representative survey of the US civilian non-institutionalized population. The MEPS measures health insurance coverage, access to care and utilization, as well as demographic characteristics and health history. Annual response rates ranged from 44 to 49% during the study period, and interviews were conducted in Spanish and English.17 All data used were publicly available and deidentified; thus, Institutional Review Board approval was not required for this study.

Survey respondents without information on English proficiency were excluded (n = 75).

Measures

The exposure of interest, LEP, was based on the question “How well do you speak English?” asked if the participant reported speaking a language other than English at home, and then dichotomized into speaking English “Well/Not well”/“Not at all” or speaking English “Very well,” as per US government official definition.16 In sensitivity analysis, we evaluated each category of English proficiency separately. Sociodemographic characteristics included age (continuous), sex, education (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college or more), marital status (currently married yes/no), region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, other), family income (< 138%, 139–400%, > 400% of federal poverty level), employment (employed vs. unemployed/not in the labor force), health insurance coverage type (18–64: any private, public only, uninsured; ≥ 65 Medicare only, Medicare and private, Medicare and other public, no Medicare but has other public/private, uninsured) and coverage continuity (insured all year, uninsured part of the year, uninsured all year), whether the adult was born in the USA, body mass index (< 25 kg/m2, 25–30 kg/m2, ≥ 30 kg/m2), and is a person who currently smokes. All measures were self-reported.

We evaluated the study outcome, access to care, with multiple measures classified with an adaptation of Anderson and Aday’s behavioral model of access to health care to reflect the distinction between perceived and realized access to care.18,19 Perceived access to care included questions about having a usual source of care, having trouble paying for medical bills, and having to forego or delay medical care, dental care, or prescription medication. The analysis of usual source of care experiences was restricted to adults reporting a usual source of care and included distance from usual source of care, difficulty contacting usual source of care by phone, and late and weekend hours provided. Survey year 2018 was excluded for the delay in medical care measure because the survey question phrasing changed and was not comparable to previous years. Realized access to care included visiting a medical provider in the past 12 months and receipt of preventive services among eligible individuals. Eligibility for each preventive service was defined according to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)20 and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations.21 Respondents with a history of the condition related to the preventive service were excluded (Supplemental Table 1). Preventive services included blood pressure check, cholesterol check, and flu vaccination, as well as cervical (Pap smear), breast (mammogram), and colorectal cancer (blood stool test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy) screening. The year of the USPSTF recommendation, level of evidence (grade), number of eligible participants included in the study, the exact wording of the MEPS questionnaire for each preventive service, and timing of the services are listed in Supplemental Table 1. Survey years 2017 and 2018 were excluded for preventive services measures because the survey question phrasing and frequency changed and was not comparable to previous years.

Statistical Analysis

Relevant sociodemographic characteristics of adults with and without LEP were compared using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. All analyses were stratified by age group (18–64 years, ≥ 65 years) because adults ≥ 65 years old are age-eligible for Medicare coverage. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between LEP and access to care controlling for survey year and sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, education, marital status, and region) selected a priori as potential confounders according to the definition of disparity in access to health services used by the Healthy People 2030 (i.e., differences in access to health care that are not due to differences in underlying health-care needs or preferences).22,23 Therefore, we chose not to adjust for socioeconomic status or health insurance coverage.24 All estimates were weighted to account for MEPS complex survey design and nonresponses. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). All tests were two-sided at the significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Adults with LEP made up 9% of the study population, 22.7 million adults in 2018, and were more likely to be female, have lower educational attainment, self-identify as Hispanic or other race, and be married than adults without LEP (Table 1). Adults with LEP were less likely to smoke, be born in the USA, live in the Midwest, be employed at the time of the interview, be insured throughout the year, and have private health insurance coverage than adults without LEP (Table 1). Women and individuals who self-identified as being Hispanic, with lower educational attainment and lower income, who resided in the South, and who reported being uninsured all year were overrepresented among those who reported higher levels of LEP (Supplemental Table 2).

Table 1.

Participants’ Characteristics by Age Group and Limited English Proficiency (LEP), MEPS 2014–2018

18–64 years old 65 years old and older
LEP (n = 15,753) EP (n = 78,399) LEP (n = 3,155) EP (n = 19,661)
Characteristics W% (n = 91,565,356) W% (n = 891,477,736) P value W% (n = 20,019,086) W% (n = 22,9224,567) P value
Sex 0.6472 0.0012
  Male 48.9 49.2 41.3 45.2
  Female 51.1 50.8 58.7 54.8
Age, years < .0001 0.0639
  18–26 8.8 20.7 – –
  27-34 17.1 17.8 – –
  35-44 27.3 19.7 – –
  45-54 27.1 20.7 – –
  55-64 19.6 21.2 – –
  65-74 – – 55.8 59.0
  >74 – – 44.2 41.0
Race and ethnicity < .0001 < .0001
  Hispanic 70.5 12.5 56.9 4.0
  NH White 6.4 65.6 9.9 81.9
  NH Black 3.8 13.5 2.2 9.6
  Othera 19.2 8.4 31.1 4.5
Education < .0001 < .0001
  < High school 43.3 9.3 50.0 11.7
  High school 32.7 39.0 25.5 41.8
  ≥ Some college 24.0 51.6 24.6 46.6
Income < .0001 < .0001
  ≤ 138% FPL 32.0 15.9 37.0 15.6
  139–400% FPL 49.6 37.4 41.8 40.1
  > 400% FPL 18.4 46.7 21.2 44.3
Currently marriedb 61.9 50.1 < .0001 54.4 56.2 0.3301
Region < .0001 < .0001
  Northeast 17.1 17.7 22.3 18.2
  Midwest 10.5 21.9 6.8 22.8
  South 36.8 37.6 34.3 37.8
  West 35.7 22.8 36.5 21.1
Employedc 76.5 82.1 < .0001 19.5 24.3 0.0004
Non-US Born 91.6 10.7 < .0001 92.6 7.0 < .0001
Years living in the USAd < .0001 < .0001
  < 1 year 0.4 0.3 0.9 –
  1-5 years 9.4 5.3 2.7 0.7
  6-10 years 14.0 11.1 5.2 1.2
  11-15 years 18.6 12.8 6.6 2.0
  > 15 years 57.6 70.4 84.6 96.1
Current smoker 8.1 17.0 < .0001 6.1 8.5 0.0054
Body mass index < .0001 0.0029
  < 25 kg/m2 31.4 34.7 37.4 33.0
  25–30 kg/m2 36.6 32.2 35.9 36.0
  ≥ 30 kg/m2 27.1 31.4 23.7 29.2
  Missing 4.9 1.8 3.0 1.7
Health insurance continuity < .0001 < .0001
  Uninsured all year 33.8 8.9 4.0 0.1
  Partially insured all year 14.8 11.7 4.2 1.8
  Insured all year 51.4 79.4 91.9 98.1
Health insurance coverage type < .0001 < .0001
  < 65 any private 44.4 76.7 – –
  < 65 public only 21.8 14.4 – –
  < 65 uninsured 33.8 8.9 – –
  65+ Medicare only – – 30.6 34.3
  65+ Medicare and private – – 16.9 56.1
  65+ Medicare and other public only – – 46.3 8.4
  65+ uninsured – – 4.0 0.1
  65+ no Medicare and any other public/private – – 2.3 1.1
Open in a new tab

W weighted, LEP limited English proficiency, EP English proficient, NH non-Hispanic, FPL federal poverty level

aOther group is made up of the race group “non-Hispanic Asian only” and “non-Hispanic other race or multiple race.” The Asian race makes up 99% of this category for the adults with the LEP group and 50% for the adults without LEP

bMissing coded as other

cEmployed or unemployed/out of the labor force

dUS-born individuals were excluded

Perceived Access to Care

As shown in Table 2, nearly half (42.7%) of adults aged 18–64 years with LEP lacked a usual source of care provider, compared to approximately a third (27.4%) of adults without LEP (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] = 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.27–2.70 and ≥ 65 years: aOR = 1.61; CI = 1.28, 2.02 ). Among adults aged 18–64 years who reported having a usual source of care, having LEP was associated with having a difficult time contacting the usual source of care by phone during normal (aOR = 1.22; CI = 1.10–1.36) and after hours (aOR = 1.66; CI = 1.50–1.84). Among adults aged ≥ 65 years with a usual source of care, those with LEP were also more likely to have difficulty contacting the usual care source after hours (aOR = 1.27; CI = 1.04–1.54) and for the usual source of care to be more than 30 min away (aOR = 1.29; CI = 1.01–1.65) than adults without LEP (Table 2). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses where outcomes were analyzed according to more detailed English proficiency categories (English proficient vs. speaks English “well,” “not well,” or “not at all”). Individuals who reported speaking English “well,” “not well,” or “not at all” reported worse perceived access to care compared to those who were proficient, with individuals who reported speaking English “not at all” three times more likely to lack a usual source of care provider (Supplemental Table 3).

Table 2.

Association Between Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and Perceived Access to Care by Age Group, MEPS 2014–2018

18–64 years ≥ 65 years
Perceived access to care LEP EP Crude odds ratio Adjusted odds ratio LEP EP Crude odds ratio Adjusted odds ratio
W% W% W% W%
No usual source of care provider 42.7 27.4 1.98 (1.82, 2.14) 2.48 (2.27, 2.70) 11.3 7.0 1.70 (1.39, 2.07) 1.61 (1.28, 2.02)
Difficulty contacting usual source of care by phonea 19.3 15.2 1.33 (1.21, 1.47) 1.22 (1.10, 1.36) 18.0 16.3 1.13 (0.93, 1.36) 1.06 (0.86, 1.30)
Usual source of care does not offer nights and weekend hoursa 60.2 59.3 1.04 (0.93, 1.15) 1.00 (0.90, 1.12) 65.2 72.0 0.73 (0.61, 0.87) 0.76 (0.63, 0.93)
Difficult to contact usual source of care by phone after hoursa 54.9 41.0 1.75 (1.59, 1.93) 1.66 (1.50, 1.84) 46.2 39.1 1.34 (1.12, 1.60) 1.27 (1.04, 1.54)
Usual source of care more than 30 min awaya 10.7 9.4 1.15 (0.97, 1.36) 1.12 (0.94, 1.35) 14.0 10.4 1.41 (1.12, 1.77) 1.29 (1.01, 1.65)
Unable to get or delayed any necessary medical care, dental care, or prescription medication 7.9 12.2 0.62 (0.56, 0.68) 0.6 (0.53, 0.67) 12.4 13.0 0.95 (0.78,1.16) 0.94 (0.75, 1.17)
Family having problems paying medical bills 10.1 11.0 0.91 (0.82, 1.01) 0.81 (0.73, 0.90) 9.6 7.4 1.32 (1.07, 1.63) 1.10 (0.81, 1.26)
Open in a new tab

Weighted logistic regression results using adults without limited English proficiency (LEP) as the reference group. Adjusted estimates included age, sex, education, marriage status, region, and survey year in the models. Survey year 2018 was not included for the delay care measure because phrasing of the survey question changed in 2018

W weighted, LEP limited English proficiency, EP English proficient

aAmong those who reported having a usual source of care

Adults aged 18–64 years with LEP were less likely to have problems paying for medical bills (aOR = 0.81; CI = 0.73–0.90) and to delay care (aOR = 0.60; CI = 0.53–0.67) than adults aged 18–64 years without LEP (Table 2 and Supplemental Table 3).

Realized Access to Care

As shown in Table 3, adults with LEP were more likely to not have visited a medical provider in the past year than adults without LEP (18–64 years: aOR = 2.02; CI = 1.89–2.16 and ≥ 65 years: aOR = 1.59; CI = 1.27–1.99). Adults with LEP had worse access to preventive services across multiple measures. Adults aged 18–64 years with LEP were more likely to have had their blood pressure taken more than a year ago or never (aOR = 2.00; CI = 1.79–2.23), to have their cholesterol checked more than 5 years ago or never (aOR = 1.22; CI = 1.03–1.44), to be overdue for receiving a pap-smear test (aOR = 1.25; CI = 1.04, 1.51), colorectal cancer screening (18–64 years: aOR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.37–1.82 and ≥ 65 years: aOR = 1.82; CI = 1.40–2.37), and the flu vaccine (18–64 years: aOR = 1.21; CI = 1.10–1.32 and ≥ 65 years: aOR = 1.33; CI = 1.10–1.60) than adults without LEP (Table 3). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses, where outcomes were analyzed according to more detailed English proficiency categories (English proficient vs. speaks English “well,” “not well,” or “not at all”). Individuals who reported speaking English “well,” “not well,” or “not at all” reported worse realized access to care compared to those who were proficient, with individuals who reported speaking English “not at all” being twice more likely to not have visited a medical provider or had blood pressure checked in the last year (Supplemental Table 4).

Table 3.

Association Between Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and Realized Access to Care by Age Group, MEPS 2014–2016

18–64 years ≥ 65 years
Realized access to care LEP EP Crude odds ratio Adjusted odds ratio LEP EP Crude odds ratio Adjusted odds ratio
W% W% W% W%
No medical provider visits this year 50.0 34.5 1.91 (1.79, 2.02) 2.02 (1.89, 2.16) 14.3 8.3 1.85 (1.51, 2.25) 1.59 (1.27, 1.99)
Blood pressure taken more than a year ago or never 37.3 22.7 2.02 (1.83, 2.24) 2.00 (1.79, 2.23) 14.4 8.2 1.89 (1.27, 2.83) 1.39 (0.89, 2.16)
Cholesterol checked more than 5 years ago or never 26.9 19.9 1.48 (1.29, 1.71) 1.22 (1.03, 1.44) 5.1 4.3 1.21 (0.71, 2.07) 0.92 (0.51, 1.68)
No colorectal screening 56.8 39.5 2.01 (1.78, 2.28) 1.58 (1.37, 1.82) 36.8 21.2 2.16 (1.73, 2.70) 1.82 (1.40, 2.37)
No blood stool test in the past year 83.4 90.6 0.52 (0.43, 0.62) 0.63 (0.50, 0.78) 76.4 84.4 0.60 (0.47, 0.77) 0.68 (0.51, 0.90)
No colonoscopy in the last 10 years 65.9 43.3 2.54 (2.23, 2.89) 1.85 (1.61, 2.13) 44.9 25.4 2.40 (1.93, 2.97) 1.94 (1.49, 2.52)
No sigmoidoscopy in the last 5 years 96.0 97.1 0.72 (0.55, 0.96) 0.83 (0.59, 1.16) 92.3 95.1 0.61 (0.43, 0.87) 0.71 (0.47, 1.06)
Flu vaccine more than a year ago or never 67.0 61.4 1.28 (1.17, 1.39) 1.21 (1.10, 1.32) 35.1 27.9 1.40 (1.19, 1.64) 1.33 (1.10, 1.60)
No Pap smear test in the last 3 years 17.2 12.8 1.41 (1.23, 1.62) 1.25 (1.04, 1.51) – – – –
No mammogram in the last 2 years 24.9 22.3 1.16 (0.94, 1.42) 0.90 (0.70, 1.17) 22.2 20.0 1.14 (0.84, 1.56) 0.87 (0.60, 1.28)
Open in a new tab

Weighted logistic regression results using adults without limited English proficiency (LEP) as the reference group. Adjusted estimates included age, sex, education, marriage status, region, and survey year in the model. Survey years 2017 and 2018 not included in use of preventive services models because in 2017 the phrasing and frequency of the preventive services questions changed

W weighted, LEP limited English proficiency, EP English proficient

DISCUSSION

In this large nationally representative contemporary study, we found that 9% of adults in the USA with LEP, 22.7 million people in 2018, experienced worse access to care than adults without LEP. Adults with LEP were more likely to lack a usual source of care and be overdue for receipt of preventive services, even after implementation of the health insurance coverage and civil rights provisions of the ACA.

Our findings of worse realized access to care, such as not visiting a healthcare provider in the last year and being overdue for receipt of preventive services, were consistent with studies conducted pre-ACA,14,15 and extend previously reported higher emergency department visits and hospitalizations, highlighting unmet healthcare needs among adults with LEP.25 Our finding of better perceived access to care among adults with LEP, such as being less likely to report delays in access to health care, is also consistent with findings from previous studies.14,26 The apparent discrepancy between worse realized and better perceived access to care might be explained by fewer interactions with the healthcare system among individuals with LEP or by sociocultural heterogeneity leading to differences in health status perception, in which different population groups perceive their healthcare needs differently.27–29 Combined, these findings could explain why adults with LEP, who are less likely to interact with the healthcare system, were also less likely to report having problems paying medical bills compared to English-proficient adults in this study. Of note, among individuals ≥ 65 years of age, who have greater medical needs and are more likely to interact with the healthcare system, adults with LEP were more likely to report having problems paying for medical bills than adults ≥ 65 without LEP, and there were no differences in delaying necessary care.

Importantly, for both age groups, adults with LEP had higher percentages of uninsurance and health insurance coverage disruptions (uninsured for part of the year) compared to adults without LEP, with individuals with higher LEP experiencing worse health insurance coverage. These high levels of uninsurance and health insurance coverage disruptions are particularly striking and concerning as health insurance coverage is one of the most important modifiable factors determining access to health care.30,31 Due to legal and policy contexts governing access to resources, adults with LEP, who are less likely to be US-born, are subjected to stricter health insurance coverage eligibility requirements and exposed to greater complexity and administrative burden in determining eligibility and acquiring and maintaining health insurance coverage.32 For example, some immigration documentation types are excluded from the health insurance coverage provisions of the ACA,33 and Medicare and Medicaid coverage eligibility is only available 5 years after obtaining permanent resident documentation.32

In addition to health insurance coverage policies, previous studies have shown that language concordance between provider and patient is associated with effective patient-provider communication, use of preventive services, and health outcomes in individuals with LEP.3,34–36 In the absence of language concordance or professional interpretation services, adults with LEP have longer hospital stays, greater risk on in-hospital infections, falls, pressure ulcers, surgical delays, and readmissions.37,38 Providers may also be less likely to recommend preventive services or cancer screening to adults with LEP.3 For example, in study using data from the 1988 Breast Cancer Screening Consortium survey, providers were less likely to discuss and recommend mammography screening with patients whose preferred language was Spanish.39 Additional evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey found that providers were more than twice more likely to recommend Pap smear to English-proficient women compared to women with LEP.40 Several strategies for increasing language and cultural competence of the healthcare workforce have been proposed including increasing recruitment of students, residents, and physicians from diverse backgrounds and promoting high-quality medical language courses.41,42

Individuals with LEP have the legal right to access health care in their preferred language,9,10 although this legislation has not been appropriately enforced.43,44 Providers often have language services available, but may choose not to use professional language services due to provider under-valuing communication and rationalizing substandard care for patients with LEP,45 lack of training on how to use interpreters,46,47 or lack of reimbursement for medical interpretation.48,49 Establishing healthcare delivery and financing systems that improve access to effective patient-provider communication through professional language assistance services that follow national standards,48,50 and reinstituting language provisions of the ACA (which required covered health entities to provide taglines informing individuals with LEP about the availability of language assistance services free of charge),51 is crucial for addressing disparities in access to healthcare.37,52,53

Lack of diversity in the physician workforce also impedes effective patient-provider communication, not only through scarcity of language concordance, but also due to providers’ lack of cultural competence and ability to demonstrate trustworthiness. A randomized study found that African American men were more likely to undergo preventives services, particularly those which were invasive, once they met in person with a racially concordant doctor,54 emphasizing the importance of diversity in improving the ability of the physician workforce to demonstrate trustworthiness. Statistics from the Association of American Medical College indicate that as of July 1, 2019, among active physicians in the United States, only 5.6% were Hispanic; 5.0%, African American; and 17.1%, Asian.55 Additionally, policy and cultural contexts on immigration and enforcement activities can further complicate the ability of healthcare providers to demonstrate trustworthiness.56–59

Strengths of this study include contemporary nationally representative data, use of the government’s definition of LEP (which facilitates comparison with other studies and published government statistics), evaluation of different LEP levels in sensitivity analyses, inclusion of all adults with and without LEP (no exclusion criteria on racial/ethnic group), and separately investigating the association between LEP and access to healthcare for both 18–64- and ≥ 65-year-old adults, who differ in age eligibility for Medicare coverage. Our study also has several limitations. First, the MEPS relies on self-reported information, which may lead to recall bias. However, self-reporting of mammography in other studies has been shown to be a reliable measure,60 and we chose the most lenient cancer screening criteria recommended to minimize recall bias. Second, adults with LEP could be more likely to decline survey participation and/or answering the language proficiency question, which could lead to underestimation of disparities. However, in this study, few participants (0.06%) did not answer the language proficiency question. Third, we are not able to evaluate how different state- and local-level policies contribute to disparities in access to healthcare by English proficiency because public use MEPS data do not allow for state- or local-level estimates. Finally, we were not able to account for type of immigration documentation as the MEPS does not collect this information.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with LEP are less likely to have health insurance coverage, have a usual source of care, or receive preventive services, compared to English-proficient adults. Efforts to reduce barriers to care disproportionately experienced by adults with LEP, such as facilitating access to effective patient-provider communication, improving cultural competence and increasing diversity in the healthcare workforce, and expanding access to health insurance coverage, are crucial for addressing this disparity. Future research should evaluate the relative contribution of different factors, including reimbursement and regulatory policies governing provision of language services, institutional and provider practices determining access to effective patient-provider communication, and immigration documentation types to the association between LEP and worse access to care.

Supplementary information

ESM 1 (51.8KB, docx)

(DOCX 51 kb)

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Natalia Ramirez, Stacey A. Fedewa, Leticia M. Nogueira, K. Robin Yabroff, and Xuesong Han have no conflict of interest.

Financial Disclosure

Natalia Ramirez has no financial disclosure. Stacey A. Fedewa has no financial disclosures. K. Robin Yabroff serves on the Flatiron Health Equity Advisory Board. Xuesong Han received research support from AstraZeneca for an unrelated project. Leticia M. Nogueira has no financial disclosures.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Foiles Sifuentes AM, Robledo Cornejo M, Li NC, Castaneda-Avila MA, Tjia J, Lapane KL. The role of limited english proficiency and access to health insurance and health care in the Affordable Care Act Era. Health equity. 2020;4(1):509–517. doi: 10.1089/heq.2020.0057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.American Community Survey. DP02 - selected social characteristics in the United States. In: Bureau USC, ed2019.
  • 3.Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Katz SJ, Welch HG. Is language a barrier to the use of preventive services? Journal of general internal medicine. 1997;12(8):472–477. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00085.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Berdahl TA, Kirby JB. Patient-provider communication disparities by limited English Proficiency (LEP): trends from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006-2015. Journal of general internal medicine. 2019;34(8):1434–1440. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4757-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wilson E, Chen AH, Grumbach K, Wang F, Fernandez A. Effects of limited English proficiency and physician language on health care comprehension. Journal of general internal medicine. 2005;20(9):800–806. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0174.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kilbourne AM. Care without coverage: too little, too late. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2005;97(11):1578. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lines LM, Urato M, Halpern MT, Subramanian S. Insurance coverage and preventive care among adults. 2014. [PubMed]
  • 8.Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher MP, Saver BG. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample. Medical care. 2002;40(1):52–59. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200201000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Clinton WJ. Executive Order 13166--Improving access to services for persons with limited english proficiency. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. 2000;36(32):1852–1853. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.US Department of Health Human Services. Section 1557: Ensuring meaningful access for individuals with limited English proficiency. In: 2018.
  • 11.Healthy People 2030. Increase the proportion of adults with limited English proficiency who say their providers explain things clearly US Department of Health and Human Services,. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/health-communication/increase-proportion-adults-limited-english-proficiency-who-say-their-providers-explain-things-clearly-hchit-d11. Published 2021. Accessed 11/03/2021.
  • 12.Jurkowski JM, Johnson TP. Acculturation and cardiovascular disease screening practices among Mexican Americans living in Chicago. Ethnicity & disease. 2005;15(3):411–417. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ponce NA, Hays RD, Cunningham WE. Linguistic disparities in health care access and health status among older adults. Journal of general internal medicine. 2006;21(7):786–791. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00491.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Smith DL. Health care disparities for persons with limited English proficiency: relationships from the 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Journal of Health Disparities Research Practice. 2009;3(3):4. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shi L, Lebrun LA, Tsai J. The influence of English proficiency on access to care. Ethn Health. 2009;14(6):625–642. doi: 10.1080/13557850903248639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency. Source and methodology. https://www.lep.gov/source-and-methodology. Published 2020. Accessed.
  • 17.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/. Published 2021. Accessed11/03/2021.
  • 18.Andersen R, Aday LA. Access to medical care in the U.S.: realized and potential. Medical care. 1978;16(7):533–546. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197807000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yabroff KR, Short PF, Machlin S, et al. Access to preventive health care for cancer survivors. American journal of preventive medicine. 2013;45(3):304–312. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.United States Preventive Services Taskforce. A & B recommendations. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-and-b-recommendations#dag. Published 2021. Accessed 11/03/2021.
  • 21.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. Published 2021. Accessed 11/03/2021.
  • 22.Healthy People 2030. Access to Health Services. Social determinants of health web site. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/access-health-services. Published 2021. Accessed 3/10/22.
  • 23.Nelson A JJotNMA. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. 2002;94(8):666. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 24.Cook BL, McGuire TG, Zaslavsky AM. Measuring racial/ethnic disparities in health care: methods and practical issues. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(3 Pt 2):1232–1254. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01387.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Njeru JW, St Sauver JL, Jacobson DJ, et al. Emergency department and inpatient health care utilization among patients who require interpreter services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:214. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0874-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gulati RK, Hur K. Association between limited English proficiency and healthcare access and utilization in California. Journal of immigrant and minority health. 2021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 27.Shmueli A. Socio-economic and demographic variation in health and in its measures: the issue of reporting heterogeneity. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(1):125–134. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00333-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Damron-Rodriguez J, Frank JC, Enriquez-Haass VL, Reuben DB. Definitions of health among diverse groups of elders: implications for health promotion. Generations-Journal of the American Society on Aging. 2005;29(2):11–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dowd JB, Todd M. Does self-reported health bias the measurement of health inequalities in U.S. adults? Evidence using anchoring vignettes from the Health and Retirement Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011;66(4):478–489. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Call KT, McAlpine DD, Garcia CM, et al. Barriers to care in an ethnically diverse publicly insured population: is health care reform enough? Medical care. 2014;52(8):720–727. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Adunlin G, Cyrus JW, Asare M, Sabik LM. Barriers and facilitators to breast and cervical cancer screening among immigrants in the United States. Journal of immigrant and minority health. 2019;21(3):606–658. doi: 10.1007/s10903-018-0794-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Perreira KM, Crosnoe R, Fortuny K, et al. Barriers to immigrants’ access to health and human services programs. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: ASPE Issue Brief Washington, DC; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.HalthCare.gov. Health coverage for immigrants. https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/coverage/. Published 2021. Accessed.
  • 34.Eamranond PP, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Wee CC. Patient-physician language concordance and primary care screening among Spanish-speaking patients. Medical care. 2011;49(7):668–672. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fernandez A, Schillinger D, Warton EM, et al. Language barriers, physician-patient language concordance, and glycemic control among insured Latinos with diabetes: the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) Journal of general internal medicine. 2011;26(2):170–176. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1507-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ngo-Metzger Q, Sorkin DH, Phillips RS, et al. Providing high-quality care for limited English proficient patients: the importance of language concordance and interpreter use. Journal of general internal medicine. 2007;22(Suppl 2):324–330. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0340-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Betancourt JR, Tan-McGrory A. Creating a safe, high-quality healthcare system for all: meeting the needs of limited English proficient populations; comment on "Patient safety and healthcare quality: the case for language access". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;2(2):91–94. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Divi C, Koss RG, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(2):60–67. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fox SA, Stein JA. The effect of physician-patient communication on mammography utilization by different ethnic groups. Medical care. 1991;29(11):1065–1082. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199111000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.De Alba I, Sweningson JM. English proficiency and physicians’ recommendation of Pap smears among Hispanics. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(3):292–296. doi: 10.1016/j.cdp.2006.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fernández A, Pérez-Stable EJ. ¿Doctor, habla español? Increasing the supply and quality of language-concordant physicians for Spanish-speaking patients. Journal of general internal medicine. 2015;30(10):1394–1396. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3436-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ortega P, Diamond L, Alemán MA, et al. Medical Spanish standardization in U.S. medical schools: consensus statement from a multidisciplinary expert panel. Acad Med. 2020;95(1):22–31. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chen AH, Youdelman MK, Brooks J. The legal framework for language access in healthcare settings: Title VI and beyond. Journal of general internal medicine. 2007;22(Suppl 2):362–367. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0366-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Schenker Y, Pérez-Stable EJ, Nickleach D, Karliner LS. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. Journal of general internal medicine. 2011;26(7):712–717. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1619-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kenison TC, Madu A, Krupat E, Ticona L, Vargas IM, Green AR. Through the veil of language: exploring the hidden curriculum for the care of patients with limited English proficiency. Acad Med. 2017;92(1):92–100. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hsieh E, Kramer EM. Medical interpreters as tools: dangers and challenges in the utilitarian approach to interpreters' roles and functions. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(1):158–162. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Karliner LS, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gildengorin G. The language divide. The importance of training in the use of interpreters for outpatient practice. Journal of general internal medicine. 2004;19(2):175–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30268.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Green AR, Nze C. Language-based inequity in health care: who is the "poor historian"? AMA journal of ethics. 2017;19(3):263–271. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.medu1-1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Diamond LC, Schenker Y, Curry L, Bradley EH, Fernandez A. Getting by: underuse of interpreters by resident physicians. Journal of general internal medicine. 2009;24(2):256–262. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0875-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Basu G, Costa VP, Jain P. Clinicians' obligations to use qualified medical interpreters when caring for patients with limited English proficiency. AMA journal of ethics. 2017;19(3):245–252. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.ecas2-1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Nondiscrimination in health and health education programs or activities, delegation of authority. In: Rights OfC, ed. Fed Regist. Vol 852020:37160-37248.
  • 52.Lindholm M, Hargraves JL, Ferguson WJ, Reed G. Professional language interpretation and inpatient length of stay and readmission rates. Journal of general internal medicine. 2012;27(10):1294–1299. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2041-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Schiaffino MK, Ruiz M, Yakuta M, et al. Culturally and linguistically appropriate hospital services reduce Medicare length of stay. Ethnicity & disease. 2020;30(4):603–610. doi: 10.18865/ed.30.4.603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Alsan M, Garrick O, Graziani G. Does diversity matter for health? Experimental evidence from Oakland. American Economic Review. 2019;109(12):4071–4111. doi: 10.1257/aer.20181446. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Association of American Medical College. Diversity in Medicine: Facts and Figures 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data/figure-18-percentage-all-active-physicians-race/ethnicity-2018. Published 2019. Accessed.
  • 56.Benjamins MR, Whitman S. Relationships between discrimination in health care and health care outcomes among four race/ethnic groups. J Behav Med. 2014;37(3):402–413. doi: 10.1007/s10865-013-9496-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Berk ML, Schur CL. The effect of fear on access to care among undocumented Latino immigrants. J Immigr Health. 2001;3(3):151–156. doi: 10.1023/A:1011389105821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hardy LJ, Getrich CM, Quezada JC, Guay A, Michalowski RJ, Henley E. A call for further research on the impact of state-level immigration policies on public health. American journal of public health. 2012;102(7):1250–1254. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sabo S, Lee AE. The spillover of US immigration policy on citizens and permanent residents of Mexican descent: how internalizing "illegality" impacts public health in the borderlands. Front Public Health. 2015;3:155. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Jacobs EA, Karavolos K, Rathouz PJ, Ferris TG, Powell LH. Limited English proficiency and breast and cervical cancer screening in a multiethnic population. American journal of public health. 2005;95(8):1410–1416. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ESM 1 (51.8KB, docx)

(DOCX 51 kb)

Articles from Journal of General Internal Medicine are provided here courtesy of Society of General Internal Medicine

RESOURCES