Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Sommers BD, Allen H, Bhanja A, Blendon RJ, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Assessment of Perceptions of the Public Charge Rule Among Low-Income Adults in Texas. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2010391. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.10391
In January 2020, the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to implement a new rule regarding the definition of public charge. The rule establishes participation in public programs (Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program [SNAP], and subsidized housing), health status, and income as criteria in determining whether legal immigrants are able to gain permanent residency (green cards). Critics contend that this creates a chilling effect that dissuades individuals from participating in programs or obtaining medical care, even among people outside the policy’s intended scope (such as citizens with immigrant relatives).1 We surveyed low-income adults in Texas, a state with a large immigrant population, to examine perceptions of the public charge rule and its association with program participation and receipt of medical care.
Create a personal account or sign in to: