scholarly journals Canadian Health Personnel Attitudes Toward Refugee Claimants’ Entitlement to Health Care

Author(s):  
Cécile Rousseau ◽  
Joanna Anneke Rummens ◽  
Rochelle L. Frounfelker ◽  
Monica Ruiz Casares Yebenes ◽  
Janet Cleveland

AbstractHealth care personnel attitudes toward refugee claimant entitlement to health care are influenced by multilevel factors including institutional and societal culture. Although individual attitudes may be modified through training, macro- and meso-issues require system-level interventions. This paper analyzes the role of individual-, institutional-, and city-level factors in shaping attitudes toward refugee claimants’ access to health care among Canadian health care personnel. A total of 4207 health care personnel in 16 institutions located in Montreal and Toronto completed an online survey on attitudes regarding health care access for refugee claimants. We used multilevel logistic regression analysis to identify individual-, institutional-, and city-level predictors of endorsing access to care. Participants who had prior contact with refugee claimants had greater odds of endorsing access to care than those who did not (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05, 1.21). Attitudes varied with occupation: social workers had the highest probability of endorsing equal access to health care (.83; 95% CI .77, .89) followed by physicians (.77; 95% CI .71, .82). An estimated 7.97% of the individual variation in endorsement of equal access to health care was attributable to differences between institutions, but this association was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for city residence. Results indicate that the contexts in which health care professionals live and work are important when understanding opinions on access to health care for vulnerable populations. They suggest that institutional interventions promoting a collective mission to care for vulnerable populations may improve access to health care for precarious status migrants.

Refuge ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Beatson

A contested issue is the extent to which refugee claimants should have access to health care in Western host countries with publicly subsidized health-care systems. In Canada, for a period of over fifty years, the federal government provided relatively comprehensive health coverage to refugees and refugee claimants through the Interim Federal Health Plan (IFHP). Significant cuts to the IFHP were implemented in June 2012 by the Conservative federal government (2006–15), who justified these cuts through public statements portraying refugee claimants as bring- ing bogus claims that inundate the refugee determination system. A markedly different narrative was articulated by a pan-Canadian coalition of health providers who characterized refugee claimants as innocent victims done further harm by inhumane health-care cuts. This article presents an analysis of these two positions in terms of frame theory, with a greater emphasis on the health-provider position. This debate can be meaningfully analyzed as a contest between competing frames: bogus and victim. Frame theory suggests that frames by nature simplify and condense, in this case packaging complex realities about refugee claimants into singular images (bogus and victim), aiming to inspire suspicion and compassion respectively. It will be argued that the acceptance of current frames impoverishes the conversation by reinforcing problematic notions about refugee claimants while also obscuring a rights-based argument for why claimants should have substantial access to health care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document