Medicare and Medicaid Spend More on Native-Born Americans Than Immigrants
Despite anti-immigrant rhetoric, the foreign-born account for nearly 20 percent less public health spending than those born in America.

When immigration opponents make the case for closing the country's borders, one common argument is the costs that immigrants incur. But recent statistics throw cold water on those claims, finding that the foreign-born actually use fewer public health dollars than people born in the U.S.
"Immigrant households have much higher use of…Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent)" than native-born households, according to a 2015 report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
"Prior research indicates that there are 5.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the country in 2019, accounting for a little over one-fifth of the total population without health insurance," CIS Director of Research Steven Camarota told a congressional subcommittee in January. "The costs of providing care to them likely totals some $7 billion annually," though he admitted that number could be lower since "immigrants in general tend to consume somewhat less health care than the U.S.-born, primarily because they are relatively young."
Not so, says the data.
The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is "a set of large-scale surveys" of Americans and their medical providers that "collects data on the specific health services that Americans use, how frequently they use them, the cost of these services, and how they are paid for," as well as the different ways in which those costs are amortized. MEPS recently released its latest survey, using data from 2022.
"A key feature of the survey is that it reports the actual dollar amounts spent by birthplace, which no other survey does," writes David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
What this allows the survey to demonstrate is that between 2002–2022—with the exceptions of 2004–2006 and 2013, in which no birthplaces were recorded—foreign-born respondents accounted for 18.6 percent less Medicare and Medicaid spending than their native-born counterparts. On average, this amounted to $1,775 per person in 2022 dollars, compared to $2,180 per person among those born in the U.S.
Bier breaks down the numbers even further to demonstrate that this trend holds across each year in the sample for which data was available: In 2022, the most recent year recorded, U.S.-born patients cost the health agencies $2,691 apiece, while foreign-born cost $2,116 each. The closest the two groups ever came to parity was in 2015, when the U.S.-born cost $2,312 and the foreign-born cost $2,233.
"Despite their lower incomes, immigrants are less likely to use publicly funded health care for several reasons," Bier writes. "Most importantly, they are younger, but even controlling for age, immigrants tend to be healthier and participate in fewer high-risk activities. In addition, their eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is more limited than for the US-born population….Finally, some eligible immigrants also do not enroll in these programs out of ignorance or fear about its immigration effects."
In fairness, the numbers are not as straightforward as comparing immigrants to natural-born citizens: The survey only notes a respondent's birthplace, not their immigration status. So then, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas)—who was born in Canada to American parents but is, legally speaking, a "natural born citizen"—would be counted among the foreign-born, while the U.S.-born children of noncitizens would be counted among the native-born.
Nonetheless, the numbers paint a stark portrait that counters the doomsayers' predictions that increasing the flow of immigrants across our borders would necessarily overwhelm our public health systems.
"Democrats are going to destroy Social Security and Medicare because all of these people, by the millions, they're coming in," former President Donald Trump said in his speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention. "They're going to be on Social Security and Medicare and other things and you're not able to afford it. They are destroying your Social Security and your Medicare."
As president, Trump signed a proclamation in 2019 barring any immigrants from entering the country unless they could provide proof of health insurance. "Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs," Trump noted. (In May 2021, President Joe Biden revoked the order, after his administration had previously indicated it would no longer enforce the rule.)
To be clear, this is to say nothing of the soundness of these programs as a whole: "The best experimental evidence indicates that Medicaid does not improve health outcomes for participants," Bier notes, and "when Congress eliminated Medicaid eligibility for many immigrants in the 1990s," those immigrants predominantly went out and got jobs that offered health insurance.
But the MEPS study demonstrates that despite anti-immigration rhetoric, the foreign-born are not as much of a drain on public resources as we've been warned—at least, not nearly as much as those of us who were born here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Glad you admit that cato is skewing the data (aka lying) by not comparing legal and illegal immigrants.
See https://reason.com/2024/02/15/they-had-their-baby-at-home-2-years-later-they-still-cant-get-a-birth-certificate/ … Magic Papers please! Even the WRONG kinds of native-born can’t get them!
Twat I am saying (or at least implying) is that I do agree with you, minimum wages (and benefit mandates of all kinds, and Government Almighty putting its thumbs on the scales in a pro-union manner, and other meddling in the economy) have VERY nasty side effects! Especially, FEWER JOBS!!!
Now if we really-really want to be compassionate to the underpaid, and get them higher pay, we find other, newer, BETTER ways to decrease the supply of laborers! THEN, due to shortage of labor, labor-pay-rates will go UP! We have already started in on this BRILLIANT idea by NOT allowing illegal sub-humans (NOT born HERE on Magic Soil) to work. Now (as shown in my link above) we are ALSO denying permission to work to those who WERE born HERE on Magic Soil!!! This WILL increase wages, and all TRULY compassionate people will AGREE with MEEEE!!!
SEND THE INVADERS BACK UP THE BIRTH CANALS, before they steal MORE of our jerbs, and our collectively owned mama-titty-milk!!!
Imagine if Shillsy knew what "sophistry" meant.
Imagine twat would happen if Marxist Necrophilia Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer actually addressed my point(s) and links!!!
Would Marxist Necrophilia Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer actually ponder upon, most illegal sub-humans (beyond baby ages) can become productive laborers FAR before the native-born new-borns will EVER produce a damned thing of value to anyone beyond their parents? And the FACT that fascists now want to CUNTROL reproduction in the USA? No UNPERMITTED AND UNFORSHITTED live birth in Government Almighty's hospitals, then NO "Papers Please" for YE, ye infidels!!!
Marxist Necrophilia Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer actually LOVES Government Almighty Power Pigs!!!!
The number should be $0.
That's nice. How many illegals are using the VA system and emergency rooms of hospitals?
Get a grip, folks. If the illegals pouring over our borders cant feed themselves, house themselves or get jobs because they have no concept of our language how many are getting free healthcare? Yes, that would be all of them on our taxpayer dime
I don't think that the complaint is that immigrants use more overall than citizens, but rather that illegal immigrants shouldn't be using publicly (tax) funded services at all.
^this.
The overton window has shifted so much we are at "see they only use X billion per year, its barely anything!"
Good lord.
Ahh. Cato.
Did they fuck this up like they did with the criminal survey data where they used data from before citizenship status?
Or is this like the study where they include illegal immigrants to the denominator who fall under uncomplicated care to lower the average?
Guess I have to read it.
The data exclude the years 2004 to 2006, when no birthplace variable was included,
For the available years, immigrants accounted for 11.5 percent of combined Medicare and Medicaid spending.
First, the NAS used the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement to find the number of immigrants enrolled in those programs and then used the National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) to identify per-capita costs per enrollee by age and gender. The NHEA does not distinguish between spending by birthplace or citizenship.
So doesn’t measure uncompensated care.
The NAS model assigns about the same amount of Medicare spending to immigrants as the MEPS (9.6 percent to 10.3 percent), but the real difference emerges for Medicaid. The NAS model assigns nearly 16.7 percent of spending to immigrants, compared to the MEPS, which finds just 13.6 percent
So pick and choose your own data set.
Despite their lower incomes, immigrants are less likely to use publicly funded health care for several reasons. Most importantly, they are younger, but even controlling for age, immigrants tend to be healthier and participate in fewer high-risk activities. In addition, their eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is more limited than for the US-born population.
Seems like an important note to leave out of the article.
Also the entire report is about per capita spending, not usage which is what CIS focuses on. CIS used the percentage of eligible immigrants and if they used a government program.
Cato even says we should limit their access. Lol.
The government should go further to restrict immigrant eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.
Did you read your own link Joe?
Those same immigrants increased their work effort and took jobs that offered health insurance. Reducing the taxpayer costs of immigration would increase the already substantial fiscal benefits of immigration, making positive reforms more likely.
*facepalm*
Hospital: Do You have medicare?
A: ¿Que?/何?/hvað?/ماذا؟?/की?/o que?/что?/อะไร?/so?/ཅི་ཞིག?/nama?/napah?/什麼?
Hospital: I’ll take that as a ‘no’. Do you have medicaid?
A: ¿Que?/何?/hvað?/ماذا؟?/की?/o que?/что?/อะไร?/so?/ཅི་ཞིག?/nama?/napah?/什麼?
Hospital: I’ll take that as a ‘no’ as well.
Reason: See? Medicaid and Medicare didn’t spend a dollar on that patient!
This study is basically worthless for resolving the questions behind the anti-immigration question.
1. Using "foreign born" instead of immigration status conflates legal immigrants and temporary visitors (such as students) with illegals.
2. The study does note the obfuscating effect of one demographic difference (average age) but the methodology they used to "control" for the effect is not particularly persuasive.
3. Per capita (or per-household) use was never the concern in the first place. The anti-immigration argument is that overly-generous benefits bait in more illegals. The question then is only about total cost, not per-capita costs.
I happen to think that the restricitive-immigration position is the lesser long-term social policy but conducting a study to rebut a strawman of your opponent's arguments does not actually help the debate.
Reason is batting 900 in missing the point of the story-- and missing the real Libertarian angle these days.
Too low
Holy crap, Reason. I think I donated once years ago, and you keep sending me newsletters on multiple sheets of single-sided heavy paper in a 9x12 envelope. I was going to ask you to stop to save money for better things, but please: Keep wasting your money on that garbage and go under, if this is the kind of analysis you're going to keep giving us.
Preach
Most importantly, they are younger, but even controlling for age, immigrants tend to be healthier and participate in fewer high-risk activities.
I can guarantee this ain’t being corrected for age – which is obviously the entirety of Medicare and a significant (the expensive) portion of Medicaid. Further I can bet that both Cato and CIS are jerking around with the numbers.
Native born – 17.5% over 65; 21.7% under 16; 37% – 20-50
Naturalized – 27% over 65; 1.7% under 16; 39% – 20-50
Non-citizen foreign born – 7.5% over 65; 7.2% under 16; 63% – 20-50 years
What should be remarked on is how different the naturalized demographics are from the non-citizen foreign born. You expect them to be older but not massively older or older than native-born.
What seems obvious to me is that the main ‘legal immigration’ system is clearly fucked up. It is way too focused on family, takes decades to process, and doesn’t do shit to help pay for itself via employment but does seem to add to the Medicare burden. There also seems to be a disconnect where many recent migrants are not intending to seek citizenship – which yes is a problem since ‘guest worker’ programs are always exploitive crap. The non-citizen foreign born is purely a workforce migration – which is profitable (esp for the pajama and donor class) – but which also likely harms native-born near the bottom of skills ladder. But no that age demographic is obviously not going to be a Medicare/Medicaid burden.
I have been paying the Medicare tax my entire working life as have most American citizens. I would bet that I have paid in exponentially more to Medicare than most illegal aliens do in their working lives. Any comparison of use of Medicare by citizens vs illegal aliens would also need to factor in how much each has paid in on average and determine if and by how much each pays in vs what they take out. Perhaps illegal aliens don't use Medicare or Medicaid as much as citizens do but I am pretty damn certain that citizens pay in far more than illegal aliens do.
As I noted below Medicare requires that you pay the tax for 10 years but unlike SS everybody gets the same benefit so those of us that paid in for 50 years get no advantage.
I didn't vote for socialism in the USA, but I have been forced to participate, so yes, I will help pay for roads, education, etc., for the kids. Please don't forget, we tax the illegal sub-humans to make them pay to help prop up Social Security, but they never get to benefit from the taxes that they pay! (In the particular case of SS). See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
This is a part of a long pattern of Government Almighty fuck-ups making necessary, MORE Government Almighty fuck-ups! Government Almighty mandated WAY too many licenses, before we're allowed to earn an honest living... Put too many of us into poverty. To "help" with this poverty problem that Government Almighty created, Government Almighty gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, Government Almighty now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies, so I suppose Government Almighty will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).
Those of us who like individual freedom, would like for Government Almighty to SHRINK, for once, instead of always making itself BIGGER to fix all of the problems created by Government Almighty in the first place!
The current system that we have makes me contribute to socialism and welfare for USA citizens at (don't know the numbers) maybe $100 for every $1 that is sent to foreigners for foreign aid. This is collectivism forced on me, and I have no choice.
My personal religious / ideological / philosophical beliefs are that all humans are nominally equal in their rights to freedom... Not equal results, but equal freedom. Free trade (in labor as well as goods and services) are the best routes to go. But if we are to have FORCED welfare, then I can't see why American poor are paid $100 (or whatever) for every $1 that is forced from me for foreigners! That is collectivism forced on me that I disagree with! I am not aware of God or karma or evolution or the Universe or ANY moral authority telling me that this ratio is correct!
And for challenging this collectivism, I am a collectivist? Please explain!
This is Journalism 101. No, fuck that. It's Thinking 101. That Reason engages in neither should tell you everything you need to know.
Yeah these numbers are not convincing. First they conflate legal with illegal then they conflate Medicaid with Medicare. And ignore private insurance altogether. We're told that immigrants are younger and healthier than native born. OK. But in the case of Medicare you have to be a citizen or legal alien for at least 5 years, 65 years old and have paid into the system for at least 10 years. I would think that Medicare is much more costly per person than Medicaid because old people are likely to have more serious health issues. In every case a younger cohort will have lower average healthcare costs. It would be helpful to know the percentage of foreign born on Medicare. Also there is no mention of the free health care that states and cities are providing at a cost to local taxpayers specifically to undocumented residents. And. As even the author points out, the native born designation is pretty meaningless. If the children of illegal immigrants are lumped in with citizens and they use more government benefits than citizens who may be more likely to use private insurance how are these numbers meaningful? And. " In addition, their eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is more limited than for the US-born population". Isn't that the most likely reason for lower expenditures and isn't that appropriate?
All this story proves is that the government should outsource the application website and process for a free monkeypox vaccine to Silicon Valley. I mean, you can't get more Libertarian than that.
Why did you refute a study about immigrant overconsumption of healthcare benefits by citing data that tracks birthplace of recipients, which you admit counts non citizens as native born? Are you against amnesty, since that would mandate healthcare coverage for immigrants who previously declined to enroll out of fear of being deported?
If a system gives out more than it takes, then any increase in recipients is an addition to the spending. The fact that immigrants use it at a lesser rate than native born is NOT a saving. Just like how our government reducing the rate of future spending increase is not a spending cut and is still overspending.
What would happen to the Canadian healthcare system if they imported 50 million people next year and only 30% of them used their healthcare? Fair to assume that it would go broke sooner? As a matter of fact, most of Canada's immigrants are Asians. Latinos make up less than 2% of their population. Their immigration standards are obvious.
If America had immigration demo typical of most countries, this wouldn't be an issue. But we don't. We have enough immigrants and migrants to form their own mid sized nation. Immigrants are many positive things in the economy, but looking at states like CA, you cannot credibly believe massive immigration is a solution to our spending issues.
This entire article is a self-own. Immigrants (especially the illegal ones) should receive zero welfare. I'm not typically in support of it for most Americans, so why in the hell would 20% (or more since that appears to be a fudged number) of immigrants receiving welfare not be appalling?
Pass on the mass importation of the third world and pass on government welfare.
LOL... Respondent survey?
Correctly named a 'poll' or 'popularity' stance.
Calling it a 'study' is like calling 'the sky is falling down' science.
Which seems obvious. Most of the illegal immigrants are under age 65, the age at which the taxpayers really start supporting non-working people.
I thought immigrants (at least the illegal variety) didn’t get welfare?
In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
Are we paying more than $0.00 for illegal criminal alien health care?
Yes?
Then STFU, Joe.
Round ’em up, kick ’em out. There’s a half-empty island in the Caribbean where we can dump them all.
I prefer to think of the island as half full.
"Medicare and Medicaid Spend More on Native-Born Americans Than Immigrants."
For now.
But wait a year or two.
Then M&M will spend more on immigrants than native-born American by sheer weight of numbers.
No one should get Medicaid or Medicare (or SS). Repeal them. Problem solved.
20% less? Amazing! So only 44% of the overall spend?
Wow, it's like they're made of invisible ink!
No, wait. That's a HUGE number!
Talk about delusional.