Tak Peter! Det er virkelig dejligt at have den ude (og ikke skulle arbejde på det mere 😂)

8/ However, several studies highlight the risks of using nonprofessionals for translation in medical contexts, such as miscommunication and, in the worst case, medical errors. While I didn’t examine these issues directly in my study, they are important to consider when interpreting these results.

7/ So, what should we take away from these findings? It’s positive that immigrants continue to use healthcare despite the fee. This suggests that doctors use their discretion to lessen the fee's impact on immigrants, showing how frontline workers can reduce the effects of burdensome policies.

6/ To explore why this might be, I analyze survey data from Danish GPs. The data suggest that GPs may have increasingly relied on relatives or other nonprofessionals to translate after the fees were implemented.

5/ And now, for the key finding: I find no evidence that the introduction of interpreting fees affects immigrants’ use of GP services. Additionally, there is no evidence suggesting that these fees disproportionately impact disadvantaged immigrants.

4/ Using individual-level register data, I analyze the weekly GP usage of immigrants. The implementation of fees only for immigrants who have resided in Denmark for more than three years allows me to estimate the causal effect of the law through a regression discontinuity design.

3/ Theoretically, I argue that the fee could either: (1) reduce GP usage due to the administrative burdens associated with it, or (2) not affect GP usage, as immigrants might increasingly rely on relatives for translation.

2/ I examine whether a law requiring immigrants who have lived in Denmark for over three years to pay a fee (USD 28–48) for interpreter services during healthcare interactions affects their use of general practitioners (GPs).

7/ To explore why this might be, I analyze survey data from Danish GPs. The data suggest that GPs may have increasingly relied on relatives or other nonprofessionals to translate after the fees were implemented.

6/ And now, for the key finding: I find no evidence that the introduction of interpreting fees affects immigrants’ use of GP services. Additionally, there is no evidence suggesting that these fees disproportionately impact disadvantaged immigrants.

5/ Using individual-level register data, I analyze the weekly GP usage of immigrants. The implementation of fees only for immigrants who have resided in Denmark for more than three years allows me to estimate the causal effect of the law through a regression discontinuity design.

4/ Theoretically, I argue that the fee could either: (1) reduce GP usage due to the administrative burdens associated with it, or (2) not affect GP usage, as immigrants might increasingly rely on relatives for translation.

3/ I examine whether a law requiring immigrants who have lived in Denmark for over three years to pay a fee (USD 28–48) for interpreter services during healthcare interactions affects their use of general practitioners (GPs).

2/ The paper is open access and available on the link.
Below I share the main conclusions for those wanting a short version.

National Institute of Justice has pulled funding.

At what point do the national media start treating this as an assault of federally funded research across the board, or at least, funding is reserved only for politically approved topics?

We did a mural tour when we visited Belfast for a EGPA conference. It was a blast! And a really good way to learn about the recent history. Not sure which one it was, but I guess there a many good ones. www.belfastmuraltours.com