Program demonstrates tailored engagement improves health insurance enrollment in Latino and Chinese New Yorkers, indicating the need for culturally relevant messaging.
Context: Prevalence of insurance coverage in NYC varies by race and ethnicity: one-quarter (26%) of Latino New Yorkers lack health insurance, compared to 11% of Asian and Pacific Islanders, 11% of non-Latino Blacks, and 8% of non-Latino whites. Program: The Office of Health Insurance Services at the NYC Health Department implemented a tailored racial equity engagement project to identify barriers and opportunities in accessing health care and health insurance among adult Latino and Chinese New Yorkers. Implementation: We conducted 12 community stakeholder interviews and 9 consumer focus groups and used the results to develop a tailored, multilingual, data-driven media campaign in NYC neighborhoods with the highest proportions of uninsured Latino and Chinese New Yorkers. We conducted a social media post-survey to evaluate the campaign’s effectiveness. Evaluation: Stakeholder interviews indicated that cultural beliefs about medicine, insufficient access to services in appropriate languages, and limited awareness of enrollment opportunities impacted health insurance enrollment among Chinese and Latino New Yorkers. Consumer focus groups emphasized that health insurance enrollment media campaigns should focus on culturally salient themes and incorporate community input. Most post-campaign survey respondents (84%) agreed that they and their communities were represented by the implemented campaigns. Survey respondents reacted most positively to images of multigenerational families used in the campaigns. Discussion: Community input is important for public health campaigns focused on specific racial or ethnic groups. Community engagement can help local health departments effectively reach priority populations, ensure that messaging is culturally and linguistically appropriate, and align public health messaging with health equity goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hyland et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: