In the " decidedly hostile" federal context toward unauthorized immigrants in American healthcare (Newton & Adams, 2009, p. 422), a few subnational governments have implemented strategies seeking to expand their access to and utilization of care. In this article, I draw on interviews conducted with 36 primary care providers working in San Francisco's public safety net between May and September 2009 to examine how such inclusive local policies work. On one hand, San Francisco's inclusive local policy climate both encourages and reinforces public safety-net providers' views of unauthorized immigrants as patients morally deserving of equal care, and helps them to translate their inclusive views into actual behaviors by providing them with increased financial resources. On the other hand, both hidden and formal barriers to care remain in place, which limits public safety-net providers' abilities to extend equal care to unauthorized immigrants even within this purportedly inclusive local policy context. I discuss the implications of the San Francisco case for policymakers, providers, and immigrants elsewhere. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Incorporation Attitudes Immigration Deservingness Unauthorized safety net Access to care healthcare providers USA Undocumented

social justice financial system immigrant local government primary medical care health care policy human San Francisco Morals health personnel attitude human rights United States Humans California San Francisco [California] Ambulatory Care Facilities health services health and safety Article service provision health care utilization Medical Assistance health care access Health Policy Sociology, Medical Transients and Migrants illegal immigrant health care disparity policy making Health Services Accessibility primary health care social behavior health care delivery