ng the amount of coverage and services available for migrant populations. In Germany, numerous doctors, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, and the German Medical Association have all criticized the German Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, arguing that strict interpretation precludes individuals with chronic medical conditions such as disabilities, cardiac issues, or diabetes from receiving adequate care under the criterion of coverage solely for acute or emergency care (Fox). This lack of access to preventative care, wellness checkups, and general services to treat long term illnesses ultimately contributes to a degradation of health and thus quality of life for refugees in the long term (Fox). Similarly, in the U.S., the number of community health centers which serve undocumented immigrants is insufficient and centers are often restricted by intense immigration-related policies (Sommers). Accordingly, undocumented immigrants in the U.S. often depend on charity care provided by private practitioners, paying out of pocket, or abstaining from treatment or preventative care for medical issues and allowing the health problem to metastasize until emergency services are justified (Sommers). In other words, undocumented immigrants typically have no choice when faced with a serious health issue other than passively watching their health decline, often resulting in long term damage or a need for more serious or invasive interventions, a far leap from the United Nations goal of ensuring “the highest attainable standard of health.” Though emergency care is guaranteed, it does not provide for treatment to life threatening conditions that are not “emergent,” and it still permits billing for all services; in other words, “Although EMTALA prevents hospitals from literally allowing people to die on their doorsteps, it provides neither financial protection nor comprehensive access to care” (Sommers). These restrictive policies have directly led to a medically marginalized group, comprised of millions of individuals, in which the ensured standard for health is solely the prevention of imminent death. Amidst outcries in both nations that current policies are too generous and straining budgets, extant laws, contrary to common rhetoric, actually cost nations more money rather than helping save it. In Germany, one study found that current restrictive policies have increased the cost of healthcare by 376-euros per year for each asylum seeker (Kuepper). Similarly, in the U.S., preventable emergency department visits and treatments comprise a significant portion of wasteful healthcare expenditures, with some estimates asserting that as high as fifty six percent of all ER visits in the U.S. are avoidable (New England Healthcare Institute 2). The lack of services available to undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers contributes to inefficient healthcare spending because preventative care is overwhelmingly cost effective in the long run. Moreover, un>