Over the past century, the United States has seen many large changes in immigration patterns. One important change has been the emergence of new immigrant destinations within the past thirty years. While many traditional destinations (e.g., New York, NY) continue to draw immigrant populations, new metropolitan areas (e.g., Atlanta, GA) are also drawing large numbers of immigrants. What is largely unknown about these new destinations is how they differ from traditional destinations in terms of the health outcomes of their immigrant populations compared to their local native-born counterparts. I hypothesize that immigrants in new destinations will have worse health outcomes compared to the surrounding native-born population than that of immigrants in traditional destinations. I conduct a logistic regression analysis using data from the 1997-2001 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in order to compare health outcomes between immigrants and native-born populations in six new destination cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Fort Worth, Orlando, Washington D.C., and West Palm Beach) and eight traditional gateway cities (Bergen-Passaic, Boston, Chicago, Jersey City, Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, Nassau-Suffolk, New York, and San Francisco). Health is measured using two different models: (1) access to a primary care physician (based on the question “Is there a place that you usually go to when you are sick or need advice about your health?”) and (2) self-reported health (based on the question “Would you say your health in general is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” with responses coded on a five point Likert scale, where 1 is “excellent” and 5 is “poor”). This research can be used to inform those interested in immigrant health on contexts that might increase immigrant health risks, such as patient-doctor communication issues and discrimination. Policymakers and public health officials can use this research to identify areas where intervention is needed.