Catching up on rural healthcare stories

I wrote several posts about rural healthcare this summer, mostly prompted by the consideration and passage of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, which was widely discussed as undermining rural health care and rural hospitals.  Since then, I've neglected the issues except to address some of them in this forthcoming law review article, which focuses on the challenge of maternal mortality for rural women.  

In this post, my plan is just to provide links to the stories I've seen about rural health care since the summer, making this something of a repository of resources to study how rural health care is faring in the Trump administration's first year and likely further degradation of services as a consequence of recent Republican policies.

First off, the Trump administration is withholding support to tsunami proof this hospital.  Katia Riddle reports from Astoria, Oregon.   One interesting aspect of this story is how local Republicans who supported Trump are flummoxed--or worse--about his administration's failure to support a rural hospital that has saved many local lives.  Here's some context:   

The Trump administration has canceled billions of dollars in federal grants across multiple agencies, and one of those grants is for a program that was designed to help local governments fortify places that are vulnerable to natural disasters.

* * *  

[The hospital in Astoria], called Columbia Memorial, was built decades ago. Now that we know more about earthquakes, it's hard to imagine a worse spot to build a hospital. Not only is the whole town in a major subduction zone, the building is just a few blocks from the water, on top of dangerously unstable ground.

And here's a key quote from a former mayor of Astoria, Willis Van Dusen, a Republican who voted for Trump but now is frustrated by the recent turn of events regarding the needed hospital work: 

Van Dusen: What is more important than a hospital in a rural community like Astoria? Now, it saved my life.

Riddle: Van Dusen points to a framed photocopy of a piece of paper - the EKG reading when he had a heart attack some years ago. At one point, he flatlined.

Van Dusen: All these are (imitating electric current), and they're hitting the paddles. And I had actually died.

Riddle: It was doctors at Columbia Memorial that brought him back. Van Dusen says he and many other people in Astoria wouldn't be here without this hospital. Making sure that it can keep providing care during an earthquake and a tsunami, he says, is the opposite of waste, fraud and abuse.

Van Dusen: And just to jerk that money away from us, I can't just say it makes - it's frustrating. It makes me livid. It makes me angry.

Riddle: Van Dusen says he's not the only one in this town who's mad.

Van Dusen: I know every single Republican that I have talked to is livid over what's happening.

This is a rare instance when I've seen a Trump voter whose mind has been changed by Trump's spending priorities--and how those priorities have played out in the voter's own community.  It shows that Trump voters can be swayed when Trump's spending priorities impact them, something rarely illustrated.  

Regarding the $50 billion "rural health fund," sometimes referred to as the rural slush fund, Sarah Jane Tribble of Kaiser Health News reported about ten days ago on how states are competing for these funds.  It hardly seems like a fair fight.   Tribble provides details on how and why substantial chunks of the funds might not even wind up in rural places:  

Nationwide, states are racing to win their share of a new $50 billion rural health fund. But helping rural hospitals, as originally envisioned, is quickly becoming a quaint idea.

Rather, states should submit applications that "rebuild and reshape" how health care is delivered in rural communities, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services official Abe Sutton said late last month during a daylong meeting at D.C.'s Watergate Hotel. Simply changing the way government pays hospitals has been tried and has failed, Sutton told the audience of more than 40 governors' office staffers and state health agency leaders — some from as far away as Hawaii.

"This isn't a backfill of operating budgets," said Sutton, CMS' innovation director. "We've been really clear on that."

Rural hospitals and clinics nationwide face a looming financial catastrophe, with President Trump's massive tax-and-spending law expected to slash federal Medicaid spending on health care in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. Congressional Republicans added the one-time, five-year Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener to win the support of conservative holdouts who worried about the bill's financial fallout for rural hospitals.

Yet, the words used by CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz and his agency's leaders to describe the new pot of cash are generating tension between legacy hospital and clinic providers and new technology-focused companies stepping in to offer new ways to deliver health care.

It's "what I would call incumbents versus insurgents in the rural space," said Kody Kinsley, a senior policy adviser at the Institute for Policy Solutions at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.

I further detail possible non-rural uses of the fund in my forthcoming law review article, which relies on Tribble's reporting. 

Finally, Abigail Ruhman reported for the Texas Tribune a few weeks ago on how Texas' rural hospitals are competing for a piece of that "rural slush fund."  

As Texas develops its application for a new rural health funding program, rural hospital leaders say the priority should be financial stabilization for their facilities.

The recent sweeping tax and spending plan includes a $50 billion appropriation for the Rural Health Transformation program. States will receive funding based on applications they submit in early November.

During an hours-long public hearing Monday to discuss the program, several hospital leaders raised concerns that without direct funding, the state may experience more rural hospital closures.

Erin Clevenger, CEO of Memorial Medical Center in Port Lavaca, southeast of Victoria, said her hospital is high on the list of Texas hospitals at risk of closure.

“Every day is a battle to make sure we don’t become one of those statistics,” Clevenger said.

In the last decade, Texas has lost 14 rural hospitals. Of the 156 rural hospitals currently in the state, about 70% have lost services, and more than half are at risk of closing, according to a report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform.

Memorial Medical Center is in the southern part of the state, but it provides critical services that benefit people across Texas – even patients in Dallas.

“When even large urban hospitals could not take on more patients, we opened a COVID care unit and accepted their transfers, even flying patients in from Houston and Dallas,” Clevenger said.

Keep an eye out for more news about whether rural hospitals are getting the benefit of the "Big Beautiful Bill" and its rural slush fund--and whether any funds they receive are sufficient to keep them open.  It'll also be interesting to see if the anticipated closure of rural hospitals will turn rural Trump supporters against him--if those closures happen during his presidency.  

Meanwhile, the reduction and reinterpretation of other federal funding streams, along with other strains,  have been threatening--and in one instance, closing--hospitals in rural California.  Read more here (Inyo County in the eastern Sierra) and here (Imperial/Riverside County).