The state could tackle rural health issues long into the future by investing its awards from the Rural Health Transformation Program, the director of Wyoming’s health department, Stefan Johansson, told state lawmakers.

But it’s unclear whether the maneuver will pass muster with the federal government.

If approved, Wyoming’s Rural Health Transformation Perpetuity fund could provide $28.5 million for the state to spend every year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

Congressional Republicans created the Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the outsize fallout anticipated in rural communities from the new law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Since 2010, 152 rural hospitals in the U.S. have shuttered completely or stopped offering inpatient services, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. The guidelines for the federal rural health program say states can use only 15% of their funding for direct payments to providers, including hospitals.

CMS officials announced first-year funding on Dec. 29 after scoring states’ applications. States had until Jan. 30 to submit revised budgets and other documents that align with their grant awards. CMS has until March 1 to review and approve the updated material.

Wyoming — the least populous state, with about 588,000 residents — will receive $205 million in the program’s first year, $5 million more than it asked for.

States must spend each year’s grants by the end of the following fiscal year, according to CMS rules. If they don’t, unused money will be redistributed to other states. The final deadline for all spending is Oct. 1, 2032, with leftover funds being returned to the federal government.

Given those rules, “how do you square that with squirreling money away in an account?” state Rep. Ken Pendergraft, a Republican, asked during a hearing on Wyoming’s plan.

Johansson said that depositing the federal grants into the perpetuity fund counts as expending them.

He said that CMS called in December to specifically ask questions about the fund and that he believes the agency has formally approved it. But “the devil’s always in the details,” he said, as the state works with CMS during the budget review period.

Emails obtained by KFF Health News through public records requests show CMS told officials in some states in early November that the grant money can’t “fund an endowment, capital fund, or other vehicle resembling an investment fund with the purpose of generating income.”

Wyoming officials wrote in the state’s application that the perpetuity fund won’t be making or keeping any profit.

“All program income from these investments will directly fund” rural health programs, they wrote.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden did not directly comment on whether Wyoming’s perpetuity idea is allowed. Instead, she said states must follow regulations related to the program and federal grants.

The Trump administration gave states a mandate to spend their money by fall 2032, but on projects that will continue to help rural patients even after the federal program ends.

The perpetuity fund would ensure just that, said Patrick Hardigan, dean of the College of Health Sciences at the University of Wyoming.

“Rather than spend out now,” Hardigan said, “we would have this available to help fund us over a longer time period.”

The state health department has already presented lawmakers with a bill to create the perpetuity fund and approve other parts of its rural health plan.

The legislation says Wyoming would put 80% of this year’s award — $164 million — and 69.5% of the funding it receives over the next four years into the fund. The state treasurer’s office would invest the fund in equities, including stocks. The health department plans to spend 4% of the fund’s money — in line with its expected return — each year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

About 41% of the annual fund distribution would be spent on incentive payments for qualifying small hospitals, the bill says. The assistance could include one-time grants, medical debt relief for patients, and ongoing payments to offset fixed costs. This funding could amount to 2.5% to 10% of these hospitals’ annual operating expenses, according to an estimate in Wyoming’s application.

Bennett said it’s unclear whether all those types of payments are allowed under the federal rules.

“I think that states will try to do a lot of creative things like this, and CMS will approve or not on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

The bill says around 27% of annual spending would go to incentive payments to encourage coordination or consolidation among rural ambulance services. The funding could be ongoing or grants that help pay for ambulances, communications equipment, and regional dispatch services.

But these incentives would come with strings attached. Hospitals and ambulance services could receive payments only if they reduce “unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential” services and participate in “cost-containment arrangements,” such as regional collaborations and shared services.

About 22% of the annual spending would provide scholarships to help Wyomingites afford nursing, behavioral health, emergency medical services, and physician education. In exchange, recipients would have to work in the state for five years.

The remaining spending, around 11%, would be for scholarships to help doctors in training afford medical school, residency programs, and fellowships if they agree to work in an “underserved” Wyoming county for five years. The state health department would prioritize scholarships for people pursuing family medicine, obstetrics, or other high-demand specialties.

Johansson told Wyoming lawmakers that CMS could claw back money if a future state legislature decides to spend the fund in ways not allowed under the federal rural health program. He said this “check and balance” could last for decades.

“I can’t predict the future,” Johansson said, but “I think they have the authority to go look at the appropriate use of those funds through their audit parameters.”

Other states proposed funds in their applications, but Wyoming’s appears unique, according to a KFF Health News review of state applications.

For example, Kentucky wants to create a rural health endowment to continue its work once the federal program ends. But it would be backed by charitable donations, not seed money and investments from the federal funding.

Several states mention putting some of their federal award money into what they call rural health “catalyst funds.” But these funds, sometimes augmented with private contributions, would be invested in rural health technology.

Bennett said he’s never heard of a state investing any other federal health grant the way Wyoming wants to.

He said that in setting aside significant portions of its Rural Health Transformation Program awards, Wyoming would have much less money for rural health care in the short term in exchange for an ongoing revenue stream that could last decades.

“Everything has trade-offs,” Bennett said.

The Wyoming House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the bill on Feb. 12, sending the legislation to the House floor.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

During a January White House roundtable touting the first grants to states under a new $50 billion rural health fund, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz called the idea “pretty cool.” Later that day, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, said it is decidedly not cool. And obstetricians and others chimed in on social media to express alarm, with one political activist calling it a “dystopian horror story.”

The disparate responses highlight how excitement over the tech-heavy ideas states pitched in their applications for the federal Rural Health Transformation Program conflicts with the reality that there simply aren’t enough health workers to serve patients in many rural communities. Now, as states prepare to spend their first-year awards, tension is mounting, and nowhere is that strain more visible than in Alabama.

Oz has lauded the state’s proposal to invest in the relatively new technology of robotic ultrasounds.

“Alabama has no OB-GYNs in many of their counties,” Oz said, sitting with President Donald Trump and Cabinet members. The dearth of care, he said, prompted the proposal to use robots for ultrasounds on pregnant women.

Britta Cedergren directs the Alabama Perinatal Quality Collaborative and has a firm grip on reality: “No one is using autonomous robots.”

While robotic ultrasounds are a “really neat technology,” she said, they are not yet being used in the state. Instead, clinicians providing obstetric care lean on phone consultations and — when equipment and internet are available — telehealth.

The goal, she said, is to “support places where there is no care.”

Cedergren is part of multiple state maternal and fetal health groups and works daily with doctors, hospitals, and first responders. While enhanced technology is vital for patient care, it’s not a replacement for a well-trained workforce and a coordinated care and data system, she said.

In 2024, the most recent year for which data is available, Alabama’s infant mortality rate was 7.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. The nationwide rate was 5.5 per 1,000 live births, according to provisional data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hospital-based obstetric unit closures, which often lead to a loss of health care providers who can care for expectant mothers and their babies, are a long-standing, ongoing trend in rural America. But Alabama’s loss of services has been particularly profound.

In 1980, 45 of the state’s 55 rural counties had hospital-based obstetric services. By 2025, only 15 offered such care, according to state data. And the losses aren’t slowing. Five hospital obstetric units closed in 2023 and 2024, including in three rural counties: Monroe, Marengo, and Clarke.

Katy Backes Kozhimannil, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, found that closures in remote areas lead to an increase in preterm births, a leading cause of infant mortality.

“People will be pregnant and give birth in communities all over the place,” she said. “You have to be able to get to a place where you can be cared for.”

Nearly all 50 states’ applications for the Rural Health Transformation Program declared workforce shortages and maternal health needs as priorities, but only Alabama proposed using robots to fill the gap. The rural fund, which Congress created as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, encouraged states to be creative, be innovative, and pitch tech solutions.

Alabama was awarded $203 million for the first of the program’s five years. Among nearly a dozen rural health initiatives, the state’s application included bolstering its rural workforce as well as improving maternal and fetal health.

Mike Presley, a spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, which is overseeing the plan, said no one was available for an interview about telerobotic ultrasounds.

LoRissia Autery, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in rural Alabama northwest of Birmingham, said the robots won’t decrease maternal and infant mortality. There are nuances, she said, to doing ultrasounds.

Many of her patients have high-risk pregnancies with diabetes, high blood pressure, and hepatitis C, she said. She said she worries about the kind of care that will be given to her patients, many of whom drive an hour or more to get to her, if robots are used instead of a trained specialist.

“It takes away just the care that we need to have for women,” said Autery, who co-founded Walker Women’s Specialists. The clinic includes three doctors, draws patients from five counties, and could use an additional physician to meet the demand, Autery said.

“Probably for the past six or seven years, we’ve been putting out feelers trying to find a fourth partner,” Autery said. “It’s difficult for a variety of reasons.”

In his social media remarks to Oz, Vermont’s Sanders called the lack of rural health care providers in the U.S. an “international embarrassment.”

“In the richest country on earth, we need more doctors, nurses, dentists and mental health counselors, not more robots,” Sanders wrote on the social platform X.

At least one country is using robots paired with trained workers to decrease deaths.

In the remote Canadian village of La Loche, Julie Fontaine operates an ultrasound robot at a clinic with two on-site nurse practitioners and rotating doctors. She said patients like the robot because it saves them the time and expense of traveling to a bigger regional health care facility six to seven hours away.

“When people come in, they’re like, ‘Wow, like, technology these days,’” said Fontaine, a member of the Métis people in northern Saskatchewan. “It’s something they’ve never seen before or even used.”

When working with patients, Fontaine connects the robotic ultrasound machine to a tele-sonographer at a control station in Saskatoon. The sonographer then remotely operates a robotic arm on the machine. A radiologist, who can be anywhere, reads the scan’s report and sends it back to the family doctor in La Loche, said Ivar Mendez, a neurosurgeon and the director of Canada’s Virtual Health Hub. Most babies in Canada, he said, are delivered by family doctors or midwives, not specialists.

“The most important thing is the identification of a high-risk pregnancy early enough so you can intervene,” said Mendez, who added that the robotic ultrasound is “as good as the in-person ultrasound” but can’t be used when a patient needs a more invasive vaginal ultrasound. The mortality rate for mothers and newborns in the north, site of the La Loche clinic, is 20 to 25 times greater than in the rest of the nation, he said.

“One of the reasons is that there’s no availability of prenatal ultrasonography in those communities, so pregnant women have to travel to cities and they’re put up at hotels,” he said.

In a 2022 paper, Mendez and his team at the University of Saskatchewan examined 87 telerobotic ultrasounds and found that 70% of the time, the robotic ultrasound made travel for care unnecessary. Nearly all the patients said they would use the robot again.

The same robotic ultrasound technology was approved in 2017 for use in the U.S.

Nicolas Lefebvre, chairman and chief executive of the robot’s creator and manufacturer, AdEchoTech, said the company has “U.S. maternity-specific projects that are currently under preparation.” The average price of a robot will be $250,000 to $350,000, according to AdEchoTech’s U.S.-based business development consultant.

Using robotic ultrasounds is one part of Alabama’s proposed maternal and fetal health initiative, according to the state’s application. Acknowledging loss of hospital obstetric units, officials said they planned to connect smaller rural providers and health care facilities that lack “high-quality maternal and fetal health services” to regional care hubs that can provide the services digitally, including through telerobotic ultrasound.

For their workforce initiative, state officials proposed training programs for doctors, emergency services, and nurse-midwives.

The estimated required funding for the maternal and fetal health initiative is $24 million over five years. Alabama officials proposed $309.75 million for their workforce initiative over five years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But there are strings attached.

In late December, President Donald Trump’s administration announced how much all 50 states would get under its new Rural Health Transformation Program, assigning them to use the money to fix systemic problems that leave rural Americans without access to good health care. Now, the clock is ticking.

Within eight months, states must submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use. Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October.

The money — divided into unique allocations for each state, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — represents the first $10 billion installment from the five-year, $50 billion program. Congress created the fund as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer to offset the outsize fallout anticipated in rural communities from the statute’s nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade.

Federal officials crafted the fund to give states “space to be creative,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said on a call with reporters after announcing the funding Dec. 29. “Some states will fail, and we will learn from that.”

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

In 2026, each state will receive an equal $100 million share under the law for the first half of the money, plus additional funding from the second half. Oz’s staff steered payouts from the second portion based on each state’s rural score, as well as results from a “technical” scoring system for project proposals.

Within hours of the announcement, academics and researchers began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism.

At first glance, total awards do not appear to favor states governed by either Republicans or Democrats. But one academic data analysis teased out the amount awarded for each state’s technical score, which is the part determined by the discretion of agency officials.

The analysis was performed at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which specializes in rural health. A KFF Health News review of the Sheps Center data found that states with Republican governors tended to receive more money for the parts of their application based on the technical score. Democratic-controlled states crowded the bottom quarter of those technical score awards.

Overall, though, the state awards reveal wild variation in how much money each state will get per rural resident, almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom.

In an emailed statement to The Arizona Republic, a spokesperson for Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs accused the administration of shortchanging rural residents in the state, which was awarded $167 million this year from the program.

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in an emailed statement to KFF Health News that “politics played no role in funding decisions.”

On the December call, Oz pushed states to start working on policy actions championed by the administration — such as approving presidential fitness tests and restricting food benefits — that could require legislative approval.

Half of states promised to mandate the presidential fitness test, Oz said. Many states also proposed food waivers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which would limit low-nutrition items such as soda. He also said some states promised to teach health care professionals about nutrition. And others confirmed they will repeal certificate-of-need laws, which require companies to prove that new health facilities they want to open are necessary.

Krepich said CMS’ new Office of Rural Health Transformation is hiring program officers to serve as point people for three or four states. Many states are setting up their own offices to oversee the new funding.

Oz highlighted Alabama’s “big maternity initiative with robotics doing ultrasounds” and said states are tackling issues ranging from behavioral health to obesity.

A KFF Health News review of state “project abstracts” and “spotlights” released by CMS shows that many states plan to address the workforce challenges in rural areas. Delaware, for example, plans to use its funding to create the state’s first four-year medical school with a rural primary care track.

A third of states said they want to improve electronic health records, and every state mentioned telehealth.

Many state legislatures must pass laws to distribute the funding to their state offices. Meanwhile, state officials are hiring staff, organizing advisory committees, and preparing to dole out money.

“I’m excited about what’s next,” said Terry Scoggin, former interim chief executive of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, or TORCH. Texas was awarded the biggest allocation. The money will bolster a rural hospital funding bill Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed last year, Scoggin said.

More than two dozen cash-strapped rural hospitals in Texas have closed or been converted to clinics since 2005, a nationwide trend that hit the Lone Star State particularly hard. The state has the largest rural population in the United States. Texas’ allocation amounts to about $66 per rural resident, according to a KFF policy analysis. By contrast, Rhode Island was granted about $6,300 per rural resident.

Scoggin said he has “a ton of concerns” about companies taking the money instead of it helping rural hospitals and residents. “I was blown away about how many for-profit companies reached out.” The companies have also called rural hospitals and asked to work with them to apply for state money, he said.

The awards should be judged on how they benefit rural residents because “the stated goal of the program is to improve rural health,” said Paula Chatterjee, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who co-authored a Senate Finance Committee memo on the transformation fund.

Researchers at the Sheps Center conducted the analysis to estimate how much money states received from the technical score, which is the portion of funding based on the quality of their proposals and state policy actions that align with "Make America Healthy Again" priorities.

New Mexico won the least amount of technical funding, with less than 10% of its award based on the discretionary metrics. Alaska won the largest technical award, according to the Sheps Center data.

Texas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rounded out the top five recipients of technical funding. In addition to New Mexico, the other lowest technical awards went to Michigan, New Jersey, Arizona, and California.

Mark Holmes, director of the Sheps Center, declined to comment on whether he saw any political bias in the awards but said the nuance in the final portion of discretionary awards based on technical scores is important because those dollars can be redistributed and potentially clawed back in future years.

“We can be fairly certain that every state will get at least a slightly, if not a vastly, different amount next year based on this re-pooling and reallocation piece,” Holmes said.

States now have a limited time to show they’re using the money effectively to secure future funding.

States have until Jan. 30 to resubmit their budgets, and CMS then has 30 days to respond, according to the standard Notice of Award. Under that timing, some states may not have cash in hand until March.

“CMS is working closely with states to complete this process as efficiently as possible,” Krepich said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Federally recognized tribes can’t directly apply for a share of the rural health fund — only states can. And states aren’t required to consider tribes’ needs. But state applications for the five-year payout show some states with significant Native American populations did so anyway.

Workforce development, technology upgrades, and traditional healing are a few of the initiatives specifically aimed at Native American communities that some states included in their applications, which were due to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 5. The fund was a late addition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in response to worries about the harm the spending reductions in Republicans’ bill would have on rural hospitals’ finances.

Some states, including Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, are also considering setting aside 3% to 10% of their federal payouts to distribute among tribes. Washington proposed setting aside $20 million per year.

Federally recognized tribes have direct relationships with the U.S. government, but state governments also allocate resources to tribes and can create policies that support tribal priorities. States and tribes share concerns about the effect that the massive GOP budget bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law in July, will have on the U.S. health system. The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion and increase the number of uninsured by approximately 10 million people, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said that states are required to develop their applications in collaboration with key stakeholders, including the state governments’ tribal affairs offices or tribal liaisons, as well as “Indian health care providers, as applicable.” But these entities do not include tribal governments or official tribal representatives.

Tribes can apply for Rural Health Transformation Fund subgrants through their states. But during a recent call with federal health officials, tribal leaders expressed frustration about being regarded as just another stakeholder in the issue rather than sovereign nations. Tribal sovereignty guides most government-to-government consultations over proposed federal actions that would have a substantial effect on tribes.

“Even in a scenario where tribal consultation is required, the quality and quantity of that tribal consultation on a state-by-state basis is all over the place,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, which advocates for tribal nations from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

Federal policy works better when tribal nations are directly eligible for funding that supports essential services in their communities, Malerba said, adding that tribal leaders are concerned that the reach of the program into their communities will vary considerably.

There are 574 federally recognized tribes and more than 7 million Native American and Alaska Native people in the U.S. The population faces a lower life expectancy and among the poorest health outcomes when compared with other demographics. The Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans and Alaska Natives, has been historically underfunded by Congress.

KFF Health News analyzed how 12 states with significant Native American populations took tribes into account as they developed plans for the pot of federal money.

Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Arizona were among the states that held tribal consultations or listening sessions ahead of the Nov. 5 application deadline.

In states that did not initiate input from tribes, some Native American leaders made sure their voices were heard in other public hearings. Jerilyn Church, CEO of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, said she attended an October public meeting in South Dakota because she felt it was important for state leaders to consider how they could use the program’s resources on reservations. There are nine federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native American people make up 9% of the population.

“I felt like we needed to help be that advocate,” said Church, a citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

In the proposed initiatives included in its rural fund application, South Dakota identified tribal community needs such as improved telehealth and funding for doula programs. It also said the state will continue meeting with the Great Plains tribal health board throughout the five-year funding cycle.

In Oklahoma — where more than 14% of the population is Native American, a higher share than in most other states — tribal representatives were invited to weigh in with the rest of the public when the state was gathering information for its application, the details of which have not been publicly released.

“We’ve welcomed input from any Oklahoman,” said state health department spokesperson Erica Rankin-Riley.

North Dakota identified tribes in its state as partners in the Rural Health Transformation Program and included initiatives such as expanding physician residency slots with tribal-specific rotations and opportunities for farm-to-table food distributions. But lawmakers there declined to support a proposal that would have pledged 5% of its federal allotment to tribes. There are five federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native Americans make up nearly 5% of the population.

Some states did include proposals to fund high-priority initiatives for tribes.

Washington’s application for the rural fund included an initiative focused on improving health among Native American communities. Its goals include investing in workforce development for tribes, better care coordination between tribes and rural hospitals, and $2.4 million annually to support Washington State University’s rural health education programs, including its Indigenous health program.

Alaska’s proposal included integrating Indigenous traditional healing in Alaska Native village clinics. It would include offering traditional-healing house calls, hands-on training for healers, and traditional-medicine training for health care providers and staff, according to the application.

One of Oregon’s five initiatives would support the state’s nine federally recognized tribes in improving health outcomes. The state estimates the initiative would require $20 million per year, or 10% of the Rural Health Transformation Program award.

Whether or not states identified funding for tribes or included tribal priorities in their proposals, tribes will be eligible to apply to their states for subgrants of the Rural Health Transformation Program money. While larger tribes that have more resources, such as grant writers and staff to implement programs, could benefit, smaller tribes may struggle to produce competitive applications.

Church said that the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board will know the fruits of its labor when states are notified of their rural health fund allotments by the end of the year.

“Hopefully the work that we did, the advocacy that we did, and the outreach,” Church said, “will result in resources getting to our tribes.”

KFF Health News South Dakota correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Trump administration, which has promised “radical transparency,” said in an FAQ that it plans to publish the “project summary” for states that win awards. Following the lead of federal regulators, many states are withholding their complete applications, and some have refused to release any details.

“Let’s be clear,” said Alan Morgan, chief executive of the National Rural Health Association. “The hospital CEOs, the clinic administrators, the community leaders: They’re going to want to know what their states are doing.” The NRHA’s members include struggling rural hospitals and clinics, which federal lawmakers promised would benefit from the Trump administration’s Rural Health Transformation Program.

Morgan said his members are interested in what states propose, which of their ideas are approved or rejected, and their budget narratives, which detail how the money could be spent.

Improving rural health care is an “insanely complicated and difficult task,” Morgan said.

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program was approved by Congress in a law — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — that also drastically cuts Medicaid spending, on which rural providers heavily depend. It’s being watched closely because it’s a much-needed influx of funds — with a caveat from the Trump administration that the money be spent on transformational ideas, not just to prop up ailing rural hospitals.

The law says half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application. The rest will be distributed through a points-based system. Of the second half, $12.5 billion will be allotted based on each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that score well on initiatives and policies that, in part, mirror the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” objectives.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly promised to open the government to the American people. His agency has a webpage devoted to “radical transparency.”

“We’re working to make this the most transparent HHS in its 70-year history,” Kennedy said in written testimony to lawmakers in September.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency will follow the federal regulations governing competitive grant materials when releasing information about the rural health program.

Grant applications are “not released to the public during the merit review process,” Howden said, adding, “The purpose of this policy is to protect the integrity of evaluations, applicant confidentiality, and the competitive nature of the process.”

Democrats and many health care advocates are concerned politics will affect how much money states get.

“I am very concerned about retaliation,” said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.). Because Democrats control her state’s politics, “our application might not be as seriously considered as other states that have Republican leadership,” she added.

Illinois’ Democratic members of the U.S. House sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz in November asking for “full and fair consideration” of their state application. Illinois officials have not yet released their state’s proposal to KFF Health News, which has a pending public records request.

Heather Howard, a professor of the practice at Princeton University, said she is “pleasantly surprised at how transparent the states have been.”

Howard directs the university’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which is tracking the rural health fund, and praised most states for publicly posting their project summaries.

“To me, it speaks to the intense interest in this program,” Howard said. Her team, reviewing about two dozen state summaries, found themes including expansion of home-based and mobile services, increased use of technology, and workforce development initiatives like scholarships, signing bonuses, and child care assistance for high-demand positions.

“I think it’s exciting,” Howard said. “What’s great here is the experimentation we’re going to learn from.”

Telerobotics appeared in Georgia’s and Alabama’s applications, she said, including a proposal to use robotic equipment for remote ultrasounds.

Another theme that “warms my heart,” Howard said, was the effort among states to create advisory groups or committees, including in Idaho, where work groups are expected to focus on technology, workforce development, tribal collaboration, and behavioral health.

All 50 states submitted applications to federal regulators by the Nov. 5 deadline and awards will be announced by the end of the year, according to CMS.

As of late November, nearly 40 states had released their project narrative, the main part of the application, which describes proposed initiatives, according to KFF Health News tracking. More than a dozen states have also released their budget narratives.

Also as of late November, only a handful of states — Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Wyoming — had released all parts of the application.

KFF Health News filed public records requests for states’ complete applications. Some states have refused to release any of their application materials.

Nebraska, for example, rejected a public records request, saying its application materials are “proprietary or commercial information” that “would give advantage to business competitors.”

Kentucky shared its application summary but said the remainder of the application is a “preliminary draft” not subject to release under state laws.

Erika Engle, a spokesperson for Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, said the governor “is committed to transparency” but declined to share any of the state’s proposal.

Hawaii and other states are still processing formal public records requests.

The rural health program is part of the July law projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years.

Those cuts are expected to affect rural health facilities’ bottom lines, threatening their ability to stay open. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that rural areas continue to lack access to primary care. But the guidelines for the rural health program say states can use only 15% of their new funding to pay providers for patient care.

Between the Medicaid cuts and funding boost from the new program, “there’s real opportunity for national policy to impact rural, both in the negative and the positive potentially,” said Celli Horstman, a senior research associate at the New York-based policy think tank who co-authored the report.

Among the publicly available rural health transformation proposals, Democratic-leaning states show support, or are willing to adopt, some of the administration’s goals but will lose out on points from eschewing others.

For example, New Mexico said it would introduce legislation requiring students to take the Presidential Fitness Test and physicians to complete continuing education courses on nutrition. But it won’t prevent people from using their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy “non-nutritious” foods such as soda and candy.

Many states want to invest in technology, including telehealth, cybersecurity, and remote patient monitoring equipment. Other themes include increasing access to healthy food, improving emergency services, preventing and managing chronic illnesses, and enlisting community health workers and paramedics for home visits.

Specific proposals include:

• Arkansas wants to spend $5 million through its “FAITH” program — Faith-based Access, Interventions, Transportation, & Health — to enlist rural religious institutions to host education and preventive screening events. Congregations could also install walking circuits and fitness equipment.
• Alaska, which historically relied on dogsled teams to bring medication to remote areas, is looking to test the use of "unmanned aerial systems" to speed up pharmacy deliveries to such communities.
• Tennessee wants to increase access to healthy activities by spending money on parks, trails, and farmers markets.
• Maryland wants to start mobile markets and install refrigerators and freezers to improve access to fresh, healthy food that often spoils in rural areas with few grocery stores.

State Sen. Stephen Meredith, a Republican who represents part of western Kentucky, said he still expects rural hospitals to close despite his state’s rural health transformation program.

“I think we’re treating symptoms without curing the disease,” he said after listening to a presentation on Kentucky’s proposal at a state committee meeting.

Morgan, whose organization represents rural hospitals likely to close, said the state’s ideas may sound good.

“You can craft a narrative that sounds wonderful,” he said. “But then translating the aspirational goals to a functioning program? That’s difficult.”

KFF Health News staffers Phil Galewitz, Katheryn Houghton, Tony Leys, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, Maia Rosenfeld, Bram Sable-Smith, and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Kopplin, a physician assistant who works with seniors, low-income people, and mental health patients in the rural Black Hills, shared her thoughts at a meeting hosted by state officials.

South Dakota’s leaders did a “good job of diving in” and asking questions to get “deeper at the root of the problem,” she said.

Kopplin later told KFF Health News how one of her rural patients recently missed two appointments because of a broken-down car and no access to public transportation.

Nationwide, health care workers like Kopplin and thousands of others — from patient advocates to technology executives — flocked to town halls or online portals during the seven weeks state leaders had to craft and submit their applications for the Rural Health Transformation Program to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That deadline was Nov. 5.

“We will give $50 billion away by the end of the year,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said Nov. 6 at a Milken Institute event in Washington. He said all 50 states had submitted applications.

The program will “allow us to right-size the health care system,” Oz said, adding that innovations from the rural work “will spill over to suburban and urban America as well.”

Among applications and summaries publicly shared by states, themes include workforce development, telehealth, and access to healthy food. In Kansas, leaders want to build a “Food is Medicine” program. Wyoming officials propose a new program called “BearCare,” a state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies.

But many health policy experts and Democrats are raising alarms that the Republican-backed program will become a “slush fund.” Critics worry it will fail to reach the small-town patients they say need it most, especially as states face nearly a trillion dollars in Medicaid spending reductions over the next decade. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program, serves nearly 1 in 4 rural Americans.

“The status quo is tremendous distress in rural communities,” said Heather Howard, a professor of the practice at Princeton University and director of the university’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which is tracking the rural health fund. The new funding won’t be enough to offset the Medicaid losses, she said.

Congressional Republicans added the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener to President Donald Trump’s massive tax-and-spending legislation. The move helped win support for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act from conservative holdouts who worried that the Medicaid cuts in the bill would harm rural hospitals in their states.

In Montana, which hosted an online public forum before submitting its application, a nonprofit director pitched youth peer support as a way of battling high suicide rates. A registered nurse asked state leaders to “think maybe even bigger” and consider statewide universal health care.

And in Georgia, a technology-focused chain of primary care clinics that serves seniors proposed expanding its operations into that state in its online public comment. A rural grant writer asked for “safe and stable housing.”

The law says half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application. The rest will be doled out according to a points-based system. Of the second half, $12.5 billion will be allotted based on each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that score well on initiatives and policies that, in part, mirror the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” objectives.

Top Senate Democrats have raised alarms about the rural health program. They include Ron Wyden of Oregon and Tina Smith of Minnesota, who called on a federal watchdog agency to investigate the fairness and implementation of the fund. Taylor Harvey, a Wyden aide, said the Government Accountability Office has confirmed it will investigate.

According to the federal statute, no less than a quarter of states with an approved application may share the second half of the funding each fiscal year, CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said. The agency plans to publish summaries of approved state projects, according to CMS guidance.

A handful of conservative-leaning states — including Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma — have already instituted regulatory and legislative initiatives, such as prohibiting “non-nutritious” foods in benefit programs, that garner additional points in the program application process.

Michael Chameides, a county supervisor in rural New York, said he fears the money could “be used in ways that would hurt certain states or reward certain states.” Chameides is also the communications and policy director with the Rural Democracy Initiative, a national advocacy organization that released a rural action report last month.

Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said federal lawmakers gave Oz and his agency “really excessive discretion” when awarding the money.

Federal administrators have added rules that aren’t within the statute that created the program, Park said. For example, its application guidelines say states cannot use more than 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care — payments that are expected to take a hit due to the Medicaid cuts.

Georgetown’s health policy experts and Democrats aren’t the only ones with concerns. Some Republicans and small hospitals in Ohio worry the money will go to large health systems instead of smaller, independent hospitals that serve people within their rural communities.

CMS’ Oz repeated the idea of getting “big hospitals to adopt smaller institutions” at the Washington gathering after applications were filed. He used similar language at a rural health summit hosted by South Dakota-based Sanford Health. “How do we get big hospitals to adopt smaller hospitals? Not to take them over, but to keep them viable by giving them good telehealth services, specialty support, radiology support,” he said at the October event.

Sanford owns or manages dozens of hospitals and hundreds of clinics and long-term care centers, as well as a health insurance company. The system reported about $81 million in operating income during the first six months of fiscal year 2025, according to a recent bond rating report.

Last year, Sanford opened a “command center” for its systemwide telehealth initiative. It launched a telehealth expansion in 2021 and offers virtual care for 78 medical specialties, Sanford President and CEO Bill Gassen said.

“We’ve tried to imagine, what if that number doubles?” Gassen said. The startup costs for telehealth are high, he said, and the rural fund could be a unique opportunity “for us to make virtual care available to more patients, to more communities, to more hospitals and health systems across the country.”

Gassen, who is set to chair the American Hospital Association in 2027, said Sanford leaders have met with state and federal officials, including Oz, whom he’s known for years, and Chris Klomp, a top deputy at CMS and a senior adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The word “telehealth” appears 36 times in the rural health program’s 124-page application guidelines. But Don Robbins Jr., chief executive of a small hospital on the Illinois-Kentucky border, chuckled at the idea of using the funding for that purpose.

Robbins, whose 25-bed Massac Memorial Hospital averages five to seven patients in its beds each day, said his hospital does not regularly offer telehealth. Even if it did, he said, patients living more than a mile outside of town couldn’t use it because they don’t have a good internet connection.

The small hospital reported a $31,314 loss in September, Robbins said. “I think if we get anything out of it,” Robbins said of the rural health program, “we’ll be lucky.”

Kopplin, the physician assistant who attended the South Dakota meeting, is cautiously optimistic about the rural health fund. She views it as a wonderful chance for states to test out ideas and learn from what works and what doesn’t.

But “in a lot of ways this bill is going to be a band-aid approach” for rural health, she said. “It’s not really going to fix the problem.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

WASHINGTON — 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 Washington, 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 Donald 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.

Applications are due Nov. 5. The money will be awarded to states by the end of the year and distributed over five years.

Half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application; the other half will go to states that win points. Of the second half, $12.5 billion will be allotted based on a formula that calculates each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that score well on initiatives and policies that mirror the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” objectives.

The application identifies specific policy goals such as implementing the Presidential Fitness Test and restrictions to food assistance, as well as broader investment strategies around remote care services, data infrastructure, and consumer-facing technology tools, which CMS identified as “symptom checkers and AI chatbots.”

In September, after CMS officials released the application, Republican members of Congress from states with Democratic governors called for fairness, concerned their states might direct the money to urban areas. In a letter to Oz and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., they said the money “will serve as a lifeline for rural and at-risk hospitals in our communities that are already struggling to keep their doors open.”

Smaller hospitals fear they will get “a tiny little slice” of each state’s share, said Emily Felder, who leads the health care practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a law firm whose clients include rural hospital systems.

“There’s a lot of frustration,” Felder said.

But Kinsley, who was previously North Carolina’s secretary of health and human services, said using this money only to shore up a balance sheet “is really just throwing good money after bad.” In contrast, he said, insurgents such as technology-driven startups can offer new strategies.

One of those companies vying for funding is Homeward Health, a Silicon Valley-based company that contracts with Medicare managed care insurers. Using artificial intelligence analytics, Homeward helps patients get care in their home and with local providers.

The company manages the health of 100,000 rural Michigan patients enrolled in insurance, said Homeward co-founder and chief executive Jennifer Schneider. The company was a sponsor for the Watergate summit. It also has ongoing meetings with Oz and his team, Schneider said.

“They’re doing their job, and they’re talking to a lot of people in the ecosystem and really eager to learn from those of us that have been in the system,” Schneider said. “We’re one of many in that position.”

KFF Health News requested an interview with Alina Czekai, director of the newly created Office of Rural Health Transformation. CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said the agency was “unable to accommodate facilitation of any interview.”

Instead, CMS provided an emailed statement from Oz saying the program “will help states and communities reimagine what’s possible for rural healthcare.”

Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics, said the money would best be used to help pay for transformation that isn’t “sexy” or “revolutionary.”

“If what we end up with is we have a wearable for every rural patient, I don’t think that’s transformational,” Slabach said, referring to digital health monitors such as fitness-tracking watches.

Slabach, a onetime small-hospital chief executive and an unofficial adviser to hundreds of rural facilities nationwide, named a few ideas for the money — including paying for capital improvements such as electronic health records or equipment, loan repayment programs to aid workforce development, and creating “SWAT” teams that rescue rural hospitals on the brink of closure.

More than 150 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2010 — a statistic cited by CMS’ Sutton that is well known among industry watchers. The Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina, which compiles the closure data, also released a guide to help states calculate how rural they are for their applications.

State applications will be reviewed by a panel, with some reviewers from within the government but others outside it, said Kate Sapra, acting deputy director of the Office of Rural Health Transformation, speaking at the Watergate.

“We will train them in the scoring criteria,” Sapra said, adding that the panelists will not be coming from “your state” and will need to fill out conflict-of-interest forms. A portion of money each state gets will be reevaluated annually based on the progress it makes on its goals and priorities, according to CMS.

States are creating stakeholder groups, asking for public comment, and working with their health agencies. Some, such as Mississippi and New Mexico, are hiring consultants.

In Montana, a collection of health providers and associations proposed a list of ideas for the cash, including creating a loan repayment fund for rural clinicians to try to ease worker shortages.

“It’s one-time money, and it’s a little bit of money,” said David Mark, a doctor who is the CEO of One Health, which has clinics dotted across eastern Montana and Wyoming. A state could receive a minimum of $100 million a year for five years if all 50 states have applications approved.

“How do you accomplish goals of a health care system transformation with an infusion of money like that?” Mark said.

Neither Montana nor Wyoming — vast, rural states — sent leaders to the Watergate summit, according to a copy of the attendees list. In the afternoon, attendees could rotate among planning tables and meet with corporate sponsors such as the electronic health records behemoth Epic and the emergency services company Global Medical Response.

Wyoming Department of Health Deputy Director Franz Fuchs confirmed his state did not send representatives to the event, because they were “stretched with other commitments.” Montana, Wyoming, and other states submitted an optional letter of intent signaling they will apply for the funds. CMS did not respond to questions about how many and which states have submitted letters.

During the Watergate event, hints of brewing competition among states began to surface.

“I think Arkansas’ application is going to be better than yours,” seasoned political adviser Jack Sisson said with a smile during a morning panel.

The audience laughed. Sisson, who recently left his job as health adviser for Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders, had interrupted Michael Hendrix, policy adviser to another Republican governor, Tennessee’s Bill Lee.

“See, this is the kind of friendly competition that CMS is hoping for,” Hendrix said. He grinned, thanked Sisson, and added, “I look forward to us both winning.”

KFF Health News Montana correspondent Katheryn Houghton contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4, 2025, in a Senate hearing

At a September Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. boasted about a rural health initiative within  President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

“It’s going to be the biggest infusion of federal dollars into rural health care in American history,” Kennedy said, responding to criticism from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders said the law would harm patients and rural hospitals.

Kennedy was referring to the law’s five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said. GOP lawmakers have made similar claims about the program.

The fund was added to the bill at the last minute to secure support from Republican lawmakers who represent rural states. Some were concerned about how the bill’s Medicaid cuts would harm rural America, where more than 150 hospitals have stopped offering inpatient services or been shuttered completely since 2010, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina.

“The transformation fund was really talked about in the context of saving rural hospitals that would be facing these significant Medicaid cuts,” said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association. Medicaid is the joint state-federal health insurance program that primarily covers low-income people and those with disabilities.

So is Kennedy right in his description of the rural health fund as a historic cash infusion, or does it fail to acknowledge critical context?

The Rural Health Transformation Program

Trump’s tax and spending law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by at least $137 billion by 2034, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the law will increase the overall number of uninsured patients by 10 million by 2034.

Rural health facilities disproportionately rely on Medicaid reimbursement to stay afloat. In 2023, 40.6% of children and 18.3% of adults under age 65 from rural areas and small towns were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. In metro areas, the rates were 38.2% and 16.3%, respectively.

The Trump administration argues that rural hospitals cannot rely on “legacy” funding sources like Medicaid and Medicare due to the programs’ reimbursement structure, which ties payments to the number of services provided, a model that’s not financially sustainable for rural facilities with typically low patient volumes.

“Distinct from these other programs, the Rural Health Transformation Program is designed to provide a flexible source of investment” to promote innovation, efficiency, and sustainability, the White House wrote in a memo.

Here’s how it works. States can propose projects spearheaded by state agencies, health care providers, consultants, and vendors aimed at various purposes, such as improving technology, access to care, and workforce recruitment.

States can use only 15% of their transformation program funding for provider payments and can direct money to non-rural areas, according to KFF.

Half of the $50 billion will be evenly divided among states whose applications are approved — regardless of their rural and overall populations — according to the “Notice of Funding Opportunity” for the program.

The other half will be awarded based on “the transformative possibilities” of states’ grant proposals; how much they’ve committed to aligning their health policies with the Trump administration’s; and data on their rural population, rural health facilities, uncompensated care, and other measurements.

The application deadline is Nov. 5.

The Big Picture

Michael Meit, director of the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University, said the rural health community is excited about the innovations the new program might foster, but he’d “love for it to happen in the absence of these cuts that are going to devastate our rural health system.”

“It’s not going to fill the hole,” Meit said.

KFF estimates that the rural health fund’s five-year, $50 billion investment is a little over a third of the expected loss of federal funding in rural areas that will be spread over 10 years. According to that analysis, Medicaid cuts over that period would tally at least $137 billion in rural areas.

That number doesn’t account for other reductions stemming from the same law, such as cuts to the ACA Marketplaces or the health system revenue loss expected from an increase in the number of people without insurance. 

These factors are important to note because the rural health program is a temporary initiative, while reductions in federal spending are long-term.  

Another issue is the difference in the program’s spirit. The rural health fund is focused on transforming the rural health care system — not providing continued funding to keep facilities open or making up for lost Medicaid funds. Even if the money triggers successful innovations, there are doubts that those will happen in time to prevent rural health facilities from closing.

“There’s a real misperception that somehow these funds are going to be able to save rural America or save rural hospitals,” Cochran-McClain said.

Joseph Antos, a health policy expert and senior fellow emeritus at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Kennedy’s comment is something “politicians say when they want to ignore the rest of the policies.”

“What they wanted was to say that they were creating a new program,” Antos said. “Well, this is a very inefficient way to distribute a relatively very small amount of money to hospitals that will incur much larger bad debt over the coming years, thanks to the cuts in Medicaid.”

One Caveat

Experts said that when viewed outside of mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the $50 billion rural health fund does appear to be unrivaled, especially for a limited, five-year program.

Several mentioned the Hill-Burton Act as another program that significantly boosted rural health care. The law provided loans and grants that modernized or built 6,800 health facilities, many of which were in rural areas, from 1946 to 1997, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Incomplete funding data makes it difficult to account for inflation, said Kelsey Moran, an assistant professor and health economist at the University of Miami.

But she estimated that, during the life of the program, it spent $47 billion in 2024 dollars when using the Consumer Price Index, or $109 billion when using the CPI’s medical care index. The medical index has a higher inflation rate because health prices have risen more than overall prices.

Our Ruling 

Kennedy said the rural health fund is “going to be the biggest infusion of federal dollars into rural health care in American history.”

The statement contains an element of truth because the new program could be the most significant one-time investment in rural health funding.

But it ignores critical facts and context that create a different impression.

Federal contributions to rural areas from Medicaid and Medicare easily dwarf this program’s $50 billion mark. The new fund offers states flexibility in how they can allocate resources, meaning there’s no guarantee that all the new funding will go to rural Americans’ health care. The program comes at the same time rural areas are expected to lose far more from Medicaid cuts and an increase in uninsured patients than what the rural health fund infusion can backfill.

Experts say the rural health fund’s cash infusion is canceled out by other parts of Trump’s tax and spending law that call for cuts and policy changes.

We rate this statement Mostly False.

Our Sources

“Watch: Sanders, RFK Jr. Get Into Testy Exchange Over COVID Vaccine, CDC Director’s Firing,” CBS News, Sept. 4, 2025.

“$50B Rural Health ‘Slush Fund’ Faces Questions, Skepticism,” KFF Health News, July 21, 2025.

“Rural Hospital Closures,” Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

“Senate GOP Mulls Shielding Rural Hospitals From Medicaid Cuts,” Roll Call, June 20, 2025.

“Key Takeaways From CMS’s Rural Health Funding Announcement,” KFF, Sept. 23, 2025.

“Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline,” Congressional Budget Office, July 21, 2025.

“Medicaid’s Role in Small Towns and Rural Areas,” Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Jan. 15, 2025.

“MEMORANDUM Re: The One Big Beautiful Bill is a Historic Investment in Rural Healthcare,” The White House, undated.

Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Rural Health Transformation Program, government document published on Sept. 15, 2025.

“The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic,” Congressional Budget Office, March 5, 2024.

“The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2024: An Infographic,” Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2025.

“Hill-Burton Facilities Compliance,” HRSA, accessed Sept. 16, 2025.

“Hospital Charity Care & The Hill-Burton Act,” working paper by Kelsey Moran updated on Sept. 15, 2025.

Phone interview with Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Center on Health Policy at The Brookings Institution, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist, and Allison Orris, director of Medicaid policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, a health policy expert and senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, Sept. 23, 2025.

Phone interview with Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association, Sept. 17, 2025.

Phone interview with Kelsey Moran, assistant professor in the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Miami, Sept. 15, 2025.

Phone interview with Alana Knudson, director of the NORC Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis at the University of Chicago, Sept. 12, 2025.

Phone interview with Michael Meit, director of the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University, Sept. 11, 2025.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Rural Health Transformation Program calls for federal regulators to hand states $10 billion a year for five years starting in fiscal year 2026.

But the “devil’s in the details in terms of implementing,” said Sarah Hohman, director of government affairs at the National Association of Rural Health Clinics.

“An investment of this amount and this style into rural — hopefully it goes to rural — is the type of investment that we and other advocates have been working on for a long time,” said Hohman, whose organization represents 5,600 rural health clinics.

People who live in the nation’s rural expanses have more chronic diseases, die younger, and make less money. Those compounding factors have financially pummeled rural health infrastructure, triggering hospital closures and widespread discontinuation of critical health services like obstetrics and mental health care.

Nearly 1 in 4 people in rural America use Medicaid, the state and federal program for low-income and disabled people. So, as Senate Republicans heatedly debated Medicaid spending reductions, lawmakers added the $50 billion program to quell opposition. But health advocates and researchers doubt it will be enough to offset expected cuts in federal funding.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, which has one of the largest percentages of rural residents in the nation, led the push to pass the budget bill. His website touts support for strengthening access to care in rural areas. But his office declined to respond on the record to questions about the rural health program included in the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who introduced an initial amendment to add the rural program, also did not respond to a request for comment. On July 15, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a bill to reverse future cuts to Medicaid and add to the rural program.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., said the money was set aside because of politics and not necessarily for rural patients.

“As long as it’s a government slush fund where politics decides where the money goes, then there’s going to be a mismatch between where those funds go and what it is consumers need,” Cannon said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates federal Medicaid spending will be reduced by about $1 trillion over the next decade.

“These dollar amounts translate to actual people,” said Fredric Blavin, a senior fellow and researcher at the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank that focuses on social and economic research.

Most states expanded their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. That has lowered medical debt, improved health, and even reduced death rates, Blavin said.

By 2034, about 11.8 million people are expected to lose their health insurance from this bill, said Alice Burns, an associate director for KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. And she said the Medicaid rollback may have an outsize impact on rural areas.

In rural areas, federal Medicaid spending is expected to decline by $155 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

If the goal of the rural program was to transform rural health care, as its name suggests, it will fall short, Burns said. The $50 billion rural program distributed over five years won’t offset the losses expected over a decade of Medicaid reductions, she said.

In Kansas, Holton Community Hospital Chief Executive Carrie Lutz said she doesn’t “feel that the sky is falling right now.”

Lutz, whose 14-bed hospital is on the northern plains of the state, said she is bracing for the potential loss of Medicaid-covered patients and limits to provider taxes, which nearly all states use to get extra federal Medicaid money.

The reduction in provider taxes has been delayed until fiscal year 2028, Lutz said, but she still wants her state’s leaders to apply for a portion of the rural program funding, which is expected to be distributed sooner.

“Every little penny helps when you’ve got very negative margins to begin with,” Lutz said.

The program’s $50 billion will be spread over five years and may not be limited to bolstering rural areas or their hospitals. Half of the money will be distributed “equally” among states that apply to and win approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The law’s current language “raises the possibility” that a small state like Vermont could receive the same amount as a large state like Texas, Burns said.

States are required to submit a “detailed rural health transformation plan” by the end of this year, according to the law.

The law says states should use the funds to pursue goals including improving access to hospitals and other providers, improving health outcomes, enhancing economic opportunity for health care workers, and prioritizing the use of emerging technologies.

Mehmet Oz, a Trump appointee leading Medicare and Medicaid, will determine how to distribute the other half, or $25 billion, using a formula based on states’ rural population and need. The law says the money is to be used for such things as increasing use of robotics, upgrading cybersecurity, and helping rural communities “to right size their health care delivery systems.”

Spokespeople for CMS did not respond to a list of questions.

Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association, said there is “a pretty significant degree of discretion” for the White House and the Medicare and Medicaid administrator in approving state plans.

“We will urge states to include robust telehealth and virtual care options within their proposals going up to the federal government,” Zebley said.

Alexa McKinley Abel, government affairs and policy director for the National Rural Health Association, said that while the law calls for states to create and submit plans, it’s unclear what state agencies will perform the task, McKinley Abel said.

“There are a lot of gaps around application and implementation,” she said, noting that an earlier version of the bill called for state plans to be developed in consultation with federally funded state offices of rural health.

But those offices are proposed to be eliminated in Trump’s federal budget, which will face congressional approval in the fall. McKinley Abel said her organization supports state offices of rural health helping develop the plans and working with states to disburse the money, “since they intimately know the rural health community.”

Hohman, with the rural health clinic association, said she is not sure money from the transformation program will even reach her members. About 27% of the patients treated at rural health clinics are enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

“There’s just some confusion about who actually gets this money at the end of the day,” Hohman said. “What is it actually going to be used for?”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).