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).

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).

West River Health Services, en Hettinger —un pueblo de unos 1.000 habitantes en el suroeste del estado— tiene cuatro opciones, y ninguna es buena.

El hospital podría pagar los $100.000 que cuesta la nueva tarifa de la visa H-1B impuesta por la administración Trump y contratar a uno de los más de 30 postulantes de Filipinas o Nigeria.

Pero esa cifra equivale a lo que algunos hospitales rurales pagarían por dos técnicos de laboratorio durante un año, señaló Holzkamm, quien es la jefa del laboratorio en el centro de salud.

West River también puede optar por pedir al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional una exención del pago. Pero no está claro cuánto tiempo tomaría el proceso ni si el gobierno la otorgaría. Otra posibilidad sería seguir tratando de reclutar a alguien dentro de Estados Unidos. O dejar la vacante sin cubrir, dijo Holzkamm, pero eso aumentaría la carga de trabajo del actual “equipo que ya es mínimo”.

El sistema de salud en Estados Unidos depende del personal nacido en el extranjero para cubrir plazas como médicos, enfermeros, técnicos y otros profesionales, especialmente en centros que siempre enfrentan escasez de personal en zonas rurales.

Pero una nueva orden presidencial dirigida al uso de visas H-1B en la industria tecnológica está dificultando que hospitales como West River y otros proveedores rurales los contraten.

“La industria de la salud ni siquiera fue considerada. Van a ser víctimas colaterales, y en un grado tan extremo que está claro que no se pensó en eso en absoluto”, dijo Eram Alam, profesora asociada en Harvard cuyo último libro examina la historia de los médicos extranjeros en Estados Unidos.

Elissa Taub, una abogada de Memphis, Tennessee, que asesora a hospitales en el proceso de solicitud de visas H-1B, ha escuchado preocupaciones similares de sus clientes.

“No es que haya un excedente de médicos o enfermeros estadounidenses esperando para llenar esas plazas”, dijo.

Hasta hace poco, West River y otros empleadores pagaban hasta $5.000 cada vez que patrocinaban a un trabajador con visa H-1B, que está reservada a trabajadores extranjeros altamente calificados.

La nueva tarifa de $100.000  —parte de una orden firmada en septiembre por Trump— se aplica a los trabajadores que viven fuera de Estados Unidos, pero no a quienes ya se encuentran en el país con una visa.

Kathrine Abelita, técnica de laboratorio en West River, es una de las nueve personas empleadas —seis técnicos y tres enfermeros— que actualmente tienen o han tenido visas H-1B. Abelita es originaria de Filipinas y trabaja en West River desde 2018. Ahora es residente permanente de Estados Unidos.

Respecto de la nueva tarifa, opinó: “Esto va a ser un gran problema para la atención médica rural”. Agregó que la mayoría de los trabajadores jóvenes estadounidenses prefieren vivir en áreas urbanas.

Según una encuesta del gobierno publicada en 2023, el 16% de las enfermeras registradas, el 14% de los asistentes médicos y el 14% de las enfermeras practicantes y parteras que trabajan en hospitales del país son inmigrantes.

Además, casi una cuarta parte de los médicos se graduaron en escuelas de medicina fuera de Estados Unidos o Canadá, según los registros de licencias de 2024.

La Asociación Americana de Hospitales (AHA, por sus siglas en inglés), dos organizaciones nacionales de salud rural y más de 50 sociedades médicas han solicitado al gobierno que exima al sector salud de este nuevo arancel. Argumentan que el alto costo afectará de manera desproporcionada a las comunidades rurales que ya enfrentan dificultades para financiar y atraer personal médico.

“Una excepción general para los proveedores de salud es la solución más sencilla”, escribieron en una carta conjunta la Asociación Nacional de Salud Rural (NRHA, por sus siglas en inglés) y la Asociación Nacional de Clínicas Rurales de Salud.

La disposición contempla exenciones para personas, trabajadores de empresas específicas e incluso industrias completas, siempre que sea en función del “interés nacional”.

Las nuevas directrices indican que la exención solo se otorgará en circunstancias “extraordinariamente raras”, esto implica demostrar que no hay trabajadores estadounidenses disponibles para el puesto y que obligar a la empresa a pagar los $100.000 “socavaría significativamente” los intereses nacionales.

Taub calificó esos requisitos como “extraordinariamente estrictos”.

Representantes de la NRHA y de la Asociación Médica Americana (AMA, por sus siglas en inglés), que organizó la carta firmada por las sociedades médicas, dijeron que no han recibido respuesta luego de enviar solicitudes a la secretaria de Seguridad Nacional, Kristi Noem, entre finales de septiembre y principios de octubre. La AHA no quiso decir si obtuvo alguna respuesta.

Funcionarios del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional remitieron las preguntas de KFF Health News a la Casa Blanca, que no respondió sobre los plazos para las exenciones individuales ni sobre la posibilidad de una excepción general para el sector salud.

En cambio, la vocera de la Casa Blanca, Taylor Rogers, envió una declaración en defensa del nuevo arancel, diciendo que busca “poner a los trabajadores estadounidenses en primer lugar”.

Sus comentarios reflejan el enfoque de la orden de Trump, que acusa a la industria tecnológica de abusar del programa H-1B al reemplazar a empleados estadounidenses por trabajadores extranjeros peor pagados. Pero la orden incluye a todos los sectores.

Alam, la profesora de Harvard, señaló que la dependencia que tiene el país de proveedores internacionales plantea preocupaciones legítimas, como el hecho de que se está atrayendo profesionales de países de bajos ingresos que enfrentan desafíos sanitarios y escasez de personal aún mayores que los de Estados Unidos.

Esta dependencia, que lleva décadas, se debe, explicó, al aumento poblacional, a que las facultades de medicina históricamente excluyeron a hombres no blancos, y al hecho de que resulta “mucho, mucho más barato” importar profesionales formados en el extranjero que invertir en ampliar la educación médica dentro del país.

Según un análisis de encuestas y estudios, los médicos formados en el extranjero suelen trabajar en zonas rurales o urbanas empobrecidas y con servicios limitados.

Este año, cerca de un millar de trabajadores con visas H-1B han estado empleados en zonas rurales, según la carta enviada por las dos organizaciones de salud rural al gobierno de Trump.

Las visas J-1, que son las más comunes entre los médicos extranjeros que realizan su residencia y otra formación de posgrado en Estados Unidos, exigen que los aspirantes regresen a su país de origen durante dos años antes de solicitar una visa H-1B.

Sin embargo, un programa gubernamental conocido como Conrad 30 Waiver Program permite que, cada año, hasta 1.500 personas con visa J-1 permanezcan en Estados Unidos y soliciten una H-1B a cambio de trabajar durante tres años en áreas con escasez de proveedores, incluidas muchas comunidades rurales.

La disposición presidencial de Trump indica que los empleadores que patrocinan a trabajadores con H-1B que ya se encuentran en el país —como los médicos con estas exenciones— no tendrán que pagar la tarifa de seis cifras. Esa excepción fue aclarada en una guía publicada aproximadamente un mes después de la normativa.         

Pero los empleadores deberán pagar la nueva tasa si contratan médicos u otros trabajadores que solicitan la visa desde otros países.

Alyson Kornele, directora ejecutiva de West River Health Services, dijo que la mayoría de las enfermeras y técnicos de laboratorio extranjeros que emplea el hospital están fuera de Estados Unidos al momento de presentar la solicitud.

Ivan Mitchell, director ejecutivo de Great Plains Health en North Platte, Nebraska, dijo que la mayoría de los médicos de su hospital con visa H-1B ya estaban en el país con otro tipo de visa cuando se postularon. Pero mencionó que los fisioterapeutas, enfermeros y técnicos de laboratorio suelen solicitarla desde el extranjero.

Según Holzkamm, antes del nuevo arancel, contratar a solicitantes con visa H-1B para su laboratorio tomaba entre cinco y ocho meses.

Bobby Mukkamala, cirujano y presidente de la Asociación Médica Estadounidense, dijo que tanto los legisladores republicanos como los demócratas están preocupados por las consecuencias que esto tendrá en la atención médica rural.

Entre ellos se encuentra el líder de la mayoría en el Senado, John Thune, quien afirmó que planeaba comunicarse con el gobierno para plantear posibles exenciones.

“Queremos que el proceso sea más fácil, no más difícil; y menos costoso, no más caro, para quienes necesitan mano de obra”, dijo el republicano a KFF Health News en septiembre.

La oficina de Thune no respondió a las preguntas sobre si el senador ha tenido contacto con el gobierno respecto a posibles exenciones para personal médico.

El gobierno de Trump enfrenta al menos dos demandas judiciales que buscan bloquear la nueva tasa. Una de las demandas fue presentada por una empresa que recluta enfermeros extranjeros y un sindicato que representa a médicos recién graduados. Otra, elevada por la Cámara de Comercio de Estados Unidos, menciona la preocupación por la escasez de médicos y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud para asumir este nuevo costo.

Kornele dijo que West River no podrá pagar una tarifa de $100.000, por lo que está redoblando esfuerzos de reclutamiento y retención local.

Pero Holzkamm afirmó que no ha tenido éxito al buscar técnicos de laboratorio en las universidades de North Dakota, ni siquiera entre quienes realizan prácticas en el hospital. Agregó que West River no puede competir con los sueldos que se ofrecen en las ciudades más grandes.

“Es un ciclo muy negativo en este momento. Estamos en serios problemas”, dijo.

Phillip Reese es especialista en análisis de datos y profesor asociado de Periodismo en la California State University, Sacramento.

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).

Because they aren’t U.S. citizens, they would each need a visa.

West River and other companies used to pay up to $5,000 in fees to sponsor each H-1B visa for such workers.

The nonprofit hospital now has to pay $100,000 if it wants to hire one of the new applicants, who are all from the Philippines or Nigeria. Or it could spend money on an attorney to petition the government for an exemption from the new fee.

H-1B visas are for highly skilled foreign workers in fields — such as the chronically understaffed rural health system — that struggle to find enough American employees.

In September, President Donald Trump increased the visa fee to $100,000 for workers living outside the U.S. It doesn’t apply to foreign workers or students who were already in the U.S. on a visa.

His proclamation rails against the tech world’s use of H-1B workers, but the new fee applies to all fields.

“The health care industry wasn’t even considered. They’re going to be collateral damage, and to such an extreme degree that it was clearly not thought about at all,” said Eram Alam, a Harvard associate professor whose new book examines the history of foreign doctors in the U.S.

Federal guidance says H-1B applicants will receive a fee exemption only in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance.”

The American Hospital Association, two national rural health organizations, and more than 50 medical societies asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to grant categorical exemptions for the health care industry. The new cost will disproportionally harm rural communities that already struggle to afford and recruit enough providers, the groups argued.

DHS officials directed inquiries to the White House, which did not answer questions about individual waiver timelines or the possibility of an exemption for the health care industry.

Instead, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers sent a statement defending the new fee, saying it will “put American workers first.”

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).

Not one U.S. citizen has applied.

West River Health Services in Hettinger, a town of about 1,000 residents in the southwestern part of the state, has four options, and none is good.

The hospital could fork over $100,000 for the Trump administration’s new H-1B visa fee and hire one of the more than 30 applicants from the Philippines or Nigeria. The fee is the equivalent of what some rural hospitals would pay two lab techs in a year, said Holzkamm, who is West River’s lab manager.

West River could ask the Department of Homeland Security to waive the fee. But it’s unclear how long the waiver process would take and if the government would grant one. The hospital could continue trying to recruit someone inside the U.S. for the job. Or, Holzkamm said, it could leave the position unfilled, adding to the workload of the current “skeleton crew.”

The U.S. health care system depends on foreign-born professionals to fill its ranks of doctors, nurses, technicians, and other health providers, particularly in chronically understaffed facilities in rural America.

But a new presidential proclamation aimed at the tech industry’s use of H-1B visas is making it harder for West River and other rural providers to hire those staffers.

“The health care industry wasn’t even considered. They’re going to be collateral damage, and to such an extreme degree that it was clearly not thought about at all,” said Eram Alam, a Harvard associate professor whose new book examines the history of foreign doctors in the U.S.

Elissa Taub, a Memphis, Tennessee-based attorney who assists hospitals with the H-1B application process, has been hearing concerns from her clients.

“It’s not like there’s a surplus of American physicians or nurses waiting in the wings to fill in those positions,” she said.

Until recently, West River and other employers paid up to $5,000 each time they applied to sponsor an H-1B worker. The visas are reserved for highly skilled foreign workers.

The new $100,000 fee — part of a September proclamation by President Donald Trump — applies to workers living outside the U.S. but not those who were already in the U.S. on a visa.

West River lab tech Kathrine Abelita is one of nine employees — six technicians and three nurses — at the hospital who are current or former H-1B visa holders. Abelita is from the Philippines and has worked at West River since 2018. She’s now a permanent U.S. resident.

"It’s going to be a big problem for rural health care," she said of the new fee. She said most younger American workers want to live in urban areas.

Sixteen percent of registered nurses, 14% of physician assistants, and 14% of nurse practitioners and midwives who work in U.S. hospitals are immigrants, according to a 2023 government survey. Nearly a quarter of physicians in the U.S. went to medical school outside the U.S. or Canada, according to 2024 licensing data.

The American Hospital Association, two national rural health organizations, and more than 50 medical societies have asked the administration to give the health care industry exemptions from the new fee. The new cost will disproportionally harm rural communities that already struggle to afford and recruit enough providers, the groups argue.

“A blanket exception for healthcare providers is the simplest path forward,” the National Rural Health Association and National Association of Rural Health Clinics wrote in a joint letter.

The proclamation allows fee exemptions for individuals, workers at specific companies, and those in entire industries when “in the national interest.” New guidance says the fee will be waived only in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance.” That includes showing that there is “no American worker” available for the position and that requiring a company to spend $100,000 would “significantly undermine” U.S. interests.

Taub called those standards “exceptionally high.”

Representatives of the NRHA and the American Medical Association, which organized a letter from the medical societies, said they’ve received no response after sending requests to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in late September and early October. The AHA declined to say whether it had heard back.

Homeland Security officials directed KFF Health News’ inquiries to the White House, which did not answer questions about individual waiver timelines or the possibility of a categorical exemption for the health care industry.

Instead, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers sent a statement defending the new fee, saying it will “put American workers first.” Her comments echo Trump’s proclamation, which focuses on accusations that the tech industry is abusing the H-1B program by replacing American workers with lower-paid foreign ones. But the order applies to all trades.

Alam, the Harvard professor, said the U.S.’ reliance on international providers does raise legitimate concerns, such as about how it takes professionals away from lower-income countries facing even greater health concerns and staffing shortages than the U.S.

This decades-long dependency, she said, stems from population booms, medical schools’ historical exclusion of nonwhite men, and the “much, much cheaper” cost of importing providers trained abroad than expanding health education in the U.S.

Internationally trained doctors tend to work in rural and urban areas that are poor and underserved, according to a survey and research review.

Nearly 1,000 H-1B providers were employed in rural areas this year, the two rural health organizations wrote in their letter to the Trump administration.

J-1 visas, the most common type held by foreign doctors during their residencies and other postgraduate training in the U.S., require them to return to their home country for two years before applying for an H-1B.

But a government program called the Conrad 30 Waiver Program allows up to 1,500 J-1 holders a year to remain in the U.S. and apply for an H-1B in exchange for working for three years in a provider shortage area, which includes many rural communities.

Trump’s proclamation says employers that sponsor H-1B workers already inside the U.S., such as doctors with these waivers, won’t have to pay the six-figure fee, a nuance clarified in guidance released about a month later.

But employers will have to pay the new fee when hiring doctors and others who apply while living outside the U.S.

Alyson Kornele, CEO of West River Health Services, said most of the foreign nurses and lab techs it hires are outside the U.S. when they apply.

Ivan Mitchell, CEO of Great Plains Health in North Platte, Nebraska, said most of his hospital’s H-1B physicians were inside the U.S. on other visas when they applied. But he said physical therapists, nurses, and lab techs typically apply from abroad.

Holzkamm said it took five to eight months to hire H-1B applicants at her lab before the new fee was introduced.

Bobby Mukkamala, a surgeon and the president of the American Medical Association, said Republican and Democratic lawmakers are concerned about the ramifications for rural health care.

They include Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who said he planned to reach out about possible exemptions.

“We want to make it easier, not harder, and less expensive, not more expensive, for people who need the workforce,” the Republican told KFF Health News in September.

Thune’s office did not respond to questions about whether the senator has heard from the administration regarding potential waivers for health workers.

The Trump administration is facing at least two lawsuits attempting to block the new fee. One group of plaintiffs includes a company that recruits foreign nurses and a union that represents medical graduates. Another lawsuit, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, mentions concerns about the physician shortage and health systems’ ability to afford the new fee.

Kornele said West River won’t be able to afford a $100,000 fee so it’s doubling down on local recruiting and retention.

But Holzkamm said she hasn’t been successful in finding lab techs from North Dakota colleges, even those who intern at the hospital. She said West River can’t compete with the salaries offered in bigger cities.

“It’s a bad cycle right now. We’re in a lot of trouble,” she said.

Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.

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).

El gobierno de Trump, que ha prometido “transparencia radical”, afirmó en un documento de preguntas frecuentes que planea publicar el “resumen de proyectos” de los estados que obtengan fondos. Siguiendo el ejemplo de los reguladores federales, muchos estados ocultan sus solicitudes completas, y algunos se han negado a revelar cualquier detalle.

“Seamos claros”, dijo Alan Morgan, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Nacional de Salud Rural (NRHA, por sus siglas en inglés). “Los directores de hospitales, los administradores de clínicas, los líderes comunitarios: todos van a querer saber qué están haciendo sus estados”.

Entre los miembros de la NRHA se incluyen hospitales y clínicas rurales con dificultades económicas, a los que legisladores federales prometieron beneficiar con el Programa de Transformación de la Salud Rural del gobierno de Trump.

Morgan señaló que sus miembros están interesados en saber qué proponen los estados, qué ideas son aprobadas o rechazadas y cuáles son sus justificaciones presupuestarias, que explican cómo podría gastarse el dinero.

Mejorar la atención médica rural es una “tarea increíblemente complicada y difícil”, afirmó Morgan.

El Programa de Transformación de la Salud Rural, con una duración de cinco años, fue aprobado por el Congreso en una ley —la llamada One Big Beautiful Bill Act— que también reduce drásticamente el gasto de Medicaid, del cual dependen en gran medida los proveedores de salud en zonas rurales. Este programa está siendo observado con atención porque representa una inyección muy necesaria de fondos, aunque con la condición impuesta por el gobierno de Trump de que el dinero se utilice en ideas transformadoras y no simplemente para mantener a flote a hospitales rurales en crisis.

La ley indica que la mitad de los $50.000 millones se dividirá en partes iguales entre todos los estados con una solicitud aprobada. El resto se distribuirá en base a un sistema de puntos. De la segunda mitad, $12.500 millones se asignarán en función del nivel de “ruralidad” de cada estado. Los otros $12.500 millones se otorgarán a estados que obtengan buenos puntajes en iniciativas y políticas alineadas, en parte, con los objetivos del gobierno de Trump bajo el lema “Hacer a Estados Unidos Saludable de Nuevo” (Make America Healthy Again).

El secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., ha prometido en repetidas ocasiones abrir el gobierno al pueblo estadounidense. Su agencia tiene una página web dedicada a la “transparencia radical”.

“Estamos trabajando para que este sea el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés) más transparente en sus 70 años de historia”, escribió Kennedy en un testimonio escrito al Congreso en septiembre.

Lawrence Gostin, profesor de derecho en salud pública en la Universidad Georgetown, dijo que el HHS está actuando “de manera totalmente opaca” y que el público tiene derecho a exigir “mayor apertura y claridad”. Sin transparencia, agregó, la población no puede evaluar las responsabilidades de esa agencia.

Catherine Howden, vocera de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS, por sus siglas en inglés), dijo que la agencia seguirá las regulaciones federales que rigen los materiales de subvenciones competitivas al publicar información sobre el programa de salud rural.

Las solicitudes de subvención “no se hacen públicas durante el proceso de evaluación por méritos”, dijo Howden, y agregó: “El propósito de esta política es proteger la integridad de las evaluaciones, la confidencialidad de los solicitantes y la naturaleza competitiva del proceso”.

Demócratas y algunos defensores de la atención de salud temen que las decisiones sobre la distribución del dinero tengan motivaciones políticas.

“Me preocupan las represalias políticas”, dijo la representante Nikki Budzinski, demócrata de Illinois. Como los demócratas controlan la política de nuestro estado, “nuestra solicitud podría no ser tomada tan en serio como la de otros estados liderados por republicanos”, agregó.

En noviembre, los legisladores demócratas de Illinois en la Cámara de Representantes enviaron una carta al administrador de los CMS, Mehmet Oz, solicitando una “evaluación justa e integral” de la solicitud estatal. Las autoridades de Illinois aún no han comunicado su propuesta a KFF Health News, que presentó una solicitud de registros públicos.

Heather Howard, profesora en la Universidad de Princeton, dijo que le “sorprende gratamente la transparencia de muchos estados”.

Howard dirige el programa State Health and Value Strategies de la universidad, que monitorea el fondo de salud rural, y elogió a la mayoría de los estados por publicar sus resúmenes del proyecto.

“Esto demuestra el enorme interés que despierta el programa”, dijo Howard.

Su equipo, que revisó cerca de dos docenas de resúmenes estatales, identificó temas comunes como la expansión de servicios móviles y a domicilio, mayor uso de tecnología, y desarrollo de la fuerza laboral con becas, bonos por contratación y ayuda para cuidado infantil en puestos de alta demanda.

“Creo que es emocionante”, dijo Howard. “Considero muy valioso lo que podemos aprender de estas propuestas”.

Howard señaló que las solicitudes de Georgia y Alabama incluían el uso de telerrobótica: una propuesta para utilizar robots para realizar ecografías remotas.

Otro tema que “me entusiasma”, dijo, es el esfuerzo de los estados por crear grupos o comités asesores, como en Idaho, donde se espera que los grupos de trabajo se enfoquen en tecnología, desarrollo de fuerza laboral, colaboración con comunidades indígenas, y salud mental y conductual.

Los 50 estados presentaron sus solicitudes a los reguladores federales antes de la fecha límite del 5 de noviembre, y las resoluciones se anunciarán antes de que termine el año, según los CMS.

Hasta finales de noviembre, casi 40 estados habían hecho público su resumen del proyecto, que es la parte principal de la solicitud donde se describen las iniciativas propuestas, según un seguimiento de KFF Health News. Más de una docena de estados también publicaron sus presupuestos.

Un pequeño grupo de estados —Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nuevo México, Dakota del Norte, Carolina del Sur y Wyoming— publicó todos los componentes de la solicitud.

KFF Health News presentó solicitudes de registros públicos para obtener las peticiones completas de los estados. Algunos se negaron a entregar cualquier parte de sus materiales.

Nebraska, por ejemplo, rechazó la solicitud argumentando que su contenido es “información comercial o propietaria” que “podría beneficiar a competidores comerciales”.

Kentucky compartió el resumen de su solicitud, pero indicó que el resto es un “borrador preliminar” no sujeto a divulgación bajo las leyes estatales.

Erika Engle, vocera del gobernador de Hawaii, Josh Green, dijo que el gobernador “está comprometido con la transparencia”, pero se negó a compartir la propuesta del estado.

Hawaii y otros estados aún están procesando solicitudes formales de registros públicos.

Este programa de salud rural forma parte de la ley aprobada en julio que se prevé que reducirá el gasto federal de Medicaid en zonas rurales en $137.000 millones durante los próximos 10 años.

Se espera que estos recortes afecten las finanzas de centros rurales, poniendo en riesgo su capacidad para seguir operando. Un informe reciente de Commonwealth Fund reveló que muchas áreas rurales siguen sin acceso adecuado a atención primaria. Pero las normas del programa de salud rural indican que solo el 15% de los nuevos fondos puede utilizarse para pagar atención directa a los pacientes.

Entre los recortes a Medicaid y la nueva inversión del programa, “hay una verdadera oportunidad para que las políticas nacionales tengan un impacto en las zonas rurales, tanto de forma negativa como positiva”, señaló Celli Horstman, investigadora principal de la fundación en Nueva York y coautora del informe.

Entre las propuestas disponibles al público, los estados con gobiernos demócratas muestran disposición para apoyar algunos de los objetivos del gobierno, aunque también rechazan otros, lo cual podría restarles puntos.

Por ejemplo, Nuevo México indicó que presentará una ley para que los estudiantes tomen la Prueba Presidencial de Aptitud Física (Presidential Fitness Test) y que los médicos realicen cursos de educación continua sobre nutrición. Pero no impedirá que las personas usen sus beneficios del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP, por sus siglas en inglés) para comprar productos “no nutritivos” como sodas o dulces.

Muchos estados planean invertir en tecnología, como telesalud, ciberseguridad y equipos para monitoreo remoto de pacientes. Otros temas incluyen mejorar el acceso a alimentos saludables, fortalecer los servicios de emergencia, prevenir y tratar enfermedades crónicas, y recurrir a trabajadores comunitarios de salud y paramédicos para visitas domiciliarias.

Algunas propuestas específicas incluyen:

• Arkansas quiere gastar $5 millones en su programa “FAITH” —Acceso, Transporte y Salud Basados en la Fe— para que instituciones religiosas rurales organicen eventos de educación y pruebas preventivas. También se instalarían circuitos para caminar y equipos de ejercicio en las congregaciones.
• Alaska, que históricamente ha usado trineos de perros para entregar medicamentos en zonas remotas, quiere probar el uso de “sistemas aéreos no tripulados” para agilizar la entrega de medicinas.
• Tennessee quiere aumentar el acceso a actividades saludables con inversiones en parques, senderos y mercados agrícolas.
• Maryland propone abrir mercados móviles e instalar refrigeradores y congeladores para facilitar el acceso a alimentos frescos y saludables que suelen dañarse en zonas rurales con pocos supermercados.

El senador estatal Stephen Meredith, un republicano que representa una parte del oeste de Kentucky, dijo que espera que los hospitales rurales sigan cerrando, pese al programa estatal.

“Creo que estamos tratando los síntomas sin curar la enfermedad”, señaló después de escuchar una presentación sobre la propuesta de Kentucky.

Morgan, cuya organización representa a hospitales rurales que probablemente cerrarán, dijo que las ideas del estado pueden sonar bien.

“Uno puede escribir una narrativa que suene maravillosa”, afirmó. “Pero traducir esas metas aspiracionales en un programa funcional, eso es más difícil”.

Los reporteros de KFF Health News, Phil Galewitz, Katheryn Houghton, Tony Leys, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, Maia Rosenfeld, Bram Sable-Smith y Lauren Sausser contribuyeron con este artículo.

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).

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).

Federal funding ran out at midnight on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to pass even a stopgap budget while negotiations continued.

Now the question is how long the deadlock will last, with Democrats pitted against Republicans and a presidential administration that has broken with constitutional norms and regularly used political intimidation and primary threats to achieve its ends. Because Republicans hold only a slim majority in the Senate, any deal will need to attract at least a few Democratic votes.

Ramifications from a shutdown on public health systems and health programs will be felt far beyond Washington, D.C., halting almost all of the federal government’s nonessential functions, including many operations related to public health.

Even on Sept. 30, as the clock ticked toward midnight, President Donald Trump renewed threats about mass firings of federal workers if Democrats didn’t acquiesce to GOP demands. Some people worry that such workforce reductions would further enable the administration to undermine federal government operations and reduce the budget impasse to what’s been described as three-dimensional chess or a game of chicken.

Such threats to fire, rather than temporarily suspend, federal workers are “unprecedented,” said G. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center. The lack of negotiations between Capitol Hill Republicans and Democrats in advance of the shutdown is also unprecedented in his experience, said Hoagland, a longtime GOP Senate Budget Committee aide.

The stalemate centers largely on health coverage, with Democrats and Republicans clashing over the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid cuts. For Americans with ACA marketplace plans, government subsidies cap the percentage of household income they must pay toward premiums. Lawmakers expanded the subsidies in 2021 and extended that additional help through the end of 2025, and the looming expiration of those expanded subsidies would increase costs and reduce eligibility for assistance for millions of enrollees.

Democrats want a further extension of the subsidies, but many GOP lawmakers are resistant to extending them as is and say that debate must wait until after a budget deal to keep the federal government afloat. Antagonism has grown, with the parties in a pitched battle to convince voters the other party is to blame for the government’s closure.

Said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor Sept. 30: “Republicans have chosen the losing side of the health care debate, because they’re trying to take away people’s health care; they’re going to let people’s premiums rise.”

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune accused Democrats of attempting to “take government funding hostage.”

The longer a shutdown lasts, the more impacts could be felt. For example, some community health centers would be at risk of closure as their federal funding dries up.

Long-term projects by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to reduce damage from future natural disasters will stop, for example. Rescue services at national parks that stay open will be limited. And at the National Institutes of Health, many new patients awaiting access to experimental treatments may not be admitted to its clinical center.

Entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare will continue, as will operations at the Indian Health Service. But disease surveillance, support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to local and state health departments, and funding for health programs will all be hampered, based on federal health agencies’ contingency plans.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to furlough about 40% of its workforce, which has already been downsized by about 20,000 positions under the Trump administration. Across the federal government, roughly 750,000 employees will be furloughed, according to an estimate released Sept. 30 by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that calculates the cost of legislation. While furloughed employees won’t be working, eventually they will get back pay, totaling about $400 million daily, the CBO estimated.

At HHS, research is expected to pause on the links between drug prices and the Inflation Reduction Act, the major law enacted under former President Joe Biden to boost the economy. Despite reports that Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the FDA would basically be untouched, the agency won’t accept new drug applications and food safety efforts will be reduced. Federal oversight of a program that helps hospitals save lives and evacuate individuals in environmental crises is expected to stop.

Fewer federal staff will be available to provide help to Medicaid and Medicare enrollees. CDC responses to inquiries about public health matters will be suspended. And the work of a federal vaccine injury program is also anticipated to stop.

Congressional Democrats insist the ACA subsidies must be renewed now because enrollment for the Obama-era health program opens on Nov. 1. Without the extended subsidies, health insurers are warning of double-digit premium hikes for millions of enrollees.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has argued that a “Republican-caused health care crisis” is hanging over Americans as a result of Trump’s new tax-and-spending bill, which adds restrictions to Medicaid that are expected to kick millions off the program. Republicans have also advanced mass layoffs and funding cuts at the nation’s health department and caused widespread confusion over access to some vaccines.

“We’re not going to simply go along to get along with a Republican bill that continues to gut the health care of everyday Americans,” Jeffries told reporters Sept. 29. “These people have been trying to repeal and displace people off the Affordable Care Act since 2010.”

Republicans, meanwhile, have blasted Democrats for holding up funding over the subsidies and say any deal will require concessions.

“If there were some extension of the existing policy, I think it would have to come with some reforms,” Thune, the Senate Republican leader, said Sept. 26.

Such a deal may involve changes to a policy that caps what consumers have to pay for ACA marketplace plans at 8.5% of their income, no matter how much they earn. It could also alter their ability to obtain plans with no premiums, an option that became more widely available because of the beefed-up subsidies.

Adding restrictions to the ACA subsidies is likely to decrease enrollment in the program, which saw declines during the first Trump administration and did not reach 20 million for the first time until last year, a milestone reached in large part due to the subsidies.

Several Republicans have expressed interest in extending the subsidies, including a group of GOP representatives who proposed legislation to do so last month.

Democrats may be betting that the timing of the shutdown will put pressure on their Republican colleagues to come to the negotiation table on the ACA subsidies.

Within days of the government’s closure, ACA enrollees are expected to get notices from their health insurers advising them of steeper premiums. Insurers have said the expiring subsidies have forced those large premium hikes because the healthiest and youngest people are more likely to opt out of coverage when prices go up.

The White House, meanwhile, ramped up its pressure campaign on Democrats. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted Sept. 29 that Trump wants to keep the government open.

“Our most vulnerable in our society and our country will be impacted by a government shutdown,” she 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).