Hundreds of rural hospitals at risk if Medicaid cuts off the passage: Democrats

Diving brief:

• Hundreds of rural hospitals are at high risk of reducing services, converting to another type of health establishment or closing their doors completely in the event of a MEDICAID cut in Congress, a group of Democratic senators said on Thursday.
• The analysis found 338 rural hospitals were at risk of closing, conversion or service discounts because they care for Medicaid patients, have experienced three years of total negative margins or both, according to data published by legislators.
• According to the letter, almost 20% of Alabama hospitals with available data are in the most risk of financial distress category, while 18% of the rural facilities in Tennessee experienced three years of negative margins, according to the letter. “In short, many of these rural hospitals face financial instability today, even before republican health care cuts take effect,” the legislators wrote.

Diving insight:

The Chamber narrowly adopted the bill of reconciliation, called the One Big Beautiful Bill law in late May.

Legislation includes a number of health provisions, including significant reductions in the Medicaid security-clean insurance program. In particular, it would require working hours on the Journal des beneficiaries of Medicaid, the hours of volunteer or training in order to remain registered with the coverage, as well as to increase the frequency of eligibility controls.

However, most registrants already work, suggesting that persons withdrawn from insurance would lose coverage due to the administrative burden on declaration or unstable employment requirements, according to experts.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 11 million additional people are not ensured in 2034 if the reconciliation bill is adopted. Nearly 8 million would lose the coverage due to Medicaid provisions alone.

An increase in uninsured patients would also reach the results of providers, in particular those who serve a high number of Medicaid and Rural Hospitals – installations which are probably already in financial difficulty, according to data published by Sens. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Chuck Schumer, Dn.y., Ron Wyden, D-ear. And Jeff Merkley, D-ear.

In the United States, many of the more than 2,000 rural hospitals are already faced with financial distress, according to Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, which carried out the analysis published by Democratic legislators.

Eighty-three rural hospitals run the highest relative risk of financial distress based on the model of researchers, according to the letter.

Many rural providers serve a large part of Medicaid patients. For example, nearly a quarter of rural hospitals in Virginia-Western and the majority of Rural Installations in Louisiana serve a high share of beneficiaries of Medicaid. In Alaska and Kentucky, 44% of rural hospitals with the data from available payers serve a large part of the patients registered in safety insurance.

“Tackling the crisis of access to rural health care is a national and bipartite priority, and it should be bipartite not to worsen it,” the legislators wrote in the letter to president Donald Trump, the head of the majority of the Senate John Thune, Rs.d., and the president of the Mike Johnson Chamber, R-La. “However, if your party transmits this health care in law, Americans in rural communities across the country are likely to lose health services and jobs supported by their local hospitals.”

The letter is the last stolen from the protest of the Democrats against the legislation, which, according to them, would remove the health insurance coverage of the poor Americans to continue the tax cuts which largely benefit the rich.

Republicans argue that the bill preserves the safety insurance program for the most vulnerable and valid people of roles and the reduction of fraud, waste and abuse.

However, some GOP legislators have raised concerns concerning the MEDICAIDS policies of the bill, noting that the cuts could harm their own voters. The bill is currently being studied in the Senate, where its provisions could change.