Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

When Josh Fleig, Louisiana’s chief innovation officer, learned his state had set aside $20 million a year, for five years, to invest in startup rural health companies, his reaction was not surprising: “Wow!”

In rural America, where people are often reported to be sicker with poor access to healthcare, the cash influx is a relief. In the economic development space where Fleig operates, it’s an opportunity.

“Look, that’s a lot of money for what we do,” said Fleig, whose state-funded economic development office invests in corporate launches, ranging from software startups to shipbuilders.

Louisiana and a handful of other states set aside money from their share of the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to quickly invest in new technologies, mirroring private industry moves. Lawmakers added the rural health program to offset more than $900 billion in reduced Medicaid spending expected over 10 years from Republicans’ sweeping 2025 tax and spending law.

But rather than filling the budget hole, the rural program’s assignment is to find new approaches for revitalizing rural communities where doctors are in short supply and hospitals have been downsizing and closing for decades. The federal government doled out the first-year rural health program awards to states this year, with pots ranging from $147 million in New Jersey to $281 million in Texas.

Modernizing technology infrastructure is a key pillar of the federal rural health program, and the catalyst money epitomizes the administration’s strategy to move fast and experiment with untested technology — much like the “move fast and break things” mantra during the heyday of Silicon Valley.

Instead of breaking things, though, the goal is to “move fast, fast-fail, innovate quickly, and move to sustainability,” said Aaron Bujnowski, a managing director with the healthcare industry group at the consultancy Alvarez & Marsal. “This is a transformation that is still meant to serve the people.”

Rigorous Rules and Tight Deadlines

Beyond Louisiana, Timothy Foster, a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, confirmed that Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia are also creating rural health tech catalyst funds.

Every year, states must compete for rural funding in the five-year federal program. Federal regulators will take money away from states that do not meet the goals promised in their applications, including whether they designated money to companies for tech innovations.

CMS, which is overseeing the program, released a seven-step for states to follow when creating the tech catalyst operations. No more than 10% of each state’s award can be spent on a rural tech catalyst fund.

States’ initial annual progress reports for the rural fund were due at the end of August. CMS has declined to publicly post those reports; it plans to publish an annual report on state progress. States must show that first-year funds will be obligated — but not necessarily spent — by Oct. 30, according to the CMS guidance document.

Daniel X. O’Neil, a technology consultant who advocates for open data and open government, created a and parsed the original state applications to find dozens that mention catalyst awards and technology funds.

O’Neil said he is “looking forward to the clawbacks and the craziness of October because, you know, that’s serious stuff.”

For the rural health catalyst funds, CMS requires states to submit the list of finalists “at least 15 business days” before announcing winners, along with “sufficient information” for the agency to “assess each proposed project,” according to the guidance document.

The document outlines intellectual property and federal rights but does not provide guidance or standards for patient rights or protections. CMS spokesperson Foster stated in an email that the technology investments must comply with federal “privacy, security, interoperability, and patient safety” requirements.

Protecting Patients

Maya Sandalow, director of the health program at the Bipartisan Policy Center and one of the leading analysts watching the rural fund, said the catalyst funds are “public dollars” and has called for more transparency in the overall rural health program. The center is a nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C.

Accurate and timely reporting must be done to ensure “the necessary guardrails are in place” to protect patients, she said, adding that the innovation needs to be “tested in a way that’s safe for the patients that they are going to be used on.”

To apply, startups must be less than 10 years old and have raised less than $50 million in early funding. Companies that win a portion of state catalyst funds must meet predetermined milestones before being paid — and federal officials will make “targeted reviews as needed,” according to the guidance document.

Louisiana officials announced the state’s tech catalyst fund with an event in rural Natchitoches, known as the filming location of the 1989 film Steel Magnolias. The fund quickly drew more than 200 companies competing for between $250,000 and $3 million in seed money.

Tiny startup Greens Health was invited to the event. The 2-year-old company analyzes Medicare claims to identify patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and works with local home health nurses and senior facilities to improve care.

“We’ve been looking for a way to launch in Louisiana,” said Kehlin Swain, co-founder and chief executive of Greens Health. The company serves about 100 patients across Texas, Alabama, and Florida and hopes to get a $250,000 investment from Louisiana.

Louisiana’s Fleig said his state is “at a really interesting turning point.” The state secured $208.4 million for the first year of the rural health program and quickly created its catalyst fund using the state’s already established innovation department.

At the same time, nearly 1.1 million people live in Louisiana’s rural parishes and the state ranks as the “least healthy” in the nation, according to its own application. State rates of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease are among the highest in the nation.

Fleig believes Louisiana is an ideal place to test technology solutions. So, while Silicon Valley has “not needed much of what Louisiana has had to offer” for much of its existence, it does now, he said.

Caret Health is one of those companies. Co-founders Riya Pulicharam, who is a physician-researcher, and Kevin Zhao, an engineer, met in Silicon Valley. Together, they created a technology platform that identifies patients who need help getting to their appointments, having scans done, or picking up prescriptions. That technology flags a human, who then contacts the patient with a call or text.

Zhao said Caret had successful pilots at large health systems, but those places also had other vendors and “it was a pretty big uphill battle” to get in and scale. Then, in 2024, the company began paying attention to rural places.

“There wasn’t a lot of existing infrastructure. And that was really good for us because we were able to come in very quickly,” Zhao said. “A lot of the hospitals really needed this kind of service.”

Fast-forward to 2026: Caret Health is about 4 years old and has contracted with about 60 hospitals in 16 states. Pulicharam and Zhao hope to win $3 million to expand into Louisiana.

Louisiana’s Fleig said the state will take an equity stake in each company it invests in. “The dream” is that selected startup companies will also help the state make money to reinvest. If some companies fail — or fail fast — that’s to be expected, but the state should still make money because of “the law of averages,” he said.

“If we are good, we’ll make more money than we spent,” Fleig said. “Either way, it’s going to go back into improving healthcare outcomes.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities — and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Afterward, though, use of Sturgis Hospital’s emergency department fell, according to data collected at the state level. In June, three years after taking the federal lifeline, the hospital closed, leaving residents of Sturgis, a town of about 11,000 people, without critical healthcare. Its leaders had tried “every reasonable option” to remain open, including seeking a buyer, according to a

The closure “could be kind of a canary in the coal mine” for rural healthcare, said Lauren LaPine-Ray, the vice president of policy and rural health at the Michigan Health & Hospital Association.

Federal leaders have spent decades trying to prop up rural hospitals, which face persistent staffing shortages, low federal payment rates, and declining patient numbers.

About 1,700 hospitals nationwide are eligible to convert to the stripped-down Rural Emergency Hospital model. So far, more than 50 rural hospitals in over 20 states have signed on, but LaPine-Ray and other hospital leaders nationwide fear Sturgis’ failure is a sign the new model won’t be enough to keep doors open when the anticipated federal funding losses arrive from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Last year, the survival of rural hospitals became as Congress debated the massive tax and spending law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid funding by more than $900 billion over 10 years. The reductions are expected to have a substantial impact in rural areas that often have high Medicaid enrollment. Republicans added the new $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program to win votes from a few holdouts in their ranks.

Sturgis’ facility is the only rural U.S. hospital to in 2026. The day before it shuttered, four senators — including Maine Republican Susan Collins, an architect of the rural health fund — sent a letter to Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. said the way his agency structured the fund “may unintentionally disadvantage many of the rural hospitals and clinics the program was intended to support.”

Congress created the emergency hospital model, which took effect in 2023, as “a whole new way of providing care,” said George Pink, a senior research fellow at the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The Sheps Center tracks rural hospital closures and conversions, and Pink recently released early research showing converted hospitals reporting improved finances, though some are not yet in the black.

Hospitals that convert to the emergency model get a 5% boost in Medicare payments plus an extra monthly facility payment, totaling about $3.6 million a year, according to the Rural Health Redesign Center. In return, the hospitals must offer emergency services and give up their inpatient beds. They can continue offering outpatient services.

Janice Walters, CEO of the Rural Health Redesign Center, which has received federal funding to help hospitals change to the new model, said dozens of hospitals had reached out about converting during the first five months of 2026. It’s reasonable, she said, to presume that 10 or 11 might convert this year.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Source: <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

---

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News will update this database as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

Note: Data collected as of Sept. 11, 2026. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News reporters searched state websites, requested documents, and filed public records requests. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News continues to collect documents.

Sources: Documents publicly posted online or released in response to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News requests; <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Their plan would have helped pay to treat low-income, uninsured patients.

But federal leaders overseeing the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program said no.

“It was not our decision,” said Lisa Letourneau, a senior adviser at Maine’s health department.

Letourneau told an audience of healthcare providers, advocates, and community groups during a March webinar that the change was “disappointing.”

Maine isn’t alone in having to make changes to plans pitched to win a share of the Trump administration’s new rural health fund.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz when announcing the rural health program awards last year and said his agency would help states “turn their ideas into lasting improvements for rural families.”

But state officials and healthcare leaders said it’s also clear the agency wants to encourage specific policy changes and hold states accountable to the promises they made and rules they agreed to follow.

During the past six months, as states raced to meet the program’s looming federal deadlines, CMS staffers worked with state health departments to make a flurry of changes, including scrapping some initiatives. The federal agency to rescind existing funding — or reduce future awards — if states don’t follow rules or meet their goals. “We will take the money back” if states “don’t abide by what they wrote, if they don’t do a good job,” Oz said at an event this month in Washington, D.C.

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 anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade.

On a call with reporters in December, Oz said “one of the smartest things the president and Congress” did when creating the program was to create a threat of “clawbacks,” or taking money back if states don’t do what they promised in their applications.

Oz went on to describe how the clawback mechanism gives governors leverage to press their legislatures to adopt the Trump administration’s priorities, such as instituting the presidential fitness test in schools.

“This gives you extra umph, a little bit of gusto to go after these issues,” he said.

That message was received loudly and clearly in Tennessee. Michael Hendrix, policy director for the governor’s office, said during a hearing that federal officials said the state “would be more competitive for more funding through policy change.” He said CMS also relayed that “some share of this year’s funding, if policies are not implemented, might be clawed back.”

The threat of rescinding funding has caused fear and confusion among health organization leaders, said Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association.

“We’re worried that facilities and organizations won’t apply for the grant money because of the fears of the clawbacks,” he said, adding that he would like the administration to clarify if federal officials could take back grant money that states have already awarded to rural health organizations.

While clawbacks are a “necessary, important tool” to address misuse of funds and ensure the money goes toward helping rural communities, they are also “a dangerous tool,” said Morgan, whose organization represents rural hospitals and clinics.

CMS did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

States must file progress reports . They then have to commit their first-year funding and Sept. 30, 2027, to spend it.

States are progressing at wildly different rates, with some still developing grant applications and others already distributing money, created by Morgan’s rural health association.

In late January, Iowa became . The tracker shows that most states have opened grant applications, but 11 others, including Wyoming, Maine, and Colorado, have yet to post any funding opportunities.

CMS’ tight control over state programs is one reason for such disparity in progress.

Instead of typical grants, the rural health program uses cooperative agreements, which require a back-and-forth partnership, said Charlie Sagona, a grant specialist at Assel Grant Services, a consulting firm that helps organizations manage grants.

“You are going to be working very, very closely with them; things will ebb and flow and change and move,” said Sagona, who is helping several large hospital systems interested in winning some of the rural funding.

Kate Sapra, deputy director of CMS’ Office of Rural Health Transformation, said at a May event that the agency has “many avenues of oversight.” Staffers are tracking applications for state funding and “looking to see when contracts are executed,” she said.

Sapra said the agency wants to “have conversations with states before they get to the point” of putting out something that’s not allowed. It’s “really important to us” for the funding to reach rural providers, she added.

Sapra said her office has filled about half of 30 new slots for project officers. The officers and the states check in “at least twice a month, if not on a weekly basis.”

Vermont Medicaid Director Jill Mazza Olson, who led her state’s rural health application, said the officers are “very responsive.”

Vermont is one of the states that had to ditch or tweak its plans. Olson said the state pulled its plan to increase housing for rural healthcare workers after federal officials said they would evaluate the proposal based on the agency’s guidelines for construction projects at healthcare facilities. Those rules allow only “minor” renovations to existing buildings or campuses.

In Colorado, state leaders changed grant eligibility rules after they “received feedback” from CMS and healthcare providers, said Marc Williams, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.

Wyoming legislators and state officials spent months designing, discussing, and voting on a plan to invest most of its award into a perpetuity fund that could have generated $28.5 million for the state to spend every year, “forever,” according to .

The state had to pull the idea because it “was a degree too innovative for CMS to swallow,” said Republican state Sen. Charles Scott, a veteran lawmaker and cattle rancher. “This whole thing has been a bit of a disappointment to us in Wyoming.”

Stefan Johansson, director of the state’s health department, said Wyoming’s final spending plan wasn’t approved until mid- to late May. He said the department hopes to begin awarding money in late summer or early fall.

“Make no mistake — it is a very compressed timeline,” he said.

Across the country, Maine was forced to rework its plan to reimburse hospitals and clinics when they provide to certain uninsured patients.

Letourneau said during her March remarks that federal officials rejected this idea because “provider payments had to be more directly linked to a rural transformation kind of activity.”

Lindsay Hammes, a spokesperson for Maine’s health department, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that funding will instead help providers transition to reimbursement models that aren’t based on how many patients they treat.

Reworked plans call for spending $28.5 million to support providers, Letourneau said in March.

“But there definitely will be more strings attached.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News correspondent Darius Tahir contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

WILLIAMSTON, N.C. — Two years after her brother’s death, Debra Pierce still wonders whether the 50-year-old would have survived his heart attack if her local hospital hadn’t closed.

“The sad thing is we’ll never know if he could have been saved that night or not, because we don’t have a higher level of care in this county,” Pierce said as she stood outside the mobile home where she last hugged her brother.

Emergency crews from a neighboring town worked on Stanley Sears for a half hour but couldn’t revive him for the long drive to the closest hospital, records show.

In the tall grass — which would be mowed if Sears were still alive — Pierce swiped through the photos on her phone. She stopped at a picture that showed Sears smiling. Pierce chuckled and then sighed: “Bless him.”

The local hospital had closed a year before Sears’ death, leaving behind a gutted healthcare system. Martin County does not have paramedics on its ambulances, and it can be 20 miles or more to the closest — and often overcrowded — emergency rooms.

The healthcare gaps in Martin County illustrate the finite reach of a $50 billion rural health fund that Republicans crafted to strengthen support for President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending measure, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last year. Though the cash has not been doled out, Republican candidates in competitive midterm elections — including the closely watched battle for the congressional district that encompasses Martin County — are casting the fund as a lifeline that will shore up critical rural health services across America.

The money has been highly anticipated in North Carolina, where most residents live in rural counties. Pierce, a Republican who blames county officials for the hospital closure, said she has faith Trump will help them. “Old man’s doing his job up in there,” she said.

On paper, Martin County — home to about 22,000 people — looks like a top contender to receive at least some of the $213 million that’s been earmarked for North Carolina.

Yet County Manager Drew Batts said it won’t be the answer for his residents.

“The $50 billion is not something that is specifically going to help our situation,” Batts said as he walked into the shuttered hospital in April. “It’s not going to help us get this place reopened.”

Martin County won’t get direct relief from Trump’s rural health fund — because its hospital isn’t open. North Carolina is distributing the money among existing health and social service organizations. Plus, federal regulators on how much can be spent on construction and building renovations.

‘We Can Only Pray’

Martin General Hospital closed abruptly in 2023, surprising employees and shocking patients, who had to be wheeled out on stretchers and transported elsewhere to finish treatment. The closure even stunned local elected leaders, who say the company operating the county-owned hospital, Quorum Health, did not notify them it intended to shut down operations and file for bankruptcy. Quorum spokesperson Lisa Anderson said the company had told county commissioners of the hospital’s ongoing financial challenges.

Politicians have spent the years since trying to reopen the hospital, with county taxpayers pouring an estimated $2.9 million into maintenance, utilities, and other costs in the hopes of resuming operations, Batts said.

The county is now considering spending at least $1.5 million, he said, to create two higher-level paramedic units with quick-response vehicles, specially equipped with electrocardiogram equipment or other “advanced lifesaving support.”

Pierce said she is praying the county can add paramedics and reopen the hospital.

“There’s some answered prayers happening every day,” she said. “So, we can only pray and hope, you know?”

‘They Just Want To Not Die’

With its nine hospitals, the region’s largest health system is ECU Health, connected to East Carolina University. The system has become a de facto safety net for 29 counties. Batts and Brian Floyd, the Greenville-based system’s chief operating officer, have lobbied state and federal lawmakers, walking them through the shuttered hospital and asking for help.

“It’s a real healthcare crisis that has already proven itself to have lost lives that perhaps didn’t have to be lost,” Floyd said. “They just want to not die because there’s nowhere to go when you have an emergency.”

Eleisa Ann Evans drove 2½ hours from a small town near the Outer Banks on a recent evening so her aunt could get care at an ECU Health ER in Greenville. Once there, Evans said, staff told her to leave her 79-year-old aunt in the waiting room and wait outside because of capacity issues.

Evans said she was outraged at the way the staff treated her. She said she had been standing behind her aunt’s wheelchair while inside and “wasn’t using nobody’s chair.”

With Martin General gone, all the surrounding counties are “also in jeopardy,” Floyd said. “No one knows what to do” with that large of a healthcare “desert,” he said.

In North Carolina, a Healthcare ‘Desert’ After Hospital Closure

Martin General Hospital in Williamston closed in August 2023, leaving Martin County’s approximately 22,000 residents with no local hospital. The nearest Level 1 trauma center is in Greenville, about 30 miles from Williamston.

What healthcare is left in the county includes one urgent care center, run by a private company, and a nonprofit health clinic, operated by Agape Health Services, which accepts patients from five counties and plans to build another primary care clinic to meet demand.

ECU Health signed a letter of intent to reopen Martin General as a rural emergency hospital that would provide outpatient care as well as an ER. Under the terms of the deal, Martin County would pay to refurbish the hospital, and the North Carolina General Assembly would have to give ECU Health $210 million, of which $150 million would pay for the construction of a new inpatient tower at ECU’s Beaufort Hospital.

The health system, through its affiliate , won a portion of North Carolina’s $213 million first-year payout from the rural fund. But the federal money can’t be used to reopen Martin General, Floyd said.

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program is slated to be delivered in $10 billion annual increments to states, which applied and competed for the money.

North Carolina’s plan creates a that allots money to six large regional leads, including nonprofits such as Access East. Those hubs will distribute money to local entities and coordinate broad initiatives such as improving primary care and fortifying the healthcare workforce, as well as developing “digital solutions,” according to the state’s .

An Election Issue

The lack of emergency care in the region has emerged as a top talking point in a close U.S. House race between Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat who represented the district when Martin General closed and is seeking his third term, and Republican Laurie Buckhout.

The rural health fund was added at the last minute in 2025 to win votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade — cuts that are projected to hit rural hospitals and clinics especially hard. Rural health executives say the fund won’t come close to offsetting those losses.

Matt Mercer, a spokesperson for the North Carolina Republican Party, called the rural fund a “once in-a-generation opportunity” for the state.

But U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, who was one of three Republican senators to vote against the bill — and who announced shortly before the final vote that he planned to retire from Congress — warned of devastating consequences ahead for healthcare in his state.

Buckhout, who declined an interview, plans to attack Davis — a vulnerable incumbent whose district was recently redrawn to favor GOP candidates — for voting against the bill.

“Martin County lost its hospital on his watch, and he still opposed the funding meant to help communities like it,” Buckhout campaign spokesperson Stephen Gallagher said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. The campaign did not respond to additional queries about her plans for healthcare access, if elected.

Davis, who signed from lawmakers in support of North Carolina’s rural health fund application, said the money “is essentially putting a band-aid on a much, much broader situation that needs dire help.” He has that would increase Medicaid reimbursements for rural hospitals, though it has not moved forward.

During recent testimony on Capitol Hill in Washington, ECU Health CEO Michael Waldrum said his system expects to lose a billion dollars over the next 10 years from the looming Medicaid cuts.

Overnight Waits for Emergency Care

The region’s emergency rooms offer a stark glimpse of a healthcare system in crisis.

Martin General’s ER treated annually before it closed, according to state data. A sign still hangs in the staff break room showing that 23 patients were seen in the ER the day it closed.

ECU Health, which owns all but one of the rural hospitals around Martin General, reported a 132% increase in its daily ER visits since the hospital’s closure. The company’s nearly 1,000-bed hospital in Greenville, about 40 minutes from Williamston, is the state’s only Level 1 trauma center east of Raleigh.

Where Martin County Residents Now Go for Emergency Care

Thousands of people were left without a local emergency department when Martin General Hospital closed in August 2023. In 2022, Martin General’s emergency room reported about 11,000 patient visits from county residents. After the closure, visits by Martin County residents to four ECU Health hospitals in the region spiked. Martin County patient visits by hospital emergency department:

Source: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services’ <a href=” of Health Service Regulation</a>

The Greenville hospital’s median patient ER wait and treatment time was nearly 4½ hours, according to the most . That’s longer than 96% of thousands of hospitals reporting nationwide. The wait times “don’t reflect poor care,” ECU Health spokesperson Brian Wudkwych said in an emailed statement. He said the system’s ERs treat nearly 300,000 patients annually.

While the system has seen an increase in Martin County patients, the wait times primarily stem from shortages of inpatient and behavioral health beds, Wudkwych said.

Floyd, the ECU Health chief operating officer, said many rural patients who arrive at the system’s ERs have multiple chronic conditions that require longer visits. Often doctors start treating one problem and then find the patient’s “blood sugar is out of control, your hypertension is far out of control,” he said.

ECU staff encourage people who are not too sick to skip Greenville and, instead, seek care at one of the system’s community hospitals, which aren’t as busy, Floyd said.

A security officer guarded the Greenville emergency department’s doors on two nights in April. The “capacity notice” sign near the entrance meant family members of patients had to wait in cars or on benches outside.

“We’ve only been here six hours,” Tonya Miles said after bringing her mother for a potential blood clot in her leg. The family had left the day before after waiting for two hours, because her mom “wasn’t prepared” for such a delay in treatment, Miles said.

On another evening, Olivia Lewis said she had brought her mother two nights previously and left without care after their wait stretched from 10:30 p.m. to 7 a.m.

“She tore off her hospital bracelet and said: ‘I’m out. I’m done,’” she said. Now, they were back.

On a recent Friday in Martin County, Vannessa Little was sitting at a McDonald’s with her kids just down the street from the closed hospital. Little pointed to one of her girls and wondered how her care would have been different if the hospital had been open.

Her daughter, then 6, suffered severe burns over 30% of her body in 2024, and the journey to treatment was “just crazy,” Little said. An ambulance arrived at her Williamston home from neighboring Bertie County to transport them to ECU’s Greenville ER.

“That was a long time,” Little said of the 30-mile drive. The girl was ultimately airlifted more than 100 miles to Chapel Hill. Little said she hadn’t heard of Trump’s rural health investment. “The only changes that people are making is they’re taking away everything.”

She voted against Trump in 2024 and said she didn’t think she would vote this year.

“It’s a waste of my time.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

“They’re the folks that work at restaurants. They’re the teacher’s aides,” said Starr, a registered nurse who became Open Door’s chief executive more than six years ago. Those patients, he said, are “really the heart and soul of rural America.”

He said if his remote health centers don’t get a share of the billions of dollars Congress earmarked to transform health care in rural America, patients may soon lose services. About 50% of Open Door’s 60,000 patients are on Medicaid, the joint state and federal insurance program that, together with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, covers with low incomes or disabilities.

When Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, it cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. Now, Starr hopes the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which was part of the same bill, will help keep his patients covered.

Yet, small community health care providers, such as Open Door, may find they are sharing the billions with an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.

Months after federal leaders announced that all 50 states won first-year awards, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas, state plans reveal that a heavy dose of prescribed spending will go to companies that can increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.

And at least four large-scale coalitions of companies are now pitching multipronged services to the states. Many of the companies already work with regional health systems and states through Medicaid contracting or mobile and telehealth operations.

How those services will help improve the health care of rural Americans at places such as Open Door remains an open question.

States Stare Down Reporting Deadlines

Federal regulators were “really interested in seeing digital health investments” when they crafted the five-year rural health program rules last year, said Maya Sandalow, an associate director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. She co-authored a recent report on how the 50 states plan to invest in technology, including modernizing health care infrastructure and expanding virtual care options such as telehealth and remote patient monitoring.

“The rural health fund isn’t really designed to directly replace or offset the lost Medicaid funding,” Sandalow said, noting that the federal staffers in charge of the program — money that could help rural hospitals and clinics pay for patient care — at 15% of the total funding awarded to a state.

Federal regulators also established tight reporting deadlines, forcing states to move quickly.

States must file progress reports and obligate all first-year funding , according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing the program. States could see their awards decreased or terminated at any time if they fail to follow federal requirements, according to the .

As of early April, CMS had not approved or had only partially approved some state budgets, including those of Wyoming, Colorado, and Vermont, according to state officials. CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who declined to say which states still needed revised budgets approved, said the agency does not provide “state-by-state updates.”

In Alaska, the budget is approved but the state has not announced when it will release full grant proposals and awards, said Tricia Franklin, program coordinator for Alaska’s rural health transformation.

“Early summer was the target,” Franklin said. But the response from vendors and applicants has been “much greater than expected, so it may take us a little longer.”

Working with consulting companies is an established way for states to “quickly and effectively” meet federal deadlines and roll out grant money, said , national director for population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit focused on state health policy work.

Upgrading Technology, Modernizing Rural Health

Science Applications International Corp., a Fortune 500 government contractor, pulled together the . SAIC does a variety of technology work such as cybersecurity and engineering support. The alliance also includes Walgreens and Mission Mobile Medical, which turns RVs into primary care clinics. A data analytics company, a telemedicine and software company, and a company that helps place medical graduates in health systems are also part of the coalition.

The SAIC alliance offers “an ecosystem” of companies that can coordinate the work states have promised, said , SAIC’s Rural Health Transformation Program lead and a former chief information officer for the Virginia Department of Health. Each of the companies has representatives focused on the rural program, he said.

A lack of digital infrastructure — such as electronic health records at different clinics and hospitals that can talk to one another — has been a consistent barrier for rural medical care teams, said the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Sandalow.

“The funding hasn’t always been there in order for rural areas to create the infrastructure that’s needed to fully adopt remote patient monitoring, telehealth, artificial intelligence in ways that will really be supportive,” Sandalow said. “It takes things like updating infrastructure, changing workflows.”

Sandalow’s found that Maine and Utah are investing in cybersecurity; Indiana, Missouri, and New Mexico plan to modernize their electronic health records; Oklahoma plans to buy hardware and software, subsidize subscriptions, and give technical support to rural providers; and states such as Arizona and South Carolina will use funds to create telehealth hubs or buy remote patient monitoring equipment.

Federal regulators, when creating the rural program’s spending rules, also said no more than 5% of a state’s total funding awarded could be used to replace electronic medical records systems that already meet federal standards. Sandalow said that means states will focus on enhancements and upgrades to their current systems.

Gainwell Technologies, which operates the systems for dozens of state Medicaid programs, is spearheading . Rushil Desai, a Gainwell senior vice president, said states’ detailed spending plans are “changing in real time.”

Maine’s Medicaid plan contracts with Gainwell, and the state’s initial application listed four contracts worth more than $16 million over five years for the company. The state confirmed it has received federal approval for only its first year of spending, which includes a to implement changes to the state’s Medicaid claims system.

James Lomastro, a senior-care advocate in rural Massachusetts with the nonprofit , said he worries that large vendors and health systems will get the state’s transformation dollars.

Clinics, home care agencies, and nursing homes that “actually provide day-to-day support in the community are mostly on the margins” of state discussions about how to spend the money, he said. A spokesperson for Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Olivia James, said state officials would “ensure that everyone has a seat at the table” with training, financial incentives, and direct investments.

Arizona’s rural fund budget, which is $167 million for the first year, allocates for medical diagnostic equipment and technology upgrades, including to electronic health records, specifically for rural health care facilities.

But it also for county public health departments, said Pima County Public Health Director Theresa Cullen. The approved budget includes up to $4 million for grants to support community health workers.

“In these rural communities, you need to be present,” Cullen said.

Alina Czekai, director of the CMS rural health transformation office, said her team plans to visit all 50 states. She spoke at the National Rural Health Association’s policy conference in Washington, D.C., in February and told the audience that her team wants “the money to go to rural communities, rural providers, rural patients.” The association’s members include rural hospitals and clinics, which are expected to suffer big losses under the Medicaid cuts.

In California, Open Door’s Starr said he provided input on his state’s initial application, which won $234 million in first-year funding, but he is not clear on what the next steps will be for getting money from the program.

For his patients, Starr said, money is needed for technology upgrades. After all, he said, updated electronic health systems could operate seamlessly and store the documentation needed to keep a patient enrolled in Medicaid.

Updated technology could be exactly what Open Door and other area clinics need to “help keep people covered,” Starr said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz and rural health care correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

But plans to spend those nine-digit awards aren’t all warmly received.

At least one group of Republican state lawmakers appears to have scuttled an initiative preapproved by federal officials. And at least one hospital association persuaded its state health leaders to alter who greenlights spending. Other critics are taking a more cautious approach.

That’s because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program, says states could lose money if they make major changes to the plans approved in their applications. Changes could also delay states’ ability to get projects rolling in time to show the agency that they’re meeting progress deadlines.

“During the application period, states were advised to only propose initiatives and state policy actions that the state deemed feasible,” said CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who noted that the agency will work with states case by case.

The recent pushback reflects “tension” over state plans — which were approved by the federal government — from state lawmakers and health leaders who want more input amid tight deadlines, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics.

Cochran-McClain said many states must pass a bill to allow federal dollars to be spent and added that because the program rolled out so quickly “there’s important work that still needs to be done in some states between the legislatures and the governors.”

State lawmakers want to have a say, she said, in “how the funding is being allocated — how the implementation will go.”

Congressional Republicans created the program as a last-minute sweetener to include in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

CMS officials announced first-year funding — ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — on Dec. 29, after scoring applications. Federal officials will begin evaluating progress in late summer and announce 2027 allocations at the end of October.

A chorus of critics say the program won’t make up for harm caused by Medicaid cuts.

The program is “a complete sham,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a rural policy conference in February.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income and disabled Americans, serves nearly , and many rural hospitals depend on it to stay afloat.

But the rural health program tilts toward seeding innovative projects and technologies, not shoring up rural hospital finances. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

That hasn’t stopped some federal officials and lawmakers from framing the program as a rural hospital rescue.

For example, the White House , “President Trump secured $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals.”

Now that applications have been approved, some state Republican lawmakers — who are than Democrats are — and hospital associations are upset that the political rhetoric doesn’t match what they see.

They’re also lobbing criticisms at specific aspects of their states’ plans, including the proposed projects, what’s not included, and the spending approval process.

In Wyoming, lawmakers didn’t just criticize an initiative from their state’s application. They moved to kill it.

State Rep. John Bear, a Republican, said he and other lawmakers declined to fund “BearCare,” a proposed state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies. But they did approve other aspects of the rural health program.

The Wyoming Department of Health won’t “proceed with BearCare without express legislative authority to do so,” said spokesperson Lindsay Mills.

While Wyoming lawmakers removed an initiative from their state’s rural health plan, a group in Ohio wants to add something.

Ohio Rep. Kellie Deeter and other Republican lawmakers to use the maximum allowed funding for provider payments — 15% — to support 13 independent, rural hospitals.

“We understand that the rural transformation fund is not designed to be given directly to prop up hospitals,” Deeter said. “We just want to capitalize on the mechanism of the fund that can be utilized for that purpose.”

Those hospitals “operate with very, very narrow margins, and it’s just difficult and, frankly, unsustainable,” she added.

Ken Gordon, a press secretary responding for the governor’s office and the state health department, said, “It’s still very early in this process, and many details are being worked out.”

State lawmakers around the country are also trying to ensure the federal program’s dollars benefit rural areas.

In North Dakota, Rep. Bill Tveit, a Republican who lives in a town with about 2,000 residents, that would have required the state to reserve its funding for programs located more than 35 miles from urban areas and small cities.

During a hearing, lawmakers appeared sympathetic to Tveit’s concerns but quickly shot down his idea.

State Sen. Brad Bekkedahl said the North Dakota health department already committed to prioritizing funding for the most pressing rural health needs. He also said he’s concerned any significant changes could cause the state to lose funding because CMS already reviewed and approved the plan.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Michigan and North Carolina have criticized their states’ definitions of “partially rural” or “rural,” saying that counties that include urban population centers could take money from lower-density counties, according to and .

Lawmakers aren’t the only ones speaking out.

The Colorado Hospital Association to state lawmakers denouncing how the state created its plan and two of its proposed initiatives.

“Not only were Colorado’s rural hospitals’ recommendations disregarded,” president and CEO Jeff Tieman wrote, but the plan includes ideas “they actively oppose and believe will harm the communities they serve.”

The department responded to one of the association’s concerns by adding rural health leaders to the .

Meanwhile, and Nebraska, some health groups are upset that their states’ plans lack specific funding streams for rural hospitals.

Lauren LaPine-Ray, who oversees rural health policy at the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, predicted the state’s rural hospitals will compete with other organizations, such as academic centers and health clinics, for funding. She said about 65% of the group’s rural members have never applied for a state grant before.

“The rural hospitals, the ones that really need the funding the most, will not be well equipped to apply for and pull down these dollars,” LaPine-Ray said.

Jed Hansen, executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, said the federal funding won’t go to “rural hospitals, rural clinics, and rural providers in a meaningful way.”

“Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state,” he said. “I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

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 . And obstetricians and others chimed in on social media to express alarm, with one political activist calling it a “.”

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, , prompted the proposal to use robots for ultrasounds on pregnant women.

Britta Cedergren directs the 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 per 1,000 live births. The nationwide rate was 5.5 per 1,000 live births, according to 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, , 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.

, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, found that closures in remote areas 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 , the state’s application included bolstering its rural workforce as well as improving maternal and fetal health.

Mike Presley, a spokesperson for the , 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 . 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 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 . 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 , 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 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 . 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 . Alabama officials proposed for their workforce initiative over five years.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

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 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 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 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 Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .