Healthcare bankruptcies more than triple in 2017

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/healthcare-bankruptcies-more-than-triple-in-2017.html

Image result for hospital bankruptcies

Regulatory changes, the rise of high-deductible health plans and advances in technology are a few of the factors that have taken a toll on healthcare companies’ finances, and these challenges may lead many hospitals and other medical companies to restructure their debt or file for bankruptcy in the coming year, according to Bloomberg.

Although hospitals are expected to face financial challenges in the year ahead, many healthcare companies are already struggling. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, healthcare bankruptcy filings have more than tripled in 2017. Healthcare bankruptcies are on the rise as filings across the broader economy have fallen since 2010, according to the report.

The challenges in the healthcare sector may hit rural hospitals the hardest due to the reduction in Disproportionate Share Hospital payments.

The ACA calls for annual ggregate reductions to DSH payments from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2020. Subsequent legislation delayed the start of the reductions until fiscal year 2018, which began Oct. 1, and pushed the end date back to fiscal year 2025.

David Neier, a partner at Winston & Strawn, told Bloomberg the cuts to DSH payments may “single-handedly throw hospitals into immediate financial distress.”

 

Medicaid Is Great, but Rural Maine Needs Hospitals, Too

Image result for rural hospital

This week Maine voted to become the 32nd state to expand Medicaid despite opposition by Gov. Paul LePage, who had vetoed five previous expansion bills passed by the state legislature and has now threatened to block the results of the ballot initiative. Unless Mr. LePage succeeds, about 80,000 more Mainers will be eligible for coverage, a victory in an unsettling year for health care in America.

With the Affordable Care Act under constant threat from the Trump administration and out-of-pocket costs rising faster than wages, health care topped the list of the most important issues facing Americans this year.

However, Maine and other rural states face a health care crisis that Medicaid expansion can’t fix on its own. It’s not about affordable coverage; it’s about access: For too many rural areas, doctors and hospitals are scarce.

In the postwar era, America made hospital construction and modernization a priority. On Aug. 13, 1946, Harry Truman signed the Hill-Burton Act,giving communities grants and loans for hospital construction. By 1975, almost one-third of American hospitals owed their creation to the law. Financing for Hill-Burton health care construction ended in 1997, but one rule from the original bill still applied: These hospitals had to give free or reduced care to people who couldn’t afford services. As rural areas aged and the population shrank because of manufacturing’s decline and the rise of a technology-driven economy centered on urban areas, hospitals struggled to stay in operation.

Under the Affordable Care Act, hospitals started shutting down at worrisome rates because of an increase in financial penalties for noncompliance with A.C.A. mandates, the cost of tighter reporting standards and smaller reimbursements for certain procedures. Since the A.C.A. became law in 2010, over 80 rural hospitals have closed nationwide. Maine alone has lost three hospitals in that time, about 10 percent of its rural total.

If closings continue at this rate, 25 percent of America’s rural hospitals will have disappeared in the decade after Obamacare’s passage. This does not take into account facility deterioration, doctor departures or department closures.

This is a big problem for Maine, which has the highest percentage of rural residents in the country, according to the most recent census data. Calais Regional Hospital in Down East Maine recently oversaw its last childbirth. The obstetrics department closed in late summer, forcing women in labor to drive 50 minutes to deliver their babies. Despite an opioid crisis that increases the chance of high-risk pregnancies, this same privately owned hospital shut down its pediatrics wing and intensive care unit in recent years, because of financial pressure from the management company halfway across the country in Tennessee.

This was hardly an isolated example in Maine. The town of Jackman closed its 24-hour emergency room in September, and Boothbay lost its only hospital in 2013. Rangeley, where my wife’s family lives, is an hour away from the nearest hospital and has no doctor in town.

Meanwhile, Maine Med in Portland, Maine’s largest city, is about to break ground for a $512 million addition just a few years after it finished a $40 million renovation. While rural Maine’s hospitals and departments are closing because of large losses, Maine Med had, for 2016, a $61 million surplus.

Medicaid expansion is a welcome source of new revenue to rural hospitals in Maine because more insured patients mean fewer uncompensated treatments. Still, it comes nowhere close to fixing the problem or, politically, putting any meaningful points on the Democratic scoreboard.

In 2016, Donald Trump won Maine’s rural congressional district by a 10-point margin and rural counties in America at large by a 26-point marginon a message of repealing and replacing Obamacare. As Maggie Elehwany of the National Rural Health Association said in an NPR interview this year, rural Americans voted for Mr. Trump in part because of health care. “They see their hospitals closing,” she noted. “And one hospital C.E.O. described it as a three-pronged stool. It’s the churches, the hospitals and the schools. If you lose one of those legs of that stool, the whole community collapses.”

Since President Trump hasn’t been able to deliver on any meaningful legislation to support rural voters, it is the Democrats’ time to deliver. One good step is a bill sponsored by the Democratic senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Michael Bennet of Colorado called Medicare-X. It would give a public option to Americans in rural counties where limited competition has yielded higher-priced health insurance options.

It still doesn’t solve the heart of the rural problem. Democrats can’t just lower premiums and expand Medicaid. We must strengthen rural communities by making access to high-quality health care services a priority of any proposal. In any future legislation, we should demand grants for new hospitals, funds to modernize crumbling ones and financial incentives for top doctors to work in these areas. This will not only make rural communities healthier, but also more welcoming for growth and new business.

No person suffering from a heart attack should die because a hospital is too far. No pregnant mother should have to risk the health of her baby because she can’t make it to a delivery room in time. As Democrats, we believe that health care is a right. It would be a big mistake to expand health care insurance but offer no place to use it.

Hospital groups to sue CMS over $1.6 billion cut to 340B payments

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/cms-finalizes-outpatient-payment-rule-reduces-hospitals-payment-rate-under-340b-drug-program?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdWa1lXTTBORFJpWTJSayIsInQiOiJndXNTdWM2czNvZzR6dDlRVXA4N3ZZWUhiV29FTzZ4VndOT3VGeUkzSGtGcms1QnlhSnNRTTlQbGRmcmY5UEpEY2VuWWg1UHIwTXVQUkg1ZklLZGN6SGYxMmpwc3lmZGJtK1pBcTNDNnZZZ0FmYzQ3Q2R2YWloNjVJSlorWStcL3QifQ%3D%3D

Credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services#/media/File:DHHS2_by_Matthew_Bisanz.JPG">Matthew Bisanz</a>.

The final rule will also allow for higher payment when Medicare beneficiaries receive certain procedures in outpatient departments.

Several groups representing U.S. hospitals on Wednesday said they plan to sue the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services over a hospital outpatient prospective payment system final rule released Wednesday that reduces what hospitals are paid under the 340B drug program.

The rule lowers the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries by reducing the payment rate to hospitals for certain Medicare Part B drugs purchased through the 340B program. The existing rule would have paid hospitals 6 percent above the sale price of drugs, but the final rule instead pays hospitals 22.5 percent less than sale prices, amounting to a $1.6 billion cut.

The American Hospital AssociationAssociation of American Medical Collegesand America’s Essential Hospitals said they will seek litigation to prevent the cuts.

“CMS’s decision in today’s rule to cut Medicare payments to hospitals for drugs covered under the 340B program will dramatically threaten access to health care for many patients, including uninsured and other vulnerable populations,” AHA Executive Vice President Tom Nickels said in a statement. “We strongly urge CMS to abandon its misguided 340B rule, and instead take direct action to halt the unchecked, unsustainable increases in the cost of drugs.”

America’s Essential Hospitals CEO Bruce Siegel said the organization saw no reasonable rationale for diverting Medicare Part B reimbursement from hospitals in the 340B drug pricing program that are in the greatest need of support to providers not eligible for 340B discounts. CMS has no evidence that the policy will combat rising drug prices, he said.

“Congress clearly intended that the 340B program help hospitals that care for many vulnerable patients; this new policy subverts that goal,” Siegel said. “Essential hospitals operate with an average margin less than half that of other hospitals and depend on 340B program savings to stretch resources for patient care and community services. Given their fragile financial position, essential hospitals will not weather this policy’s 27 percent cut to Part B drug payments without scaling back services or jobs.”

340B Health said the rule is a backdoor effort to undermine an important drug discount program.

“Responding to a survey earlier this year, 340B hospitals were unanimous in saying implementation of the CMS rule would cause them to cut back services. For example, Genesis Healthcare System in Zanesville, Ohio, estimates a loss of $3 million in Medicare payments could force it to cancel critical services such as substance abuse treatment, cancer treatment, and behavioral health programs.The MetroHealth System Cancer Center in Cleveland, Ohio, estimates an $8 million loss would raise patients’ costs and reduce access to needed services including transportation and care navigation that are supported by 340B savings,” said 340B Health CEO Ted Slafsky.

However, the AIR340B Coalition said it would continue to advocate for regulatory action to better align the program with its original intent of helping vulnerable patients.

“We applaud the Administration for taking action to help address one aspect of the 340B program that has been leading to higher costs for Medicare and its beneficiaries,” the AIR340B Coalition said.

Areas of change it supports include clearly defining a 340B eligible patient, examination of hospital and satellite clinic eligibility criteria, and a more rational and legally supportable policy on contract pharmacy arrangements.

CMS said the savings will be reallocated equally to all hospitals paid under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. Children’s hospitals, certain cancer hospitals, and rural sole community hospitals will be excluded from these drug payment reductions.

CMS will work with Congress for additional considerations on 340B for safety net hospitals, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma.

Consumers would save an estimated $320 million in copayments in 2018 under the new payment rule that gives Medicare beneficiaries the benefit of discounts hospitals receive under the 340B program, according to Verma.

“As part of the president’s priority to lower the cost of prescription drugs, Medicare is taking steps to lower the costs Medicare patients pay for certain drugs in the hospital outpatient setting,” Verma said.

The final rule will also allow outpatient payment to be made when Medicare beneficiaries receive certain procedures in a lower cost setting, the outpatient department. The new availability of the higher OPPS payment applies to six procedures, including total knee replacements, a common and costly Medicare surgical procedure, CMS said.

Starting in January 2018, Medicare beneficiaries undergoing any of the six procedures can opt to have them performed in a lower cost setting when a clinician believes such a setting is appropriate.

Additionally, the final rule provides relief to rural hospitals by placing a two-year moratorium on the direct physician supervision requirements for rural hospitals and critical access hospitals.

“CMS understands the importance of strengthening access to care, especially in rural areas,” Verma said. “This policy helps to ensure access to outpatient therapeutic services for seniors living in rural communities and provides regulatory relief to America’s rural hospitals.”

In a home health prospective payment system final rule, CMS is not finalizing the home health groupings model and will take additional time to further engage with stakeholders.

Texas rural communities endangered as spiral of hospital closures continues with two more

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/texas-rural-communities-endangered-spiral-hospital-closures-continues-two-more?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RabE1UVmtZamMzTldOaCIsInQiOiJIRmpRNFJxRnFHbG9vRGV6UXZGMzZJbmZXOEZRczZRcktRb3Z4VzZHQ01UYUdoVElGRlNGVTUrRytER3FteTZSMTdXMjdjM0dlVnlrT01CS2RSNDhCa2tuRTNvbkhVMmlkU0RWQ3pvQ0lrTGVPMnkyUG8ySGJOaGhQc0FLbWUyaSJ9

Related image

A hospital in Trinity, Texas closed on August 1, and another in Crockett, Texas on July 1.

In what advocates say is a continued downward death spiral for their state, two more Texas rural hospitals closed for good earlier this week, bringing the total count of rural hospital closures in the Lonestar State to 18 in the last four and a half years alone, according to the Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals or TORCH.

A hospital in Trinity, Texas closed on August 1, and another in Crockett, Texas on July 1. The closures leave those communities without immediate access to emergency and other hospital care services.

“This closure crisis, which has left many rural communities without emergency and other care, has clearly reached epidemic proportions and unless the Texas Legislature and Congress take immediate steps, it will only worsen,” said Dave Pearson, CEO of TORCH.

TORCH represents the 163 rural hospitals in the state of Texas. Of the 18 closures, they noted that four were temporary closures and three were replaced with free-standing ERs. Still, the organization said the care is those towns is now very limited, and 11 communities have no hospital or emergency care.

Many more are teetering on the edge of closure, Pearson said, with a third of the remaining rurals operating on “shoestring budgets” and struggling to keep their doors open. The worst part is these situations could be avoided he said, and are largely due to Medicare cuts in recent years totaling more than $50 million and Medicaid underpayments to rurals that total close to $60 million each year.

Torch Director of Government Relations Don McBeath said these closures and the resulting lack of access to emergency care has resulted in “documented deaths” because the local hospital was not there to service those patients.

Additionally, the closures have a devastating impact on both the local and state economies.  Rural hospitals cover 85% of the state’s geography and serve 15% of the population. That population, kept healthy by the presence of their rural hospitals, drives the state economy, from food production to fuel. David Byrom, CEO of Coryell Hospital in Gatesville, said each Texas rural hospital employs an average 173 people and has $23 million in yearly payroll. That equals more than 22,000 jobs and expenditures of $3.7 billion a year, for a combined economic impact of more than $18 billion a year.

“The citizens of our rural communities fortunate enough to still have a rural hospital need to know this is happening around them and call their elected state and federal representatives and tell them to take action now to stem the tide of Texas’ rural hospital closures. The two closures in the last month, bringing the total to eighteen in the last four and a half years, could be the tip of the iceberg.”

Pearson said the closures have the potential to crush their local community economically and send residents moving out of town looking for jobs.  Local businesses and schools will suffer as well, and the chances of bringing future economic development are hurt.

The Texas state legislature has recently instructed the state Department of Health and Human Services to look into the ongoing situation but that could move too slowly to stem more closures. “With a two-year study window, followed by who knows how much time to react to the findings, we could see dozens more of Texas’ rural hospitals vanish.”

Health Gap Widens Between Appalachia And Rest Of The U.S.

http://khn.org/news/health-gap-widens-between-appalachia-and-rest-of-the-u-s/

 

Sandy Willhite doesn’t mind driving 45 minutes to the nearest shopping center. But living in Hillsboro, W.Va., became problematic when she had to travel nearly six hours for proper foot treatment.

“There just aren’t any quality surgeons or specialists in our area,” Willhite said, when explaining why she went to a doctor in Laurel, Md.

Getting health care is a common problem for the residents of Hillsboro, a tiny hamlet in the middle of Appalachia with a population of just under 250 residents.

And the Appalachian region is in dire need of health care. This section of the U.S., long acknowledged to be among the most economically disadvantaged in the country, is showing a growing gap in health outcomes with the rest of the United States.

study released Monday in the journal Health Affairs found disparities widening sharply between Appalachia and the rest of the country, driven by higher rates of infant mortality, smoking, obesity and early deaths from motor vehicle accidents and drug overdoses.

“Although life expectancy increased everywhere in the United States between 1990 and 2013, less rapid declines in mortality and slower gains in life expectancy among people in Appalachia have led to a widening health gap,” the study said.

The study focused on the 428 counties within the 13 states that constitute Appalachia. Gopal Singh, an author of the study and a senior health equity adviser at the Health Resources and Services Administration, found that counties with high rates of poverty have the highest infant mortality rate and lowest life expectancy. These areas are seen mostly in central and southern Appalachia.

The researchers found Appalachia lagged behind the rest of the country on health measures in the early 1990s — but only slightly. Infant mortality rates were not statistically different. And life expectancy was about 75 years — just 0.6 years shorter than that outside of the region.

But when the researchers analyzed data from 2009 to 2013, they found the infant mortality rate for Appalachia to be 16 percent higher than the rest of the country and the difference in life expectancy was 2.4 years.

When researchers examined specific demographic groups, some of the disparities were much greater. For instance, they noted a 13-year gap in life expectancy between black men in high-poverty areas of Appalachia (age 70.4) and white women in low-poverty areas elsewhere in the country (83).

According to the study, the association between poverty and life expectancy was stronger in Appalachia than the rest of the country.

“You do see a more rapid improvement in the rest of the country compared to Appalachia, but there are specific reasons why Appalachia I guess continues to fall behind,” said Singh, the lead author.

The study points to specific health problems, including lack of access to doctors and other providers, high rates of preterm births and low-weight births, and high rates of smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease.

“Smoking-related diseases accounted for more than half of the life-expectancy gap between Appalachia and the rest of the country,” the study said.

Dr. Joanna Bailey treats some of Appalachia’s patients every day as a family medicine physician in Wyoming County, W.Va. She grew up there and said the lifestyle plays a large role in health outcomes. “I treat a lot of diabetes; I see a lot of high blood pressure; I see a lot of heart disease. I see a lot of obesity, because it is a place where it has been normalized quite a bit.”

“I think that the culture is such that getting those conditions under control is difficult for many reasons,” Bailey said.

The economic issues compound the situation, she said.

“There’s the problem of poverty,” she added. “A lot of people are on disability and they rely on food stamps to get their food for the month.” Many of Bailey’s patients pay someone to drive them to the grocery store. She said it’s difficult to coach them to buy healthful groceries when the food is good only for a few days.

“By the end of the month, they are back to eating cereal and Hamburger Helper,” Bailey said.

She thinks the widening health gap in recent years has accelerated with an increasing number of young people leaving the area for job opportunities.

“We’re left with an older, sicker population who can’t work or don’t work, and those people are notoriously sicker,” Bailey said.

Both Bailey and Singh agree that addressing the health gap requires socioeconomic change. The communities need better higher-education opportunities and infrastructure improvements, such as improved roadways so patients can more easily get to larger towns and cities to access health care.

Until then, Willhite and her family will continue to drive hours for care, such as the foot doctor in Laurel, whom she had consulted when she lived in Maryland.

“There are just absolutely so many (health) issues here in this region, you can’t begin to put your finger on one,” Willhite said. “It’s like a big vicious circle.”

Small Missouri Town Went For Trump, Now Some Fear Health Care Overhaul

http://kcur.org/post/small-missouri-town-went-trump-now-some-fear-health-care-overhaul-0#stream/0

The closest emergency room is 20 miles east on the highway. That’s why it isn’t unusual for people experiencing heart attacks, blood clots and strokes to show up at Dr. Rodney Yager’s clinic on Main Street in Monroe City, Missouri.

Yager, who grew up in the area, can handle the fast pace of a small-town clinic. What worries him more is how federal health care policies being shaped in Washington, D.C., could affect his patients.

The most recent proposal by Senate Republicans would cut taxes for the wealthy and leave 22 million more U.S. residents uninsured by 2026, compared to current law.

But voter frustrations with the Affordable Care Act’s rollout in communities like Monroe City helped fuel the elections of candidates who promised to dismantle it.

“Honestly, I can see the Republican side of wanting to make budget cuts and try to eliminate waste,” Yager said.”But at the same time, they’re hurting a lot of people.”

This town of almost 2,500 people sprang up about 130 miles northwest of St. Louis, along the railroad in the 1850s. Monroe City, which is just west of Hannibal, was once a Democratic stronghold in northeast Missouri. In the last decades, voters have shifted to favor conservative Republican candidates and their policies. In the most recent presidential election, Monroe, Marion, and Ralls counties voted for Republican Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by a 3 to 1 margin.

Nevertheless, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill received a warm welcome at the Monroe City Senior Nutrition Center last week, where she held her eighth of 10 town halls during the Senate’s July 4 recess. Her Republican counterpart, Sen. Roy Blunt, held none, a decision that drew protests in the St. Louis area. Members of Blunt’s staff said he met with constituents one-on-one throughout the week.

McCaskill is in a tough spot. Her six-year term will be up at the end of 2018, and she’s running for re-election in an increasingly red state. But in Monroe City, about 60 people listened as she vowed to vote against the latest Republican plan to gut the Affordable Care Act, and reiterated a call for Republican senators to accept amendments proposed by Democrats.

“It’s really a big tax break for wealthy folks, paid for by cutting the Medicaid program,” McCaskill said. “So I’m hoping it doesn’t pass. And then we can sit down together and try and fix what we have, repair what we have.”

It took just three questions before someone asked whether health insurance should be the basis of a health care system at all. Nearly everyone in the room raised their hands when McCaskill asked who would favor extending Medicare coverage to everyone, of any age. The idea of a single-payer system for American health care is a non-starter for conservative lawmakers and think tanks, but has grown in popularity among the general public. A recent Politico poll found that 44 percent of respondents would support a federal health care program for everyone.

“Even though more of you are for ‘Medicare for all,’ I’m worried that we can’t afford it right now,” McCaskill told the crowd. “It’s very expensive.”

Like many small towns in the United States, Monroe City’s population is aging. While voters are more likely to cast their ballot for Republican candidates, they are disproportionately affected by cuts in public spending for health care programs.

GOP health care bill would make rural America’s distress much worse

http://theconversation.com/gop-health-care-bill-would-make-rural-americas-distress-much-worse-78018?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134+CID_7e419ab4ae6962d1afd6f9273e9cc417&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=GOP%20health%20care%20bill%20would%20make%20rural%20Americas%20distress%20much%20worse

Image result for rural hospitals

What rural areas need from health care reform

Previous efforts at health care reform show us that rural areas are uniquely vulnerable. Efforts need to take account not only of coverage and access – as has been the focus of the current debate – but also how reform affects rural health care institutions and the larger social factors shaping overall health.

The particular economic factors affecting rural health care institutions make rural areas particularly vulnerable to political shifts that disrupt services for existing patients and for those newly insured, creating immense challenges for rural providers. Steps that fail to account for the impact of financial hardship on these institutions not only hurt their bottom line but contribute to poor morale and workforce turnover and larger-scale decisions to reduce services, which decrease their ability to address patient needs.

At the same time, commitment to improving the health of rural Americans requires attention to the so-called upstream factors shaping rural health. That means preserving the safety net programs so vital in rural areas with underemployment and low-paying jobs, strengthening rural economies and investing in high-quality education.

If our leaders are serious about reform that will lessen the rural-urban mortality gap, they should recognize the unique needs of rural America and ensure health care policy reflects how vital access to quality care is to their financial success – not to mention their well-being.

What’s Next for the ACA and the People It Covers?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/mar/whats-next-for-the-aca-and-the-people-it-covers?omnicid=EALERT1187962&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

If Republicans are unable to revive last week’s failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the nation will need to turn back to ensuring the long-term success of the law. Decisions made by the Trump administration and Congress as well as state policymakers over the next few years will help determine how many people the ACA covers, how affordable the coverage is, and its cost to federal and state governments. Such decisions include whether and how the administration will use its executive authority to sustain, or undermine, the law’s key provisions, and how Congress might ensure the stability of individual health insurance markets nationwide.

Policymakers will need to keep in mind what’s at stake: the health and well-being of real people with real health care problems. The ACA has enabled more than 30 million Americans to get health insurance or to purchase more valuable coverage. Provisions of the law aimed at improving the delivery system have reduced the number of people treated in hospitals who have to be readmitted for more care, and have contributed to a slowdown in the rate of growth in health care costs. As elected and executive branch officials contemplate their choices, they should consider these human benefits—and the consequences of jeopardizing them.

 

Rural health crisis: ERs turn away women in labor

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/report-some-rural-facilities-turn-away-women-seeking-obstetric-care?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdWa05XUTROamxoTURZMCIsInQiOiJra2diVDlzMHM4TVJmcFpYSmtcLzNhOHNQUGNCaHZYOUxMMnhcL1FDdytSNm1rQ0FNNmVDZlBCWGVvXC9nS0VRZjZhRWVaT3B4RllpN1FkZUJwQU9xYUpKQzhJancrMktwTEpkTThcL2VFaDloRUtxTDQ0aStENHQ1VWhyTGFLNG1vNWoifQ%3D%3D

hospital1

Despite federal law that requires every emergency room in the U.S. to treat women in labor, some women are still turned away at rural facilities or treated at hospitals that lack an obstetrics specialist.

Federal investigation records show that least 20 rural hospitals were in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act over the last five years, according to an article from ProPublica and the Louisville Courier-Journal. Some of these facilities also refuse to help women in labor transfer to a different location for treatment.

Experts say the protections in EMTALA haven’t improved rural access to obstetric care. “The availability of OB services in rural areas has steadily declined since the beginning of EMTALA in 1985,” Todd Taylor, M.D., an emergency physician and EMTALA compliance consultant, told the publication.

ProPublica’s dive into federal records was prompted by a recent case at Jewish Hospital Shelbyville, a 42-bed facility under KentuckyOne Health, the state’s largest health system. A young woman came to the emergency department to deliver her baby, but the hospital’s obstetrics department had been closed for close to a decade. Instead, she was turned away, and was taken by ambulance to a different hospital more than 20 miles away to give birth, according to the article.

Representatives at the hospital told the publications that it has the equipment and personnel to provide obstetric care, but that a baby hasn’t been delivered at the hospital since 2014.

Rural healthcare is in dire financial straights, with as many as 13% of rural hospitals vulnerable to closure. Many facilities are struggling to adapt to new technological demands. However, rural facilities are the main providers to certain patient populations, as a fifth of Americans live in rural areas.

An Association Of Health Funders And The Changing Political Landscape

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/01/19/an-association-of-health-funders-and-the-changing-political-landscape/

As the professional association for health foundations and corporate-giving programs, Grantmakers In Health (GIH) connects the hundreds of health funders who are spread across the American landscape, keeping them up-to-date on rapidly changing developments and providing opportunities for them to share what they’re learning and doing in their respective communities.

Times like now—when dramatic changes to the health care landscape are anticipated—accentuate the importance of this role. In 2017 it will be especially important that we help funders understand, and respond to, significant expected changes in public policies and programs that affect the communities they serve.

We will not simply be in crisis mode, however. Our concern for both informing and shaping the bigger picture of philanthropy’s health and health care priorities is ongoing.

As the year begins, the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is naturally a high priority for us. Health funders are rightly anxious to understand the changes that are likely with a new Congress and presidential administration. Many grantmakers have invested for years at a national or state level to support the implementation of the ACA. They are keenly aware that rolling back the law will have consequences not only for people’s access to health care services, but also, more broadly, for jobs and state economies.

In an immediate response to these concerns, GIH has organized a series of webinars for its membership that offers the perspectives of a range of policy experts. Immediately post-election, these topics included strategies for adapting health reform–related grant making, the future of Medicaid, and the election’s implications for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and other children’s coverage. Upcoming webinars will include bipartisan views of the new Trump administration’s health priorities and plans, the implications of a possible repeal of the ACA without implementing an immediate “replace” strategy, and the 2016 election’s possible effects on the health of immigrant communities.

Other ACA-related programming will include activities taking place at our annual conference in June, as well as meetings, calls with funders, and publications, including in-depth interviews about foundation strategies. Because changes to the ACA, Medicaid, and other programs will heighten the importance of state-level actions, our 2017 programming will pay special attention to elevating what funders are doing in states and sharing this information nationally.

In addition to this focus on policy changes that will affect access and coverage, we also want to identify health investment areas in which the new administration seems to be interested. We anticipate that addiction, delivery system reform, veterans’ health, and rural health will be on that list.