New White Paper from OnMed Warns of Worsening U.S. Rural Health Crisis — and Offers a Scalable, Tech-Driven Solution
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rural America is home to nearly 68 million people, and 80% of rural counties are medically underserved. In Texas alone, 35 counties exist without a single doctor, and across the country, nearly 200 rural hospitals have shut down since 2005. A staggering 43% of independent physicians have exited the profession in just the last five years. This confluence of doctor shortages, hospital closures, and lack of access has created a national emergency—one that demands more than traditional solutions.
'OnMed is proving that everyday healthcare can be delivered everywhere. Let's not let geography determine healthcare access." - Karthik Ganesh, CEO of OnMed
Share
Today, OnMed, a pioneer in hybrid healthcare, releases a landmark white paper titled 'How Healthcare Innovation Can Be Born from the Depths of America's Rural Health Crisis.' The paper paints a dire picture—but also outlines a bold, data-backed path forward. Read the full white paper here.
'We are not building the future of healthcare—we've already built it,' says Karthik Ganesh, CEO of OnMed. 'OnMed is proving that everyday healthcare can be delivered everywhere. Let's not let geography determine healthcare access.'
A Crisis Reaching A Tipping Point
The white paper reveals:
43% decline in independent physicians (2019–2024), with nearly 9,500 doctors leaving rural practice.
194 rural hospitals have closed since 2005.
159 Texas counties lack general surgeons.
Only 18% of rural patients have a primary care provider.
Patients in rural South and Appalachia are among the least likely to access telehealth due to connectivity and infrastructure gaps.
The consequence? Millions of Americans go without basic medical attention—while preventable conditions worsen into crises.
Innovation At Work: The OnMed CareStation
Already deployed in seven states—including Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, Florida, and Nevada —the 8' x 11' 'Clinic-in-a-Box' CareStation delivers affordable, walk-in healthcare to those who need it most. Each station connects patients to licensed clinicians via life-sized HD screens and is equipped to capture vital signs, perform diagnostics, and issue prescriptions on-site—no travel, no waiting rooms, no clinicians required on-site.
LaFayette, Alabama, a rural town with a population of 2,700 and a significant physician shortage, served as the ideal location for a CareStation deployment in 2023 as part of a partnership with Auburn University's Rural Health Initiative. Since then, the OnMed CareStation has completed over 2,000 consultations, and has seen almost half of the population of LaFayette with a return rate of 51%. Approximately 40% of all visits have resulted in immediate ePrescriptions sent to local pharmacies.
'This is the kind of care every rural community deserves,' said LaFayette Fire Chief Jim Doody.
By delivering immediate and comprehensive healthcare services, the OnMed CareStation is positively impacting LaFayette's significant healthcare access crisis.
About OnMed
OnMed, winner of the 2025 CES Twice Pick's Award, is the premier tech-enabled hybrid care company partnering with public and private organizations to reimagine healthcare access and improve health equity in communities across the country. With its patented CareStations, OnMed combines the best elements of traditional primary, urgent, or post-acute care facilities and virtual telemedicine to deliver convenient, affordable care to underserved communities, anywhere they are. OnMed licenses its cutting-edge technology and care delivery model to a wide range of organizations, including governments, employers, colleges, healthcare provider systems, payors, and high-traffic venues. OnMed is paving the way for everyday healthcare, everywhere.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
40 minutes ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on
