logo
Rural New Hampshire hospitals brace for potential Medicaid cuts

Rural New Hampshire hospitals brace for potential Medicaid cuts

Yahoo01-05-2025
U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen speaks with Matt Foster, Valley Regional Hospital CEO, in front of an MRI machine at the hospital last week. Rural hospital leaders have been telling Shaheen and the rest of New Hampshire's congressional delegation about the impact cuts to Medicaid would have on their operations. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin)
At 16 beds, Colebrook's Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital is the smallest licensed hospital in New Hampshire.
'We call it 'frontier medicine,'' Tom Mee, CEO of the hospital's parent company, North Country Health, said. 'It's the lifeblood of health care for that community.'
Situated in rural northern Coös County near the U.S.-Canada border, Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital is the only hospital nearby, which makes it vital to the health and well-being of area residents.
'When an urban hospital closes or cuts back programs, you just go to the other hospital that's five miles away,' Mee said. 'In our community, you're driving hours.'
That's why Mee and other rural health providers are so afraid of Republican proposals in Washington, D.C., to gut Medicaid, the country's public health care program for those with low incomes and unique needs. They argue this move would further destabilize an already challenging rural health system.
In early April, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve a resolution outlining the federal budget, an early step in the lengthy federal budgeting process. That outline called for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts to renew President Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — which his opponents and many economists decry as a tax break for the richest Americans.
The resolution tasks several legislative committees with cutting different areas of the budget. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been instructed to cut its portion by about $880 billion over 10 years. While it doesn't explicitly specify these cuts come from Medicaid, the program comprises about $8.2 trillion of the almost $9 trillion the committee can cut from. This means, experts say, it would be impossible to do so without reducing Medicaid or Medicare. Some Republicans have proposed shrinking Medicaid by about a third over 10 years.
If that cut went into effect, an estimated 24 million people receiving Medicaid would lose their health care coverage; 10 million of those would be children. In New Hampshire, that's 60,000 people and 30,000 children. One in 7 New Hampshire residents in total receive Medicaid, and 17.1% of all New Hampshire Medicaid recipients live in Coös County, despite the county comprising roughly 2% of the state's population.
Mee said the country must 'get past this notion that getting people off Medicaid saves money.'
'There is no model where, from a taxpayer perspective, taking somebody off the Medicaid rolls is a net positive for the taxpayer,' Mee said. 'In the short term, yeah, it sounds good that we've got somebody off the Medicaid roll or that they're working, but the flip side of that is that these patients then become uninsured, they don't get preventative health visits in general, and they show up in our ERs months later, sicker than they ever were before.'
Hospitals cannot turn away patients who are unable to pay like most businesses can. They are legally required — through a 1986 law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — to provide emergency treatment to all patients who need it regardless of ability to pay. Without Medicaid, more people will be unable to pay. Hospitals are forced to absorb that cost.
Mee called it 'a long-term drain on the system.'
Coös County is the state's largest county by area (about 1,800 square miles) and its smallest by population (about 32,000 residents). The county has three hospitals — Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital, Androscoggin Valley Hospital, and Weeks Medical Center — all operated by North Country Health. All three are designated as critical access hospitals by the federal government, meaning they're far enough from any other hospital that the government believes they're essential to ensure that an area has access to care.
'On a perfect day, we can drive about 90 minutes between sites,' he said. 'But on a snowy day, you're talking about real life and death at that point if we have to start cutting back on services.'
Mee said that if these Medicaid cuts go into effect, North Country Health would have to consider doing so. About 15% of North Country Health's patients are on Medicaid, he explained.
'I don't lie awake at night worrying about our hospitals closing,' he said. 'But I do worry about whether or not we're going to continue to offer the full scope of services that we do today.'
He said the first services they'd have to consider eliminating are in women's health, including OB-GYNs and baby deliveries, and behavioral health, including psychiatry and substance use disorder. He said the results would be disastrous.
'If we're not able to deliver babies in Coös County, pregnant women and neonates will die,' he said. 'It's a fact.'
Mee said the health system has already eliminated every non-essential cost.
'We've already picked all the low-hanging fruit,' he said. 'So if Medicaid reductions, or however it looks, force us to look at it again, then we're going to have to look at something a bit more draconian than what we've done in the past.'
U.S. Rep. Maggie Goodlander, who represents the North Country — as well as Nashua, Concord, and the western half of New Hampshire — said she's worried about the viability of rural hospitals like those in the North Country and other rural parts of New Hampshire should these cuts be enacted.
'What I'm hearing from so many rural hospitals in our state is just how fragile they are,' Goodlander said. 'I mean, they're operating on the slimmest of margins.'
The congresswoman visited Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, another rural critical access hospital, last week to hear from some of those health care leaders.
'We are really concerned about what's going to happen with Medicaid,' Richard Scheinblum, executive vice president and CFO at Monadnock Community Hospital, said.
In New Hampshire, the fear of federal Medicaid cuts is twofold. Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and states. New Hampshire has a trigger law on the books mandating that if federal funding for the expanded Medicaid program falls below 90%, the state government will revoke its portion of the funding for about 60,000 of New Hampshire's recipients who receive coverage through the 2014 expansion.
'If expanded Medicaid blows up, that's between a $1 to $2 million loss to us,' Scheinblum said. This figure is per year, he said, and he calculated it by examining figures from before expansion was enacted, factoring in recent market developments and updated variables.
Goodlander said she's spoken with state lawmakers who don't seem to understand what the impact of this trigger law being activated would be.
Cynthia McGuire, president and CEO at Monadnock Community Hospital, said the hospital isn't sure they'd be able to continue employing the entirety of their current staff with Medicaid cuts. The hospital is one of the largest employers in Peterborough. Additionally, Upper Connecticut Valley Hospital, Androscoggin Valley Hospital, and Weeks Medical Center are the largest employers in their respective towns.
Scheinblum and McGuire said if these cuts went into effect, like North Country Health, they'd also have to look carefully at downsizing their operations.
'What I'd hope we could do is look at some alternative revenue sources or some other areas to scale back,' Scheinblum said, listing philanthropic grants and donations and partnerships with other hospitals as examples. 'Everything would be on the table.'
They noted that due to their community's financial support they're really well positioned compared to other hospitals.
'There are a lot of hospitals in our state that will not survive,' Goodlander noted.
The hospital leaders emphasized the importance of critical access hospitals.
'We're the last stop,' McGuire added. 'We can't shut our door and say we're not going to take care of any more people today. That's what we are here for.'
Matt Foster, president and CEO of Valley Regional Hospital, a critical access hospital in Claremont, said this moment feels like 'December to January 2020 pre-COVID when something's coming but you're really not sure how to plan.'
He said the hospital has 'started to think about' a contingency plan should these cuts be enacted.
'This has come on so quickly we're kind of in the reactive phase,' he said. 'It's like Mike Tyson said, which is, 'Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.''
Foster noted the challenges their community faces: Roughly 15% of the population lives below the poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About one-third of Claremont's population is on Medicaid.
'Finances are like oxygen,' he said. 'They're not why we're here but they're necessary for life.'
Foster, too, explained that Medicaid would force their hospital to make tough decisions about services, specifically on their payroll.
'We're about as efficient as we can be,' he said. 'There's only so many things you can do that don't rely on (employees).'
Officials at Valley Regional Hospital, which is operated by Dartmouth Health, explained that cutting Medicaid keeps people from obtaining preventative care and forces them to go to the emergency department for things that should be handled by a primary care physician. Jocelyn Caple, interim CEO of Valley Regional Hospital, likened it to 'taking a water balloon, going and squeezing it.'
'It ends up somewhere else, which is not the most efficient or effective place to pay for it,' she said.
U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen spoke with Foster, Caple, and other Valley Regional Hospital officials during a visit to Claremont last week.
'You talk about uncertainty, and one of the challenges that we've had in Washington is also uncertainty,' Shaheen said.
Shaheen said she's also concerned about rural New Hampshire hospitals' ability to remain solvent amid these cuts. Asked what recourse New Hampshire Medicaid proponents have in the event that the trigger law is enacted, Shaheen, who is a former New Hampshire governor, deflected, noting it is a state-level decision, not within her jurisdiction as a federal lawmaker.
Still, she encouraged constituents to 'call your legislator, call the governor, call everybody you can think of, and let them know that that's not acceptable.'
At the same time as federal lawmakers weigh trimming Medicaid, state lawmakers are also proposing changes to the program in New Hampshire. The state Senate passed a bill — Senate Bill 134 — in March requiring people to work in order to receive Medicaid in New Hampshire, and the House approved a plan to charge certain Medicaid recipients premiums and increase the share of prescription costs recipients are responsible for in the budget they passed in April.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte's office, which originally proposed the premium and prescription cost plan, and would have to sign off on work requirements for them to be enacted, did not respond to the Bulletin's requests for comment about state or federal proposals.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late
Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late

Boston Globe

time7 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late

These two examples are but a sample of the laser-focused and ever-intensifying Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'This is about how do you dismantle democracy, in real time, in plain sight,' Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist and former Georgia state legislator, said in an Advertisement It can all feel overwhelming, as if it is too much coming at us too fast to wrap our arms around, let alone fight. But that isn't true. There are things we all can do to push back against and mitigate the autocratic turn our nation has taken. But first, we have to be clear about how and why authoritarianism can so easily take over a democracy like America's. Advertisement It's not just the Supreme Court's continued targeting of the Voting Rights Act or the flagrant partisan gerrymandering to keep increasingly purple states like Texas bright red. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts, though many feel more like machete wounds. They include Then there's the plan, straight out of Project 2025, to There is also the federal And so much more. Ask yourself: If Republicans were so confident that their policies were popular, why would they be working so hard to rig the electoral system to hold onto power? They give their own game away. But they couldn't do it unless a significant portion of Americans (far short of a majority) were willing to go along with it. I'm often shocked at the willingness of so many Americans to watch our democratic guardrails crumble with barely an 'oh, hum.' But Abrams raised an important point: The way autocrats win over supporters is by telling them the lie that democracy cannot give the people what they need, and that they should embrace an alternative. That was exactly how Rodrigo Duterte rose to power in the Philippines and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. And now it's happening here. Advertisement Republicans have been successful in making their supporters think, as Abrams said, that 'it's this community of people [Democrats] who are the reason you don't have anything, and so we will let you [Republicans] oppress an entire population if it justifies our convenience and guarantees us what we need.' Add a healthy dose of fear-mongering (the entire basis of the Trump administration's militarized attack on immigrants and cities like Washington, D.C.) and otherwise sensible people's tolerance for democratic backsliding skyrockets. But there is reason for hope: We are not without power to push back in real, meaningful ways. 'We need your investment,' Abrams said. 'This is not just about money. It's about time, talent, and treasure.' Give money to pro-democracy causes and candidates if you have it to spare, but that's not the only way. Contact advocacy organizations — from immigrant support groups to organizations dedicated to keeping elections free and fair — and ask what they need. Often it isn't just money but also volunteer time and effort. Contacting members of Congress is useful, but so is showing up at your local town council and school board meetings and demanding they fight against local-level autocracy like book banning and conservative takeovers of school curricula. Talk to your neighbors, your family, and your friends about how much we have to lose if we don't take action. 'We've got to show up and show that democracy can still deliver, even if it's being delivered by individuals,' Abrams said. 'Your church, your organization, your Girl Scout troop, whatever coalition you have, has to step into the gap.' It was a wonderful reminder to me that we are not powerless. I want to remind you of that, too. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at

Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment

The Intercept

time7 minutes ago

  • The Intercept

Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment

Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'

Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate

USA Today

time7 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate

Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store