Past president of Alabama Rural Health Association weighs in on rural hospital closures
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WIAT) — 27 rural hospitals are at risk of closing in the state of Alabama, that's according to Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform.
Seven rural hospitals in the state have closed since 2011, according to the Alabama Hospital Association. On Thursday, CBS 42 News stopped by the 2025 Alabama Rural Health Conference in Hoover to talk with the past president of the Alabama Rural Health Association about how we got here.
'A lot of it just boils down to funding,' noted Ferrell Turner, who is also the CEO of Physicians Care in Clarke County. 'What I mean by that is in some cases funding from if they are say a governmental hospital, so they be owned by the county or the city or somebody like that, and they may get some funding that way, but it's primarily the re-imbursement.'
Ferrell said re-imbursement rates in Alabama are among the lowest in the country. They get compensated either by the patient, an insurance company, or Medicare or Medicaid.
John Green to speak at Alys Stephens Center in June
'It's rather difficult to operate hospitals if you're not getting paid for what you do,' he added.
Having your hospital close down isn't necessarily a bad thing, according to Dr. Nick Gillespie who practices in Moulton, Alabama. He said Lawrence Medical Center closed it's doors several weeks ago.
'With the improvement in healthcare, the improvement in medication, the way it's going we just don't have that need anymore.'
Dr. Gillespie said what they do need in Moulton, however, is emergency services and a good diagnostic center. He remarked that he's not speaking for every hospital everywhere. State Representative Ron Bolton was awarded 'Rural Health Legislator of the Year' at the Alabama Rural Health Conference on Thursday. He said the closing of the Pickens County Hospital in March of 2020 has had an impact on his constituents.
'Right now we're having to move people to our other hospitals in Tuscaloosa and Columbus, but we're doing everything that we can to try and get that hospital back open.'
Bolton said they hope to be able to qualify for a federal program for a rural emergency hospital at some point. To make that happen though, a bill would need to pass that would allow applicants that were operational through March of 2020 to be considered.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new budget bill hides an assault on hospice
President Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support on May 22, mandates $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. This is a cruel assault on some of the most vulnerable Americans that will strip them of vital health care services. It will also take an axe to hospice, which relies on Medicare reimbursement to function. Since 1982, when Medicare first began covering hospice, Americans have turned to it for essential end-of-life services that address the specialized needs of the dying and allow for death with dignity. Our current system doesn't always run perfectly and would benefit from greater funding and support. I know this because when my mother was 99.5 years of age and less than six months away from her death, medical staff at our local hospice agency determined she was not, in fact, dying soon enough. Presumably adhering to Medicare guidelines, they callously discontinued our hospice services. The abrupt cessation of care prompted my debilitated mom's eviction from an assisted living facility. The chaotic aftermath necessitated medicine, schedule and equipment adjustments for her and delivered a massive blow to me, her primary caregiver. Fewer resources means this financially draining and emotionally wrenching situation will become more common — perhaps even the norm. The shifting demographics make the picture even bleaker. The U.S. is a rapidly aging population, with the number of Americans ages 65 and older expected to more than double over the next 40 years. At a time when we should be buttressing hospice services, our government is threatening to starve them. According to the Office of the Inspector General, 'About 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive hospice care each year, and Medicare pays about $23 billion annually for this care.' Hospice is an interdisciplinary service that provides everything from pain relief to spiritual support to medication management to dietary consulting to mobility equipment to bereavement counseling. While the price tag may sound hefty and our current administration would like us to believe that public services are an unbearable financial burden, an investigation published in the Journal of American Medical Association Health Forum found that hospice saves Medicare money. Research shows that hospice significantly benefits dementia and cancer patients at the end of their lives. On May 19, 2025, the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published a study of 51,300 assisted living residents that concluded, 'Higher frequency of hospice staff visits was associated with better perceived hospice quality. Policies supporting greater hospice staff engagement, including nonclinical staff, may enhance end-of-life care experiences for assisted living residents.' The report matters because the findings illuminate the humane need for both clinical and nonclinical treatment that provides for medical and emotional support as life ends. We all heard President Trump campaign on promises to protect Medicare, but Richard Fiesta, executive director of the advocacy group Alliance for Retired Americans, describes the ongoing national budget scene as 'an all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid that will hurt older Americans in every community across the country.' And Shannon Benton, the executive director of the Senior Citizens League, another advocacy group, now warns that the potential Medicare cuts could lead to lower reimbursement rates. This would be disastrous for millions of Americans and would threaten to eradicate end-of-life care as we know common belief, hospices are not run by volunteers. Volunteers might become part-time visitors or assistants for a variety of tasks, but hospice administrations are led by professionals who are evaluated on financial performance and organizational viability. Palliative care is free to recipients and families and available at all income levels, but hospices are businesses, and they must raise sufficient funds through donations, gifts, bequests and reimbursements to compensate employees, repay loans, cover operating costs, and plan for exigencies. Simply put, much of that money comes from Medicare. Specialized care for the dying was introduced to the U.S. in 1963, when Yale University's then dean Florence Wald invited Dame Cicely Saunders of the U.K. to participate in a visiting lecture at Yale. At that time Saunders said, 'We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' Four years later, in 1967, Saunders created St. Christopher's Hospice in the U.K. Later, in 1974, Florence Wald founded Connecticut Hospice in Branford, Connecticut — America's first hospice. Within five years and after several national conferences, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare acknowledged that hospices provided alternative care programs for Americans losing their lives to terminal illnesses. Federal hospice regulations were drafted. In 1982, Medicare added hospice care to its benefits, and in 1985, Medicare hospice coverage became permanent. With that, the U.S. recognized the right of its citizens to die with dignity. Forty years later, our government has signaled that a rollback of that right may be on the horizon. Eventually, my mother died in a highly regarded long-term care complex without hospice support and with no prescribed opioids. It was an unnecessarily excruciating death that exacerbated my and my family's grief. The trauma we suffered was destabilizing and healing from it was slow and difficult. If Trump's Orwellian-named 'big beautiful bill' passes the Senate, I fear our experience will have been an ugly preview of what is to come.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
