logo
'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies

'Expensive and complicated': Most rural hospitals no longer deliver babies

Yahoo11-06-2025
Jun. 11—Nine months after Monroe County Hospital in rural South Alabama closed its labor and delivery department in October 2023, Grove Hill Memorial Hospital in neighboring Clarke County also stopped delivering babies.
Both hospitals are located in an agricultural swath of the state that's home to most of its poorest counties. Many residents of the region don't even have a nearby emergency department.
Stacey Gilchrist is a nurse and administrator who's spent her 40-year career in Thomasville, a small town about 20 minutes north of Grove Hill. Thomasville's hospital shut down entirely last September over financial difficulties. Thomasville Regional hadn't had a labor and delivery unit for years, but women in labor still showed up at its ER when they knew they wouldn't make it to the nearest delivering hospital.
"We had several close calls where people could not make it even to Grove Hill when they were delivering there," Gilchrist told Stateline shortly after the Thomasville hospital closed. She recalled how Thomasville nurses worked to save the lives of a mother and baby who'd delivered early in their ER, as staff waited for neonatal specialists to arrive by ambulance from a distant delivering hospital.
"It would give you chills to see what all they had to do. They had to get inventive," she said, but the mother and baby survived.
Now many families must drive more than an hour to reach the nearest birthing hospital.
Nationwide, most rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services. Since the end of 2020, more than 100 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, according to a new report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform, a national policy center focused on solving health care issues through overhauling insurance payments. Fewer than 1,000 rural hospitals nationwide still have labor and delivery services.
Across the nation, two rural labor and delivery departments shut their doors every month on average, said Harold Miller, the center's president and CEO.
"It's the perfect storm," Miller told Stateline. "The number of births are going down, everything is more expensive in rural areas, health insurance plans don't cover the cost of births, and hospitals don't have the resources to offset those losses because they're losing money on other services, too."
Staffing shortages, low Medicaid reimbursement payments and declining birth rates have contributed to the closures. Some states have responded by changing how Medicaid funds are spent, by allowing the opening of freestanding birth centers, or by encouraging urban-based obstetricians to open satellite clinics in rural areas.
Yet the losses continue. Thirty-six states have lost at least one rural labor and delivery unit since the end of 2020, according to the report. Sixteen have lost three or more. Indiana has lost 12, accounting for a third of its rural hospital labor and delivery units.
In rural counties the loss of hospital-based obstetric care is associated with increases in births in hospital emergency rooms, studies have found. The share of women without adequate prenatal care also increases in rural counties that lose hospital obstetric services.
And researchers have seen an increase in preterm births — when a baby is born three or more weeks early — following rural labor and delivery closures. Babies born too early have higher rates of death and disability.
Births are expensive
The decline in hospital-based maternity care has been decades in the making.
Traditionally, hospitals lose money on obstetrics. It costs more to maintain a labor and delivery department than a hospital gets paid by insurance to deliver a baby. This is especially true for rural hospitals, which see fewer births and therefore less revenue than urban areas.
"It is expensive and complicated for any hospital to have labor and delivery because it's a 24/7 service," said Miller.
A labor and delivery unit must always have certain staff available or on call, including a physician who can perform cesarean sections, nurses with obstetric training, and an anesthetist for C-sections and labor pain management.
You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services. — Harold Miller, president and CEO of the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform
"There's a minimum fixed cost you incur [as a hospital] to have all of that, regardless of how many births there are," Miller said.
In most cases, insurers don't pay hospitals to maintain that standby capacity; they're paid per birth. Hospitals cover their losses on obstetrics with revenue they get from more lucrative services.
For a larger urban hospital with thousands of births a year, the fixed costs might be manageable. For smaller rural hospitals, they're much harder to justify. Some have had to jettison their obstetric services just to keep the doors open.
"You can't subsidize a losing service when you don't have profit coming in from other services," Miller said.
And staffing is a persistent problem.
Harrison County Hospital in Corydon, Indiana, a small town on the border with Kentucky, ended its obstetric services in March after hospital leaders said they were unable to recruit an obstetric provider. It was the only delivering hospital in the county, averaging about 400 births a year.
And most providers don't want to remain on call 24/7, a particular problem in rural regions that might have just one or two physicians trained in obstetrics. In many rural areas, family physicians with obstetrical training fill the role of both obstetricians and general practitioners.
Ripple effects
Even before Harrison County Hospital suspended its obstetrical services, some patients were already driving more than 30 minutes for care, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported. The closure means the drive could be 50 minutes to reach a hospital with a labor and delivery department, or to see providers for prenatal visits.
Longer drive times can be risky, resulting in more scheduled inductions and C-sections because families are scared to risk going into labor naturally and then facing a harrowing hourlong drive to the hospital.
Having fewer labor and delivery units could further burden ambulance services already stretched thin in rural areas.
And hospitals often serve as a hub for other maternity-related services that help keep mothers and babies healthy.
"Other things we've seen in rural counties that have hospital-based OB care is that you're more likely to have other supportive things, like maternal mental health support, postpartum groups, lactation support, access to doula care and midwifery services," said Katy Kozhimannil, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, whose research focuses in part on maternal health policy with a focus on rural communities.
State action
Medicaid, the state-federal public insurance for people with low incomes, pays for nearly half of all births in rural areas nationwide. And women who live in rural communities and small towns are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than women in metro areas.
Experts say one way to save rural labor and delivery in many places would be to bump up Medicaid payments.
As congressional Republicans debate President Donald Trump's tax and spending plan, they're considering which portions of Medicaid to slash to help pay for the bill's tax cuts. Maternity services aren't on the chopping block.
But if Congress reduces federal funding for some portions of Medicaid, states — and hospitals — will have to figure out how to offset that loss. The ripple effects could translate into less money for rural hospitals overall, meaning some may no longer be able to afford labor and delivery services.
"Cuts to Medicaid are going to be felt disproportionately in rural areas where Medicaid makes up a higher proportion of labor and delivery and for services in general," Kozhimannil said. "It is a hugely important payer at rural hospitals, and for birth in particular."
And though private insurers often pay more than Medicaid for birth services, Miller believes states shouldn't let companies off the hook.
"The data shows that in many cases, commercial insurance plans operating in a state are not paying adequately for labor and delivery," Miller said. "Hospitals will tell you it's not just Medicaid; it's also commercial insurance."
He'd like to see state insurance regulators pressure private insurance to pay more. More than 40% of births in rural communities are covered by private insurance.
Yet there's no one magic bullet that will fix every rural hospital's bottom line, Miller said: "For every hospital I've talked to, it's been a different set of circumstances."
Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at [email protected].
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans respond to data showing 10M will soon lose Medicaid coverage
Republicans respond to data showing 10M will soon lose Medicaid coverage

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans respond to data showing 10M will soon lose Medicaid coverage

(The Center Square) – Democrats are sounding the alarm over a new analysis showing that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cause millions of Medicaid recipients to lose their current coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office's newest estimate, Medicaid reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will result in roughly 10 million people losing eligibility for their current health care plan by 2034. 'This latest analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that the deeply unpopular One Big Ugly Law is also deeply unfair,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a response statement. 'The American people deserve better than this cruel Republican budget scam.' Republicans, however, have pointed out that the breakdown of the numbers offers a different perspective. Out of the 10 million affected, 5.3 million are able-bodied adults without dependents. Under the OBBBA, they could still remain on Medicaid, so long as they participate in work-related activities at least 80 hours per month. The work requirements would not apply to pregnant women; minors and seniors; foster youth under 26; Tribal members; the medically frail; those already meeting TANF or SNAP work requirements; caregivers with young dependents; or the currently and recently incarcerated. Another 3.7 million current Medicaid recipients set to lose coverage will still have access to some other form of government-sponsored health insurance. These individuals are primarily dual enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid, or those who are erroneously enrolled in Medicaid in more than one state. The former group would lose Medicaid but could retain Medicare, while the latter would be eligible to claim their Medicaid coverage only in their actual state of residence. The remaining 1 million impacted individuals are noncitizens who do not meet immigration status requirements for Medicaid enrollment. Those noncitizens have nonetheless received coverage under taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored Medicaid programs. 'The prolonged lie exacerbated by Democrats that 17 million individuals will lose health care coverage from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has finally been dispelled,' House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said Monday. 'It's easy to scare people with coverage loss estimates, but the facts are clear – the vast majority of these individuals are either choosing to lose coverage or aren't actually eligible for Medicaid, and nearly all are eligible for other forms [of] coverage.' Overall federal spending on Medicaid will still grow by 30% over the next decade, provided that Republicans refrain from further enrollee-reducing changes in another 'big, beautiful bill,' which GOP leaders are considering. Solve the daily Crossword

Texas AG sues Eli Lilly for allegedly bribing medical providers to prescribe Lilly drugs
Texas AG sues Eli Lilly for allegedly bribing medical providers to prescribe Lilly drugs

Indianapolis Star

time18 hours ago

  • Indianapolis Star

Texas AG sues Eli Lilly for allegedly bribing medical providers to prescribe Lilly drugs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Eli Lilly, alleging the Indianapolis pharmaceutical company offered kickbacks to medical providers in exchange for prescribing more than a dozen of the company's drugs, including blockbuster GLP-1 weight loss drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound. Eli Lilly offered illegal incentives to Texas medical providers, including a "free nurse" program and reimbursement support services, to steer providers to provide the company's drugs, Paxton alleges in a lawsuit filed August 11 in a Texas district court. Lilly, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, denied the allegations in an August 12 statement to IndyStar. The Lilly programs mentioned in the suit offered free trainings for nurses and medical providers, which helped Lilly market their drugs when they launched, the suit says. According to Paxton's office, many Texas residents prescribed these drugs were on state Medicaid, so these actions violated the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act. 'Big Pharma compromised medical decision-making by engaging in an illegal kickback scheme,' Paxton said in a news release. 'Eli Lilly fraudulently sought to maximize profits at taxpayer expense and put corporate greed over people's health. I will not stand by while corporations unlawfully manipulate our healthcare system to line their own pockets.' A spokesperson for Eli Lilly said the company denies the allegations and plans to defend against them in court. It's not the first time Paxton has taken a stab at Lilly in the courts. In October, Paxton sued insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers, including Lilly, Express Scripts and CVS, for allegedly concocting a conspiracy to increase insulin prices. Health Choice Alliance LLC, a New Jersey based company, joined Texas as a plaintiff. Health Choice has sued Lilly in the past, alleging the company engages in kickbacks. 'Multiple courts and the federal government have rejected claims by this same corporate relator against Lilly as meritless," a Lilly spokesperson said in a statement. "In fact, the United States government determined that 'the relators' allegations lack sufficient factual and legal support' in a prior case, explaining that 'federal healthcare programs have a strong interest in ensuring that, after a physician has appropriately prescribed a medication, patients have access to basic product support relating to their medication.' We intend to vigorously defend against these allegations.' At the heart of the Texas lawsuit is a class of drugs named GLP-1s prescribed for diabetes and weight loss. Named for the gut hormone receptor the drug targets, injectable GLP-1s have exploded in popularity since Zepbound hit the market in late 2023. Weight loss drugs: Eli Lilly closer to breakthrough weight loss drug; shares tumble as some question results The kickback lawsuit against Lilly is one way Paxton is protecting Texas patients "from corporate schemes that undermine the integrity of the healthcare system," according to his office.

6 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Could Limit Healthcare Access
6 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Could Limit Healthcare Access

Health Line

time20 hours ago

  • Health Line

6 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Could Limit Healthcare Access

The tax and spending bill approved by Congress last month will cut $1 trillion from health-related programs over the next decade. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' will hit Medicaid hardest with $790 million chopped from its budget. Experts say these reductions will greatly impact health programs across the country, particularly those serving rural communities, children, and lower-income households. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed by President Donald Trump in early July, will impact virtually every health-related program in the United States. The bill, officially known as House Resolution 1, is expected to reduce federal spending on health-related programs by $1 trillion between now and 2034. It's estimated that those cuts will cause at least 10 million people to lose health insurance coverage during the next nine years. It calls for a reduction in funding for food assistance programs and rural hospitals, as well as reduced funding for Planned Parenthood services, which have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Some of these impacts will take years to be felt. Other provisions, however, could directly affect people's lives in the next year or two. 'It is the biggest cut to our social safety net in history,' Liz Fowler, PhD, a distinguished scholar in Health Policy and Management at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, said in a news release from the college. Here's a look at six key areas affected by spending reductions outlined in President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Medicaid bears the brunt of the cuts Federal funding for Medicaid is expected to be reduced by more than $790 billion over the next decade. More than 70 million people currently receive Medicaid benefits, but various factors could significantly reduce this estimate. Work requirements will mandate that most 'able-bodied' recipients between the ages of 19 and 64 will be required to work, receive work training, volunteer, or be in school for at least 80 hours per month while receiving benefits. The new work requirements take effect on January 1, 2027. As many as 5 million people could lose health insurance due to this requirement, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). More frequent eligibility checks will require states to verify beneficiaries' eligibility for Medicaid more often, causing some recipients to be removed from the program. Immigration restrictions will reduce the number of foreign-born residents receiving benefits. The cuts may also affect hospitals, as Medicaid is responsible for 20% of revenue at these medical facilities nationwide. Experts also point out that people who are no longer on Medicaid will not seek preventive care and end up in hospital emergency rooms due to more serious medical issues. 'Cutting Medicaid means millions lose access to basic care, leading to sicker patients, overwhelmed ERs, and rising costs for everyone,' said Kanwar Kelley, MD, a specialist in otolaryngology, head and neck surgery, obesity medicine, and lifestyle medicine as well as the co-founder and chief executive officer of Side Health. 'Lack of access to preventive care leads to a sicker population, which leads to more medical expenses,' Kelley told Healthline. Impacts to Medicare Medicare is a federal program founded in 1965 that provides health insurance coverage to people 65 years and older. About 66 million Americans are enrolled. Trump's bill does not directly mention Medicare cuts, but there are measures that could impact recipients. Under a 2010 budget mechanism law known as PAYGO, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the Trump bill could trigger more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts between 2026 and 2034, KFF reports. The Center for Medicare Advocacy notes the bill will also reduce the number of people eligible for Medicare. They say some non-citizens who meet Medicare eligibility requirements through work history or residency length will no longer be covered. In addition, the bill imposes a nine-year ban on implementing improvements to Medicare Savings Programs that help lower-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Older adults who are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare could hit with a double impact. 'The [bill] will affect this [older] age range by reducing access to care,' Kelley said. 'Creating restrictions based on work requirements and new regulations for exemptions will exclude many in this age group from qualifying. Those in this age range will have a harder time re-entering the workforce to continue their coverage.' Fewer people enrolled in Obamacare The bill will make it more difficult for people to join or remain in programs offered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. This difficulty will be due to several changes. They include: Requiring enrollees to update their information regularly. This may include updating income, immigration status, and other details each year. Requiring individuals to manually reenroll every year during open enrollment. Last year, 10 million people were automatically reenrolled. Shortening the open enrollment period by a month. That period will now end on December 15 rather than January 15. For the current plan year, 40% of people signed up after December 15. Some immigrants will also no longer be eligible for ACA coverage. In addition, financial assistance that helps people afford insurance in ACA marketplaces will be allowed to expire at the end of this year. The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University predicts these changes will cause ACA premiums to rise by 75% next year. Kelley agrees that premiums will likely go up, causing a cascade of events. 'Removing or cutting these subsidies will lead to more expensive plans offered on the marketplace. By raising these prices, many will choose to live without health insurance and risk catastrophic medical debt,' he said. 'Making access to healthcare harder for individuals creates gaps in care for patients, which is crucial in screening for life-altering illnesses.' Strains on rural hospitals The bill does provide rural hospitals with $50 billion over the next five years to help reduce the effects from the cuts in Medicaid spending. However, the Center for American Progress reports that funding will not be nearly enough to make up the difference. The organization states that slightly more than 2,000 rural hospitals receive $12 billion per year in net revenue from Medicaid. At some rural hospitals, Medicaid represents 40–50% of their revenue. The organization added that children, non-elderly adults, and people with disabilities would be the people in rural areas most affected. Kelley agreed that the effects could be far-reaching. 'This loss of funding will hit rural hospitals hard, leading to closures and increasing healthcare disparities in marginalized neighborhoods,' he said. The Center for American Progress also notes that rural hospitals have low operating margins. They project that more than 300 rural hospitals could be at risk of closure. 'Rural communities already face challenges with adequate staffing and medically necessary equipment as they usually operate on tight margins with the subsidies,' Kelley said. 'Reducing the number of providers will lead to closures, which forces those in the community to travel farther for their regular and emergency care.' Fewer families will receive food assistance The bill would cut $120 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade, according to estimates. About 40 million people currently receive assistance from the SNAP program. The League of Women Voters projects the cuts could impact 22 million families. Kelley said the impact is beyond just food. 'Food insecurity leads to bad health outcomes,' he said. 'Cutting programs directed at addressing hunger will lead to increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and poor nutrition in kids.' 'Hunger in children leads to poor educational outcomes. Cutting SNAP and other food programs will lead to children going to school hungry, seniors skipping meals, and families making decisions between food and other necessities, including health,' Kelley added. Cuts to Planned Parenthood The bill impacts Planned Parenthood operations by banning people from using Medicaid at healthcare non-profit facilities that provide abortion services outside of cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnant person's life is in danger. Planned Parenthood estimates that the new law could close nearly 200 of its facilities. About 60% of those centers are in medically underserved communities. In addition, the organization states that more than 1 million people could lose access to afford healthcare services such as STI testing and birth control. Miller Morris, MA, MPH, is a women's health researcher and founder of Comma, a service focusing on menstrual health. She notes that a court injunction has temporarily blocked the bill's ban on Medicaid use at reproductive health clinics like Planned Parenthood. However, she said if the provisions are eventually upheld, they could have far-ranging effects. 'If the court's injunction were to be lifted, the defunding of Planned Parenthood would mean fewer resources for all the preventative and primary care services they offer, leading to reduced access for millions of women, especially those in low-income and rural communities,' Morris told Healthline. 'This reduction in Medicaid funding will see catastrophic consequences for the millions of women who rely on Planned Parenthood and similar low-cost organizations for vital, life saving care,' she added.

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