The Republicans' Medicaid Cuts Could Cause a Rural Unemployment Crisis
Rural hospitals are in crisis. 'More than 700 rural hospitals—one-third of all rural hospitals in the country—are at risk of closing because of the serious financial problems they are experiencing,' according to an April report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. 'Over 300 of these rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closing because of the severity of their financial problems.'
And this doesn't even account for what might happen if Republicans in Congress pass a budget bill that would cut $880 billion from Medicaid to cover tax cuts to the rich. Those cuts not only threaten health care coverage for millions of vulnerable Americans but also would endanger many rural hospitals, which are more likely than urban hospitals to rely on government health care spending to stay in business. Severe cuts to Medicaid could force many struggling rural hospitals to close, further diminishing work opportunities in areas where good, steady jobs are already scarce.
Rural hospitals are of course critical for patient care—often there's only one serving a geographically broad swath of territory—but they're also a major employer in their communities. They employ hundreds or even thousands of people, including nurses, administrative aids, filing clerks, nurses, nursing assistants, and doctors. If Medicaid cuts force rural hospitals to close, as experts suspect they could, rural America could face an unemployment crisis.
Nationwide, hospitals employ about 4 percent of the U.S. workforce, making them America's sixth-largest employer. It's harder to tease out exactly how much of the rural workforce they employ, but by some estimates the health care sector accounts for about 14 percent of employment in those areas; there are many rural counties where hospitals are the largest or second-largest employer. (The stereotype of the rural American farmer is a bit outdated, as most agricultural work disappeared decades ago. By 2016, the biggest employment sectors for rural counties were educational services, health care, and social assistance.)
More than a third of hospitals in the U.S. are classified as rural, and they're more likely to be operating in the red than their urban counterparts. The reasons are tied to the fortunes of rural communities more generally. The hospitals serve smaller populations and so have fewer patients. On top of that, many rural counties are shrinking in population, and the people who remain tend to be older and poorer than the country as a whole. These smaller hospitals have less power than bigger chains when negotiating reimbursement rates with insurance companies, making the government's health care programs a more important component of their funding. They're also serving populations that are more likely to be in poor health, and at the same time facing shortages of primary care physicians.
Those problems led 136 rural hospitals, or about 3 percent, to close between 2010 and 2021. Almost three-fourths of those were in states that hadn't expanded Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act, or had expanded it only within the previous year, hinting at how big a role the program plays in keeping those hospitals open. Not all rural hospitals are in crisis, though: Those in states that did expand Medicaid under the ACA are doing better. (However, the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform study found that 190 of the rural hospitals facing risk of immediate closure are in states that expanded Medicaid.)
If the past is any indication, the magnitude of the proposed new cuts could severely impact states and the hospitals that rely on those programs. 'It's kind of hard to specifically say that there's a specific policy with a discrete and direct impact on hospital employment,' Zachary Levison, project director of the KFF Project on Hospital Costs, said. 'But I think given the magnitude of the cuts to Medicaid that are being considered, these are likely to have an impact on hospital finances, and could especially hit rural hospitals, given the financial challenges that those facilities tend to have.'
Jobs in health care have been growing and are pathways into well-paying careers, and educators often promote the field to rural students to help address staffing shortages in rural areas. As employers, hospitals and medical offices are home to the pink-collar jobs of the new working class. In rural areas, they provide coveted desk jobs that don't require standing all day or lifting heavy equipment—unlike many other jobs available to non-college graduates in these areas, in industries such as retail, manufacturing, construction, and farming.
Cutting Medicaid is just one of the many ways the Trump administration seems poised to betray the rural voters who have overwhelmingly supported him throughout his political career. From food assistance to disability programs, rural areas are much more likely to rely on government spending to keep people afloat, and that spending has knock-on effects throughout local economies. Medicaid spending is one of them, keeping health care available to rural patients while also supporting the local industries that supply that care. If that spending dries up, so may a lot of good jobs in places where they're hard to come by.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Arvinas Announces Submission of New Drug Application to U.S. FDA for Vepdegestrant for Patients with ESR1-Mutated ER+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
– This submission is supported by the pivotal Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial, results of which were recently presented at the 2025 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting and published in The New England Journal of Medicine – – VERITAC-2 data support vepdegestrant as a potential treatment option in patients with ESR1m ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer – NEW HAVEN, Conn., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Arvinas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARVN), today announced the submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with its partner Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), for vepdegestrant for the treatment of patients with ER-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+/HER2-) ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. This submission is based on results from VERITAC-2 (NCT05654623), a global, randomized Phase 3 trial evaluating vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant. 'This milestone comes after an exciting presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting,' said John Houston, Ph.D., Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer and President at Arvinas. 'We look forward to the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option.' Vepdegestrant is being jointly developed by Arvinas and Pfizer for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer and was granted fast track designation as a monotherapy by the FDA. Results from the VERITAC-2 study were recently presented in a late-breaking oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting and were selected for the ASCO press briefing and for Best of ASCO. Detailed results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About the VERITAC-2 Clinical Trial The Phase 3 VERITAC-2 clinical trial ( NCT05654623 ) is a global, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant (ARV-471) as a monotherapy compared to fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 624 patients at sites in 25 countries who had previously received treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either vepdegestrant once daily, orally on a 28-day continuous dosing schedule, or fulvestrant, administered intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of Cycle 1 and then on Day 1 of each 28-day cycle starting from Day 1 of Cycle 2. In the trial, 43% of patients (n=270) had ESR1 mutations detected. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the ESR1-mutation and intent-to-treat populations as determined by blinded independent central review. Overall survival is the key secondary endpoint. About Vepdegestrant Vepdegestrant is an investigational, orally bioavailable PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader designed to specifically target and degrade the estrogen receptor (ER). Vepdegestrant is being developed as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in the second line-plus setting. In July 2021, Arvinas announced a global collaboration with Pfizer for the co-development and co-commercialization of vepdegestrant; Arvinas and Pfizer will share worldwide development costs, commercialization expenses, and profits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted vepdegestrant Fast Track designation as a monotherapy in the treatment of adults with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine-based therapy. About Arvinas Arvinas (Nasdaq: ARVN) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to improving the lives of patients suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Through its PROTAC (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) protein degrader platform, the Company is pioneering the development of protein degradation therapies designed to harness the body's natural protein disposal system to selectively and efficiently degrade and remove disease-causing proteins. Arvinas is currently progressing multiple investigational drugs through clinical development programs, including vepdegestrant, targeting the estrogen receptor for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer; ARV-393, targeting BCL6 for relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin Lymphoma; and ARV-102, targeting LRRK2 for neurodegenerative disorders. Arvinas is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. For more information about Arvinas, visit and connect on LinkedIn and X. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including statements regarding: the NDA review and to the first ever FDA-approved PROTAC ER degrader potentially being available to patients who could benefit from a much needed, new treatment option; and vepdegestrant's development as a potential monotherapy for ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer with ESR1 mutations in the second line-plus setting. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this press release, including statements regarding Arvinas' strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'target,' 'goal,' 'potential,' 'will,' 'would,' 'could,' 'should,' 'look forward,' 'continue,' and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Arvinas may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in these forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements Arvinas makes as a result of various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: whether Arvinas and Pfizer will successfully perform their respective obligations under the collaboration between Arvinas and Pfizer; whether Arvinas and Pfizer will be able to successfully conduct and complete clinical development for vepdegestrant as a monotherapy; whether the VERITAC-2 clinical trial will meet the secondary endpoint for overall survival; risks related to our expectations regarding the potential clinical benefit of vepdegestrant to patients; uncertainties relating to regulatory applications and related filing and approval timelines, including the New Drug Application seeking FDA approval of vepdegestrant and the risk that any regulatory approvals, if granted, may be subject to significant limitations on use or subject to withdrawal or other adverse actions by the applicable regulatory authority; whether FDA or other regulatory authorities will require additional information or further studies, or may fail or refuse to approve or may delay approval of vepdegestrant; whether Arvinas and Pfizer, as appropriate, will be able to obtain marketing approval for and commercialize vepdegestrant and other product candidates on current timelines or at all; Arvinas' ability to protect its intellectual property portfolio; Arvinas' reliance on third parties; whether Arvinas will be able to raise capital when needed; whether Arvinas' cash and cash equivalent resources will be sufficient to fund its foreseeable and unforeseeable operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements; and other important factors discussed in the 'Risk Factors' section of Arvinas' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and subsequent other reports on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release reflect Arvinas' current views with respect to future events, and Arvinas assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing Arvinas' views as of any date subsequent to the date of this release. Contacts Investors: Jeff Boyle +1 (347) 247-5089 [email protected] Media: Kirsten Owens +1 (203) 584-0307 [email protected]


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Our New Podcast
Health care for transgender youths is deeply personal and important to thousands of American families. It's also one of the most divisive cultural and political issues of our time. Twenty-seven states have banned surgery, hormone treatments or puberty blockers for minors. The Supreme Court will decide soon whether those bans are constitutional. The Times just published a special six-part podcast on the history of these treatments and the contentious debate. It reflects two years of work by Azeen Ghorayshi, who has reported on the intersection of gender and science for a decade, and Austin Mitchell, a senior audio producer. Jodi, who oversees Times newsletters, spoke to Azeen about the project's ambition, how she got people to open up, the biggest surprises in the reporting and how her own work has been weaponized. How was this project different from your prior work on this beat? What were the big unanswered questions you set out to explore? With this audio series, the interviews are more like long, in-depth conversations. People can connect more easily when they hear others in this way, and it can help challenge assumptions. The big question we were trying to answer was, How did we get here? The science and the politics have gotten so entangled, but something this reporting made clear is that politics has been baked in all along. The show is titled 'The Protocol,' after the Dutch Protocol, which grew out of the pioneering treatments in the Netherlands in the 1990s and 2000s. Why start there? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
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.