
Map Shows Where Medicaid Cuts Could Close Hospitals
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
As congressional Republicans consider deep cuts to the Medicaid program, hundreds of rural hospitals already facing severe financial strain may be pushed to closure.
With more than 300 rural hospitals identified as being at "immediate risk" of shutting down, reductions in Medicaid funding threaten to upend health care delivery in some of the nation's most vulnerable communities, according to the pro-Democratic organization Center for American Progress.
Why It Matters
More than 60 million Americans live in rural areas, according to the 2020 census, where hospitals serve as essential lifelines, not just for emergency and primary care, but also for obstetrics, mental health services and long-term treatment. Medicaid provides critical financial support for these institutions, often serving as the backbone of care in areas with thin profit margins and high rates of public insurance enrollment.
Nearly one-third of the nation's rural hospitals are already in danger of closing due to sustained financial losses and low cash reserves, according to the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, meaning Medicaid cuts would likely see these facilities shut down.
What To Know
The Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform has identified over 300 rural hospitals at "immediate risk" of closure, as shown in the map above.
The states that could see the highest number of closures include Kansas, Oklahoma and Alabama, all of which voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
Across all the states that expanded Medicaid enrollment, 190 rural inpatient hospitals are at "immediate risk of closure" already, meaning Medicaid cuts would likely see these facilities shut down as House Republicans seem poised to target the states that expanded Medicaid enrollment under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
Almost one in three inpatient rural hospitals in Oklahoma and New York could close, and around one in four in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Residents of rural areas are also more likely than those in urban communities to rely on Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for their health insurance, according to the pro-Democratic organization Center for American Progress.
Per the CAP, almost 40 percent of children in the small towns and rural areas of Virginia were covered by Medicaid and CHIP in 2023, while around 20 percent of adults younger than 65 were.
The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to cover low-income adults up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which has been a lifeline for many rural institutions.
However, the new budget resolution passed by Republicans has instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget.
Proposed changes include lowering the federal match rate for expansion enrollees and imposing work requirements.
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out about her concern that a number of rural hospitals in New York could close, where significant proportions of constituents rely on Medicaid coverage.
What People Are Saying
Craig Wilson, interim president and CEO for the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI), a nonpartisan, independent health policy center based in Little Rock, Arkansas, told Newsweek: "There are already existing inflationary pressures on hospitals generally, but in a state where the healthcare providers in many of our rural counties and the residents they serve are heavily dependent on this safety net program, it would be difficult to absorb."
He added: "Regardless of what the policy decisions are in Congress, there is a clear signal from the federal government that their goal is to shift more of the financial responsibility for the Medicaid program to the states. If states want to maintain the integrity of their Medicaid program and broader healthcare system and rural communities want to maintain access to services locally, they should recognize this shift and organize to respond."
A notification on the website of New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says: "Next week, the House Energy & Commerce Committee will vote on a bill that cuts Medicaid. Republicans are setting out to cut $880 billion in healthcare from families across the United States."
It adds: "If you are represented by a Republican, please call them now and leave a voicemail, or call first thing on Monday to get through to their office. Public pressure can work here. Many members are in close seats, and hearing from their constituents can make a difference."
Representative Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, the GOP chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said: "Savings like these allow us to use this bill to renew the Trump tax cuts and keep Republicans' promise to hardworking middle-class families."
House Speaker Mike Johnson said: "Medicaid is intended, remember, as a safety net for young pregnant mothers and the elderly and disabled and vulnerable populations, not for young able-bodied men without dependents. Those are the kinds of people we're taking off the program."
Eileen M. Sullivan-Marx, a professor at the New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, told Newsweek: "I had a rural primary care practice in eastern New Hampshire as a nurse practitioner in the 1980s. I saw first hand how local communities benefited from having rural hospitals. Not only were the rural hospitals part of the local economy and supportive to local nursing homes but they also provided a sound structure to local community governance and volunteer community services that we often see with business groups in communities. For example, charity fund raising and support of school activities go hand in hand with rural hospitals. Those employees and leaders at local rural hospitals are the same persons who hold communities together to support not only health but also community economic growth. Just think of Friday Night Football games, usually a medical professional (in New Hampshire it had to be a physician at the time) to cover the football and other impact high school games in case of injuries. The loss of the people who make us rural hospitals would have an effect an the entire community."
What Happens Next
The bill that would push forward cuts to the Medicaid program needs to win over nearly every Republican on the floor of the narrowly divided House. If it passes, it will then be considered in the Senate.
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


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
NYS lawmakers set vote to make assisted suicide legal despite controversy
ALBANY – State lawmakers are 'likely' to pass a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide next week –despite controversy over the legislation, the Senate Democratic leader said Thursday. The measure — which would allow people with six months or less to live to be prescribed a cocktail of drugs to end their lives — would be sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk after approval by the state legislature in a vote that could come as soon as Monday. 'I do believe there are the votes and it is likely it will come to the floor,' Senate Democratic Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins told reporters. Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Westchester) said the Medical Aid in Dying Act will likely be brought up for a vote before the end of session next week. Hans Pennink 'Ultimately, the majority of the conference felt comfortable with providing options for people during difficult end of life times,' the Westchester County legislator said. A source familiar said the vote is likely to be scheduled for Monday and Stewart-Cousins' acknowledgement it is set for a vote indicates wide support in the Democratic caucus, which controls both houses of the legislature. Critics of the legislation – which include the Catholic church and disability rights groups, amongst others – argue the bill doesn't have adequate safeguards against abuse. 'We appreciate the Senator's desire to have a conversation about end of life care, but handing sick people a suicide cocktail is not compassion nor is it healthcare,' Bob Bellafiore, spokesperson for the New York State Catholic Conference told The Post. 'We know many Democratic senators have very deep reservations about this bill and they should be allowed to vote their conscience instead of toeing a party line,' he added. State Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, one of the Senators driving the effort to pass the bill, said the legislation is about 'honoring choice.' A source said Stewart-Cousins' acknowledgement the measure is set for a vote indicates wide support for it in the Democratic caucus. Hans Pennink 'Passing the Medical Aid in Dying Act affirms New Yorkers' right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions. This legislation offers terminally ill individuals the autonomy to choose a peaceful and dignified passing, surrounded by loved ones,' Scarcella-Spanton said. 'It's about honoring choice, alleviating suffering, and treating people with the compassion they deserve. I'm proud to see that we have the support to get this landmark piece of legislation done,' Scarcella-Spanton added.