Lives on the line: Can new fund replace cuts to rural health care?

At Brownfield Ag News, I have told our team of ag reporters many times that when it comes to covering agricultural issues, the rule is simple: focus on policy, not politics.

Farmers, ranchers and others living in rural America don’t have time for partisan games. We care about what actually works.

That is why I believe the new Rural Health Transformation Program deserves a closer look.

Tucked inside the massive “One Big Beautiful Bill” in Washington is a five-year $50 billion promise to help struggling rural hospitals.

On the surface, that sounds like good news. And it could be if the money goes to the communities that truly need it most.

Republican Reps. Brad Finstad and Michelle Fischbach, both from Minnesota, are raising the alarm.

They are asking a very reasonable question: Is this funding going where it’s needed most, or just being spread around evenly to check a box?

The Rural Health Transformation Program is designed to modernize hospitals, keep vital services open and give small-town health care a fighting chance.

But under the current setup, half of the annual funding gets split up equally among states that apply, no matter how dire — or not — their rural hospital situation is.

Is giving every farm the same drought disaster aid payment, regardless of whether they had a total crop failure or a bumper harvest fair? Is it smart policy?

According to the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, nearly 30% of rural hospitals are at risk of shutting down, mostly because insurance payments — including Medicaid — do not come close to covering the cost of care.

When a rural hospital closes, it does not just mean a longer drive to the ER. It can mean the loss of obstetrics services, fewer jobs in the area and yet another reason for young families to move away.

At the same time, this bill cuts over $1 trillion in overall health-care spending, including big reductions to Medicaid. So, while Congress gives with one hand, it is taking away with the other.

Most of the rural citizenry do not want a handout. Rural Americans are used to doing more with less, and we take pride in pulling our own weight.

But when it comes to something as critical as health care — something that affects our kids, our aging parents, our neighbors and our communities — we are simply asking for fair treatment.

If a rural hospital is on the brink of closing, it should not be passed over just because its state already got its so-called “equal share.” That is not how you take care of people. That is not how you keep communities alive.

People in rural America show up when it counts: in the field, in the community and at the ballot box. It is time for Washington to show up for us, too.

It would be a breath of fresh air if a government program delivered on its promise, not with politics, but with real solutions for the communities that need them most.