It’s not unusual for the rancher to wake up early to tend to livestock, but at 5:45 a.m. this day his cattle wouldn’t come first. For the past 3½ years, three days a week, Pieper has made an early-morning commute to get dialysis at the nearest hospital.

Pieper lives outside Hay Springs, which has 599 residents, according to a sign at the edge of town. He makes sure not to forget his chocolate-brown cowboy hat before starting up his pickup truck for the half-hour drive to Chadron.

That February morning was one of his last dialysis sessions there before the hospital shuttered the service at the end of March.

“I guess I’ll just bloat up and die in a month,” Pieper remembered thinking when he learned the center was closing, eliminating the only option near his home.

He needs dialysis to survive after cancer treatment damaged his kidneys.

Pieper and 16 other patients relied on Chadron Hospital for the life-sustaining therapy that filters waste and fluid from their blood — a job their failing kidneys could no longer do. Treatment lasts about four hours.

The closure is just one example of the long decline of health care services in rural America, where people have higher rates of many chronic conditions but less access to care than elsewhere.

The Trump administration promised to address this problem, when it launched the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program in September. It may not be enough to stop the trend.

“[President Donald] Trump says he is going to help the rural health care,” Pieper said. Dialysis “is one thing that we really need here.”

Some patients have moved to live closer to care, including several nursing home residents. Their new facilities may be farther from their families.

Others are making long drives to dialysis centers. Pieper eventually found treatment in Scottsbluff, which, with about 14,000 residents, is the biggest city in the rural Panhandle region of western Nebraska. The hour-and-a-half drive will triple his time on the road to more than nine hours each week.

Jim Wright and his wife reduced their drive time — but are spending more money — by renting a small home near Rapid City, South Dakota, and living there on weekdays so he can get dialysis. Wright said he understands that rural hospitals face financial challenges.

“But we’re talking about something that’s lifesaving. It’s not a matter of, ‘Oh, I would like to be there’” getting treatment, he said. “It’s a case that if you don’t, you die.”

An Influx of Money That’s Out of Reach

Jon Reiners, CEO of the independent, nonprofit Chadron Hospital, wrestled with the decision to end dialysis services. He and several patients said that the closure was announced as the $219 million the state will receive in first-year funding from the Rural Health Transformation Program.

But the five-year program is aimed at exploring new, creative ways to improve rural health, not to help existing services stay afloat. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

At least 11 states — Nebraska is not among them — have mentioned using funding for rural dialysis programs, according to a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of applications. Their ideas include starting a mobile dialysis unit and helping people get treatment at home or in long-term care facilities.

Reiners said Chadron Hospital lost $1 million a year on its dialysis service due to low reimbursement rates that didn’t cover operational costs.

The facility is a critical access hospital, a designation that allows certain small, mostly rural hospitals to get increased reimbursement rates for their Medicare patients. While most of the affected patients were on Medicare, the critical access program doesn’t cover outpatient dialysis, Reiners said.

Reiners said the hospital worked for more than a year to find solutions, such as reaching out to four private companies to potentially take over the center. But he said they all passed after realizing they would lose money.

Nephrologist Mark Unruh said the dialysis closure in Chadron reflects a wider trend of staffing and funding challenges.

“You do end up in situations where you have people who are displaced like this, and it’s just sad,” said Unruh, chair of the Internal Medicine Department at the University of New Mexico.

People in rural America face significant disparities in kidney health and treatment, published in 2024 in the American Journal of Nephrology. They’re and face after diagnosis, according to data from the National Institutes of Health.

that helps primary care doctors in rural and other underserved areas prevent end-stage renal failure.

Another idea, Unruh said, is boosting the rate of kidney transplantation for rural patients. He’s looking at whether it’s helpful to “fast-track” tests patients need to get approved for a transplant by scheduling all of them over a couple of days to limit travel time.

Unruh said the U.S. health system also needs to recruit more staff who can train patients and their caregivers to administer dialysis at home.

Exploring the Option of Home Dialysis

Rural dialysis patients are more likely than urban ones to get home dialysis, according to . In 2023, the rate was nearly 18% for rural patients and about 14% for urban ones.

One type of home dialysis requires surgery to get a catheter placed in the abdomen and . The other kind requires . The nearest facility to Chadron that offers training for the first option is in Scottsbluff. The nearest that offers training for the latter kind is three hours away in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Pieper said doctors told him he’s not a candidate for home dialysis or a transplant. The Panhandle has a nonprofit, rural transit system, but its schedule won’t work for Pieper. He said that leaves him with no choice but to get treatment in Scottsbluff, a 200-mile round trip.

It takes Linda Simonson even longer — more than four hours round trip — to drive her husband, Alan, from their ranch to his treatment in Scottsbluff.

Linda sat in the waiting room with a yellow legal pad during one of Alan’s final treatments in Chadron. The paper was scrawled with phone numbers of politicians to call and driving distances to dialysis centers in the region. She said facilities closer to their ranch either don’t have room for new patients or lack good spots along the route to take a driving break in bad weather.

“It’s just unreal,” she said.

She said even if Alan took a bus, she’d have to ride along to support him during the trip and his treatment.

Jim and Carol Wright, the couple staying near Rapid City on weekdays, said they can’t afford to rent a second home forever. Their weekly commute is already taking a physical and emotional toll. They said they’ll eventually have to move to a bigger city, giving up the house they love in the scenic Nebraska National Forest.

Carol said she feels for the dialysis staffers in Chadron, who are wonderful.

“It just doesn’t seem right to sacrifice one unit that’s so vital,” she said while standing next to a pile of moving boxes stacked inside their rental.

The Wrights wrote letters to politicians and hospital leaders to share their concerns and ideas for keeping the unit open, including using the federal rural health funding.

Simonson said she spoke with aides for the governor and her state representatives but none of the leaders called her back.

“It feels like they don’t know that we exist at this end of the state,” she said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

And CEO Brad Meyer fears times will soon get worse for the clinic and its 21,000 patients. That’s because Nebraska is set to become the first state to require certain Medicaid enrollees to work or lose their coverage under new rules in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“This will have a huge financial impact on us,” Meyer said. On May 1, seven months before the law requires, the state will begin imposing work requirements on eligible adult Medicaid enrollees.

Most of Bluestem’s patients are covered by the government program for people with low incomes or disabilities. Meyer estimates up to 15% of them may be kicked off Medicaid, which could cost his center about $600,000 a year. That could mean cutting services or staff.

Nationwide, about 17,000 federally funded community health centers like Bluestem . They’re bracing for fallout from the law Trump signed last year, which could cost the nonprofit health centers $32 billion collectively over five years, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research foundation.

Health centers receive annual federal grants but depend on Medicaid reimbursements for patient care as their largest source of revenue. The government insurance program covered about half of their roughly 33 million patients in 2024.

Commonwealth estimates that 5.6 million patients of health centers will lose Medicaid coverage over the next decade as most states enact work requirements — a provision of Trump’s law that requires nondisabled enrollees to work, volunteer, or perform another approved activity for at least 80 hours a month.

Most are expected to lose coverage not because they don’t work but because of paperwork errors, like failing to document their hours or verify that they qualify for an exemption.

Health center officials say there’s no easy way to make up for the lost revenue other than cutting staff or services, which would affect all their patients. The cuts will coincide with an expected increase in patients, as people who lose coverage turn to the clinics for low-cost care.

By law, health centers are required to treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

A Double Whammy

Overall, about 10 million fewer Americans will have insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, both because of Trump’s law and congressional Republicans’ decision to scale back premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans.

“We are incredibly worried,” said Jeffrey McKee, CEO of Community Health Centers of Burlington in Vermont. His clinics treat about 35,000 patients a year, nearly a third covered by Medicaid.

He predicts a surge in uninsured patients will cost another $3 million in lost revenue. That revenue crash could imperil street medicine programs and home care for patients 65 and older, he said.

In 2024, community health centers because of rising costs and the expiration of covid pandemic-era relief funds, according to a KFF analysis.

Centers with high rates of uninsured patients typically struggle more financially, while some centers are sustained through private donations.

People without insurance — who made up about 18% of all health center patients in 2024 — pay on a sliding scale. Those amounts are a fraction of what insurers pay.

The new Medicaid work requirements apply to Washington, D.C., and 40 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the ACA, and to adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level — $22,025 for a single person this year.

Republicans say the work requirements will nudge people into the workforce and help preserve Medicaid for children and people who are pregnant or have disabilities. Studies by KFF and others show most enrollees already work, go to school, or have a health condition that prevents them from working.

Nebraska Is First Up

The Trump administration approved Nebraska’s early launch of its work requirement program, which could affect about . State Medicaid officials say they plan to use state and national databases to check whether people are already working or meeting an exemption so that most won’t have to do anything to keep coverage. But thousands will need to prove they satisfy the requirements.

At Bluestem in Lincoln, Meyer worries many of his Medicaid patients won’t take the steps needed to keep coverage.

Angelisa Corum, 57, said she loves the care she has gotten from her regular doctor at Bluestem Health over the past dozen years, particularly in dealing with breast cancer. “I am cancer-free, and they helped me get through that,” she said.

She said the care was the same when she was covered by her husband’s commercial insurance through his employer and when she was on Medicaid while he wasn’t working.

The work requirements are just one part of the Republican law passed last year that could hurt the health centers. It also requires more frequent eligibility checks for adults enrolled under Medicaid expansion, which advocates say could also lead people to lose coverage. Many states now require eligibility checks only once a year.

The law also reduces overall federal Medicaid funding to states, which may prompt them to cut reimbursements to centers and other health providers.

The National Association of Community Health Centers, the largest advocacy group for the clinics, has tried to walk a tightrope, warning about impending cuts from the law while still working with the Trump administration. The group praised Congress for increasing base grant funding for health centers in the federal budget approved in January.

Kyu Rhee, CEO of the national association, said the clinics enjoy strong bipartisan support in Washington despite the Medicaid cuts.

He has met with Trump administration officials to discuss how health centers can play a role in keeping people from losing coverage due to work requirements. He said they can help meet other priorities of the administration’s, like improving American diets, expanding primary care, and focusing on chronic diseases — though it’s unclear how any of that would result in more funding.

To further show the reach of health centers, the association recently funded a study that found 52 million people visited the clinics over a three-year-period. “It makes a statement we serve a lot more Americans than those from just a single year,” Rhee said.

Health center officials are hopeful they will get some of the funding from the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program included in the GOP-passed law. States will begin spending the first tranche of that money this spring.

Rhee said he is encouraged that states will have technology to help tap into databases to verify many enrollees’ work status or health conditions to meet “medical frailty” rules that could help them avoid being disenrolled.

Others are less optimistic.

“Health centers are bracing for a major financial impact,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University and Medicaid expert who co-authored the Commonwealth Fund study. “The way they cope is the same way health systems usually cope as they go through mass layoffs, site closures, and service reductions.”

Amanda Pears Kelly, CEO of Advocates for Community Health, a trade group representing 52 health centers, said health centers are also worried about rising costs, especially for prescription drugs. The impending financial challenges will make it more difficult to hire staff both in rural areas where doctors and nurses are scarce and in more populated areas, where competition for workers is more acute, she told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“The challenge is health centers are being hit from every direction,” Pears Kelly said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The upshot, : Babies fed rival Mead Johnson Nutrition’s acidified liquid human milk fortifier — a nutritional supplement used in neonatal intensive care units — developed certain complications at higher rates than those given an Abbott fortifier, a researcher at the University of Nebraska had found.

At least one of those complications .

The Abbott scientist, Bridget Barrett-Reis, described the results in the email to colleagues, using two exclamation points. Then she proposed that Abbott test the Mead Johnson fortifier, acidified for sterilization, against another Abbott product.

The clinical trial among preterm infants that Abbott subsequently sponsored, , is a case study of corporate warfare in the high-stakes business of infant nutrition, wherein preemies have been coveted like commodities; their anxious, vulnerable parents have been — whether they know it or not — targets of calculated commercial pursuit; and scientific research has been used as a marketing tool.

In hospitals around the country, dozens of babies born an average of 11 weeks early were fed Mead Johnson’s fortifier. Dozens of others were fed an Abbott fortifier that wasn’t acidified.

The clinical trial became a boon for Abbott, which to wrest market share from Mead Johnson. But for some of the babies enrolled, it didn’t turn out so well, a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News investigation found.

Far more infants given Mead Johnson’s product developed a buildup of acid in the blood called metabolic acidosis than those fed Abbott’s product — 19 versus four, according to results published in the journal .

Two outside doctors monitoring infants in the study became so alarmed that they refused to enroll any more babies, according to an April 2016 email one of them sent to Abbott.

In a related email to Abbott, neonatologist Robert White of Memorial Hospital in South Bend, Indiana, and Pediatrix Medical Group — an investigator in the study — .

“We had another SAE” — serious adverse event — “today in which a child developed profound metabolic acidosis while on the study fortifier,” White wrote. The severity was “unlike what we would see in most children with these issues.”

A manager at Abbott replied that the company was “taking your concerns very seriously.”

The study continued for almost a year.

At least some of the consent forms used to inform parents about risks did not mention metabolic acidosis or the often-fatal necrotizing enterocolitis, another condition identified in the 2013 email that led to the study.

In a November response to questions for this article, Abbott spokesperson Scott Stoffel said the clinical trial “was safe and ethical” and that the fortifiers it compared were “on the market and widely used.”

The study was “led by 20 non-Abbott investigators,” Stoffel said.

According to a federal website, chaired the study.

Stoffel added that the study was approved “by 14 independent safety review boards at hospitals” and “published in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.”

“It is reckless and not credible to suggest that these doctors and institutions conducted and then published the results of an unsafe or unethical study,” Stoffel said.

A spokesperson for Mead Johnson, Jennifer O’Neill, did not comment on Abbott’s clinical trial but said in a November statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that existing studies “cannot responsibly support” any connection between the acidified fortifier and conditions such as necrotizing enterocolitis or metabolic acidosis.

Mead Johnson executive Cindy Hasseberg argued in a deposition that Abbott waged a “smear campaign” against the acidified fortifier that was “very hard to come back from.”

In 2024, Mead Johnson discontinued the product.

Winning the ‘Hospital War’

Behind their warm-and-fuzzy marketing, industry giants Abbott, maker of Similac products, and Mead Johnson, maker of the Enfamil line, have turned neonatal intensive care units into arenas of brutal competition.

This article quotes from and is based largely on records from three lawsuits against formula manufacturers that went to trial in 2024 and are now on appeal. The cases are , , and The records include emails, internal presentations, and other company documents used as exhibits in litigation, as well as court transcripts and witness testimony from depositions.

The records provide an inside view of the business of infant formula and fortifier, a nutritional supplement added to a mother’s milk. For example, a Mead Johnson slide deck for a 2020 national sales meeting — later used in the Whitfield trial — outlined a plan for “Branding NICU Babies.”

Urging employees to win more sales from neonatal intensive care units, the document said: “’”

In internal documents and other material from litigation reviewed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, formula makers described hospitals as gateways to the much larger retail market because parents are likely to stick with the brand their babies started on. Products used in the NICU help win hospital contracts, and hospital contracts help establish brand loyalty, according to court records.

Manufacturers vie for contracts that can be “exclusive” or nearly so, according to records from the litigation, including company documents and testimony by people who have worked in management for the companies.

An undated Abbott presentation used in the Gill case, apparently referring to inroads with hospitals in its rivalry with Mead Johnson, boasted of “MJ Strongholds Broken!”

It saluted two employees who “Own 27K Babies Exclusively,” and said another “Stole 600 formula feeders from MJ.”

Still others were praised for “Playing in Mom’s mailbox” or “kicking … and ‘taking names.’”

In July 2024, Abbott CEO Robert Ford said in a conference call for investors that formula and fortifier for preterm infants generated total annual revenue of about $9 million — a small portion of Abbott’s total sales of $42 billion in 2024 and its $2.2 billion of sales in the United States from pediatric nutritional products.

Industry documents cited in litigation provide a different perspective.

“‘,” stated an Abbott training presentation from about a decade ago used in the Gill and Whitfield trials.

That described a baby’s first formula feeding in the hospital, the document said. Over 74% of the time, an infant fed formula in the hospital stays on that brand at home, the document said.

Abbott’s goal was that the first-bottle-fed strategy , the document showed. A staff training slide displayed during the Whitfield trial showed how that momentum could pay off in bonuses for Abbott sales representatives, leading to a “Happy Rep.”

Mead Johnson has espoused a similar strategy.

The company rolled out a with cash rewards for flipping hospitals from Abbott, according to a 2019 document marked for internal use by Mead Johnson and its parent company, England-based Reckitt Benckiser Group, and admitted into evidence in the Watson case.

“ is critical to contract gains and acquisition,” stated a company plan for 2022 that was cited in the Whitfield case.

One Abbott document shown in the Whitfield trial said more than half of first feedings happen at night, adding, “.”

A “Mead Johnson University” training document described a scenario in which a sales rep overhears patient information in a NICU and encouraged the rep to promote the company’s products. The document, titled “,” was admitted as evidence in the Watson case.

“[Y]ou are walking back into your most important NICU,” it said. “You overhear the HCP’s” — health care providers, apparently — “stating all of the notes,” it said. “There may be some information that may help you to position your products as a resource for this patient and to handle any objections that the HCP may present you with.”

To win parents’ business, companies have supplied formula to hospitals free or at a loss, court records show. That has resulted in such curiosities as a Mead Johnson “purchasing agreement” cited in the Watson case, listing the price for product after product as “no charge.”

In a 2017 strategy document prepared for Mead Johnson, a consulting firm laid out a plan “to win hospital war.”

Why focus on hospitals? “,” it explained.

The document was displayed in the Whitfield case.

In the market for preterm nutrition, Abbott and Mead Johnson compete with each other, not against the use of human milk, the companies told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“Thus, references in documents about wanting to ‘win’ or ‘own’ the NICU refer to out-performing Mead Johnson by offering the highest-quality products,” Abbott’s Stoffel said in February.

Asked specific questions about business strategies and internal documents, Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said the company was “concerned that you are presenting a misleading and incomplete picture.”

Mead Johnson’s products “are safe, effective, and recommended by neonatologists when clinically appropriate,” O’Neill added.

On the Defensive

In courthouses around the country, Abbott and Mead Johnson are on the defensive — and have been for years.

In hundreds of lawsuits, parents of sickened or deceased preterm infants have alleged that formula designed for preemies has caused necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, a devastating condition in which immature intestinal tissue can become infected and die, spreading infection through the body.

Lawsuits also accuse the manufacturers of failing to warn parents of the risk.

One of the cases on which this article is based, , resulted in a against Mead Johnson. , Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., resulted in a against Abbott. , Whitfield v. St. Louis Children’s Hospital, et al., resulted in a , but the judge found errors and misconduct on the part of defense counsel, faulted his own performance, and .

The cases have involved children like Robynn Davis, who was born at 26 weeks, lost 75% to 80% of her intestine to NEC, suffered brain damage — and, at almost 3 years old, couldn’t walk, couldn’t really talk, and was eating through a tube, as Jacob Plattenberger, an attorney representing her, in 2024.

An attorney for Abbott, James Hurst, that Robynn suffered a catastrophic brain injury at birth, 10 days before she received any Abbott formula, and that her NEC resulted not from formula but from many health problems.

In at least three cases, a federal judge has in favor of Abbott — ruling for the company before the lawsuits even reached trial.

The formula makers have repeatedly denied fault.

Addressing stock analysts in 2024, as “without merit or scientific support” the theory that preterm infant formula or milk fortifier caused NEC.

In a issued in 2024, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health said there was “no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.”

Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said the scientific consensus is that there is no established causal link between the use of specialized preterm hospital nutrition products and NEC.

Neonatologists use the products routinely, O’Neill said.

O’Neill cited a statement by the saying the causes of NEC “are multifaceted and not completely understood.”

In a legal brief filed with an Illinois appeals court in the Watson case, the company said “the NEC-related risks” of a formula for preterm infants “are the subject of medical debate,” adding that trial evidence “demonstrated, at a minimum, uncertainty as to the magnitude of the risk, as well as the causal role of various feeding options in the development of NEC.”

Manufacturers say formula is needed when mother’s milk or human donor milk isn’t an option. Fortifier, a product tailored to preemies, is meant to augment mother’s milk when babies are born prematurely and a mother’s milk alone doesn’t deliver enough nutrition. The Mead Johnson fortifier used in the head-to-head clinical trial sponsored by Abbott was acidified to prevent bacterial contamination.

In March 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that his department, which encompasses the FDA, was undertaking a review of infant formula, dubbed “Operation Stork Speed.” It includes and increasing testing for heavy metals and other contaminants, HHS said.

However, is limited. The agency doesn’t approve the products or their labeling. Whether to report adverse events — illnesses or deaths potentially related to the products — to the FDA is largely at manufacturers’ discretion.

The business of infant formula further spotlights a central contradiction in the Trump administration’s health policies. When it comes to food and medical products, the administration has criticized industry-funded research as unworthy of trust. Yet under Kennedy, it has disrupted, defunded, or sought to cut government-funded research, which could leave industry-funded research with a larger and more influential role.

It “is entirely appropriate for the Department to scrutinize research design, conflicts of interest, and funding sources, particularly when research is used to inform public policy,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said.

‘At the Table’

Company emails cited in litigation shed light on the industry’s approach to research.

In a 2015 email, when Mead Johnson was considering supplying some of its formula to a researcher for a study, a company neonatologist expressed concern that the results could be spun to make the preemie product look unsafe.

“However, we are more likely to have control over final language if we provide the small support and are ‘at the table’ with him,” Mead Johnson’s Timothy Cooper added in the email, which was cited in the Watson trial.

In 2017, Abbott with researchers at Johns Hopkins University about a study on how the composition of infant formula might affect NEC in mice. The email thread became an exhibit in the Whitfield case.

Abbott was both funding and collaborating on the work, shows.

Forwarding a draft of the resulting paper to Abbott, David Hackam, chief of pediatric surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in one of the emails, “We hope you like it.” He also requested help from Abbott in filling in information.

“The manuscript looks great!” Abbott’s Tapas Das , after a back-and-forth.

But Abbott had some changes, the email thread shows.

“We (VM & DT) made some edits in the text especially to soften a bit with the statement ‘infant formula seems responsible for developing NEC,’” Das wrote.

“Instead, we thought if we could state as ‘infant formula is linked to severity of NEC’. So we made changes throughout the text emphasizing on severity of NEC by infant formula rather than development of NEC by infant formula,” Das wrote.

Das wrote that “other factors are involved for NEC development as described in the text.”

Hackam did not respond to questions Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News sent by email.

Efforts to reach Das and Cooper — including by phoning numbers and sending letters to addresses that appeared to be associated with them — were unsuccessful.

When Mead Johnson provided support to scientific researchers, the company would want to make sure they reported the results “in an honest way,” Cooper said in a deposition played in the Watson trial.

The Abbott co-authors “proposed routine edits to the article for scientific accuracy and for the consideration of the other authors, some of the most well-respected NEC researchers in the world,” Abbott’s Stoffel said.

“Abbott regularly collaborates with and publishes studies with leading NEC scientists for the benefit of both premature infants and the entire scientific community,” Stoffel said.

“The research studies Mead Johnson supports are conducted independently and appropriately, with full transparency,” said O’Neill, the Mead Johnson spokesperson.

‘In the Wrong Direction’

Transparency can be subjective.

More than a decade ago, Mead Johnson sponsored a clinical trial testing what was then a new acidified liquid fortifier against a powdered fortifier already on the market.

In the study, which enrolled 150 babies, 5% of infants fed the acidified liquid developed NEC compared with 1% of infants fed the powder, according to deposition testimony and a record of the clinical trial used in the Watson case.

That information was not included in a 2012 that reported the study results.

The article, in the journal Pediatrics, whose authors included two Mead Johnson employees, concluded it was safe to use the new liquid fortifier instead of the powdered one. The article also said that, comparing babies fed the liquid with those fed the powder, the study observed no difference in the incidence of NEC.

The unpublished finding of 5% to 1% represented so few babies that it was not statistically significant.

Nonetheless, retired neonatologist Victor Herson, who ran a NICU in Connecticut and has studied fortifiers, said in an interview he would have wanted to see those numbers.

“The trend was in the wrong direction,” Herson said, “and would have, I think, alerted the typical neonatologist that, well, maybe not to rush in and adopt” the new fortifier.

It’s common for study publications to include tables showing complications even if they aren’t statistically significant so that readers can draw their own conclusions, Herson said.

Neonatologist Fernando Moya, a co-author of the Pediatrics article, had a different perspective.

“You may not be very familiar with medical literature but when there are no ‘statistically significant’ differences, we do not comment on whether something was increased or decreased,” Moya said by email. He referred questions to Mead Johnson.

Mead Johnson’s O’Neill gave several reasons why “the data you cite was not included in the publication.” She said the study was designed to examine infant nutrition and growth, NEC was a “secondary outcome,” the NEC numbers weren’t statistically significant, and the size of the study, “while appropriate, was not powered to draw any conclusions with respect to any potential differences in NEC.”

In a deposition used in the Watson trial, Carol Lynn Berseth — a co-author of the paper and Mead Johnson’s director of medical affairs for North America when the study was completed — testified that the article was peer-reviewed and that no reviewer asked for additional data.

“Had they asked for it, we would have shown it,” Berseth testified.

Berseth did not respond to a phone message or to an email or letter sent to addresses apparently associated with her.

‘It Should Not Be in a NICU’

The Abbott scientist who flagged research on Mead Johnson’s acidified fortifier in 2013, Bridget Barrett-Reis, was later of AL16, the follow-up clinical trial Abbott sponsored, and of .

In a deposition, she was asked why she conducted the study.

“I conducted that study because I thought [the acidified fortifier] could be dangerous,” she said, “and I thought it would be a good idea to find out if it really was because nobody was doing anything about it.”

Elaborating on the thinking behind the study, she testified: “It should not be in a NICU in the United States. That product should not be anywhere for preterm infants.”

In her 2013 email recommending that Abbott conduct a study, Barrett-Reis cited findings by “an independent investigator,” Ann Anderson-Berry, that showed, compared with preterm infants fed an Abbott powder, those on Mead Johnson’s acidified liquid “had slower growth, higher incidence of metabolic acidosis and NEC!!”

Asked about the exclamation points, Barrett-Reis testified in a January 2024 deposition used in the Gill case that she wasn’t excited about the findings. “I am known to put exclamation points instead of question marks and everything anywhere, so I have no idea at the time what those meant,” she testified.

The research that caught her eye in 2013 reviewed patient records from the Nebraska Medical Center. The institution had switched to the acidified fortifier with high hopes but stopped using it after four months because it was concerned about patient outcomes, Anderson-Berry and Nebraska co-authors .

In an interview, Anderson-Berry said she set out to analyze why, during those four months, babies’ growth “fell apart in our hands.”

Abbott was “very pleased” with Anderson-Berry’s findings and paid her to go around the country discussing them, she said.

Metabolic acidosis can be fatal, Anderson-Berry said. But typically it can be managed, she said, adding that she didn’t know of deaths from metabolic acidosis caused by the acidified fortifier.

Research has found that metabolic acidosis “is associated with poor developmental and neurologic outcomes in very low birth weight infants,” according to . In addition, it is “a risk factor for neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis,” the paper said.

Barrett-Reis did not respond to inquiries for this article, including a message sent via LinkedIn and a letter sent to an address that appeared to be associated with her.

In court, Abbott representative Robyn Spilker testified that metabolic acidosis and that nobody should knowingly put kids at risk for getting NEC in an effort to make money.

Before infants were enrolled in the AL16 study, their parents or guardians had to sign consent forms disclosing, among other things, the risks that clinical trial subjects would face.

International ethical principles for medical research on humans, known as the , say each participant must be adequately informed of the “potential risks.”

Questioning Abbott’s Spilker in litigation, plaintiff’s attorney Timothy Cronin said, “Ma’am, despite the hypothesis going in, are you aware Abbott on the informed consent form given to parents that signed their kids up for that study?” Spilker, who identified herself in court as a senior brand manager, said she didn’t know what was on the consent forms.

Through a request under a Kentucky open-records law, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News obtained an informed consent form for the AL16 study used at a public institution, the University of Louisville. The form mentioned risks such as diarrhea, constipation, gas, and fussiness. It did not mention metabolic acidosis or NEC.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News also reviewed an informed consent form for the AL16 study used at Memorial Hospital of South Bend. It was largely identical to the one used in Louisville and did not mention metabolic acidosis or NEC.

Cronin, the plaintiff’s attorney, said in an interview that Abbott showed disregard for the health and safety of premature babies participating in the AL16 clinical trial.

“I think it’s unethical to do a study if you know you are subjecting participants in the study to an increased risk of a potentially deadly disease and you don’t at least tell them that,” Cronin said.

Anderson-Berry told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that Abbott was “ethically well positioned” to conduct the AL16 clinical trial because her paper was not definitive.

Yet she said she was unwilling to enroll any of her patients in the Abbott clinical trial because she didn’t want to take the chance that they would be given the acidified liquid.

White, the neonatologist who stopped enrolling patients in the study, defended the decision to conduct it. In an interview, he said it was appropriate to conduct a large, properly controlled clinical trial to see whether concerns raised in earlier research were borne out. The two babies whose serious adverse events he reported to Abbott ended up doing fine, he said.

But White, who went on to be listed as a co-author of the study, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that parents should have been informed that the risks included metabolic acidosis and NEC.

“In retrospect, obviously, that is something that we, I think, should have informed parents of,” he said.

Abbott did not directly answer questions about the consent forms.

The results of AL16 were in 2018. The conclusion: Infants fed the acidified product — in other words, the Mead Johnson fortifier — had higher rates of metabolic acidosis and poorer feeding tolerance. Plus, poorer “initial weight gain.”

The title of the article trumpeted “Improved Outcomes in Preterm Infants Fed a Nonacidified Liquid Human Milk Fortifier” — in other words, the Abbott product.

Eight of the 78 infants receiving the Mead Johnson fortifier were treated for metabolic acidosis, compared with none of the 82 receiving the Abbott product, the article said. Four infants on Mead Johnson’s product experienced serious adverse events, compared with one on the Abbott product, the article reported.

One infant receiving the Mead Johnson product died — from sepsis, the article said. One had a case of NEC, and infants on Mead Johnson’s fortifier “had significantly more vomiting,” the article said.

However, in a pair of letters to the editor published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the article as hyped. Writers said the article emphasized findings that were .

In its business battle with Mead Johnson, Abbott deployed the study. It produced an annotated copy for its sales force, which was shown in the Whitfield trial.

Abbott’s use of AL16 as a marketing tool worked.

In 2019, when Barrett-Reis applied for a promotion at Abbott, she wrote that the results of the study had been “leveraged to secure whole hospital contracts which have increased hospital share to > 70%.”

Her letter was displayed in a deposition video filed in the Gill litigation.

Internally, Mead Johnson conceded it had been beaten in the fight over fortifiers. In the slide deck for a 2020 national sales meeting, the company said, “Abbott won the narrative.”

Share your story with us: Do you have experience with infant formula or any insights about it that you’d like to share? We’d like to hear from you. Click here to contact our reporting team.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s one of the many parts of the 25-bed rural hospital that need updating, former CEO Ron Wiens said.

He said the hospital, an essential service in its namesake town of nearly 800 residents in the state’s sprawling north-central high plains, needs at least $1 million for deferred maintenance, including a failing HVAC system. But the facility has struggled to make payroll each month and can’t afford to make all the fixes, Wiens said.

Built by farmers and ranchers in 1965, Big Sandy Medical Center began with nine beds. Today, a similar community effort — donations and grants to plug financial holes each year — keeps it afloat.

Wiens, who recently left his position at the hospital, said he wishes Big Sandy could get funding from Montana’s share of the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to renovate the hospital and direct payments to help secure its future. The state received more than $233 million in its first-year award.

But the hospital may not get the kind of help he sought.

That’s because the five-year program focuses on new, creative ways to improve access to rural health care, not on directly funding services and renovations. And Montana is one of at least 10 states whose leaders say projects launched under the federal program could lead rural hospitals to cut services so they can continue to afford to offer emergency and other essential care.

Congressional Republicans created the fund as a last-minute sweetener to their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset disproportionate fallout anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending .

includes programs to make it easier for rural residents to get medical care and live a healthy lifestyle. For example, it says funding can be used to start community gardens, train paramedics to make home visits, open school-based clinics, or bring mobile clinics to rural areas.

rural Montana hospitals can receive payments for implementing recommendations, “including right-sizing select inpatient services” to match demand. In some cases, it says, right-sizing might mean “downsizing.” The state says hospitals will have input and recommendations will be specific to each facility.

“That’s what has all the hospitals on pins and needles, words like restructuring, reducing inpatient beds. Everybody is going, ‘What is this going to look like?’” Wiens said.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services declined to answer questions about how it will carry out its right-sizing efforts.

A Lifeline of Care

Big Sandy cattle rancher Shane Chauvet doesn’t want any services cut.

He credits Big Sandy Medical Center with saving his life after a flying piece of metal nearly cut off his arm during a windstorm a few years back.

“I looked over, saw it coming, and whack!” Chauvet recalled.

His wife drove him to the hospital, where they frantically pounded on the ER door while Chauvet’s blood pooled on the ground.

Because of the storm, staffers worked on Chauvet with no power and no ability to summon a helicopter. He was then taken by ambulance 80 miles through intense rain and hail to a larger hospital.

Chauvet understands the state’s plan doesn’t call for eliminating emergency care, but he worries that reducing other services would set off a downward spiral for the hospital and his town.

In Oklahoma, realigning clinical services could mean “shutting down service lines,” to the federal program. And in Wyoming, any facility that receives funding must agree to “reduce unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential service lines,” .

Monique McBride, business operations administrator at the Wyoming Department of Health, said the department interprets right-sizing as helping rural hospitals provide essential services — such as emergency departments, ambulance services, and labor and delivery units — while maintaining long-term, financial stability.

“This might involve limiting some elective procedures that could be done at lower cost in higher-volume facilities. The main distinction here is time-sensitive emergencies vs. ‘shoppable’ services,” she said.

A New Lease on Life?

Seven of the 10 states — Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington — where rural hospital service cuts are on the table say they’ll help pay for hospitals to convert to Rural Emergency Hospitals. The recently created federal designation requires hospitals to halt inpatient services and offers enhanced payments to help them maintain emergency and outpatient care.

At least 15 additional states wrote that they’ll use the federal funding to right-size, evaluate, or adjust services — which could mean adding or taking away services, or transitioning them to a telehealth or outpatient setting.

Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association, said, “There’s a proper concern from rural hospital administrators that this funding is not going to where it was intended.”

He said cutting services that lose money could backfire in the long run. For example, he said, halting labor and delivery care might drive more people out of small towns, further reducing hospitals’ patient numbers and revenue.

The type of hospital services that states will assess matters, said Tony Shih, a senior adviser at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit focused on making health care more equitable.

“If the end result is that high-margin services are taken away from local hospitals with nothing given back in return, it can be financially harmful,” he said.

Shih noted that states’ plans to add more outpatient care could prove beneficial for patients. It’ll take time to know which states help stabilize rural hospitals, he said.

Rural hospital leaders say they know which changes would keep their facilities open and that states shouldn’t suggest or mandate service cuts and other changes on their behalf.

Josh Hannes, who oversees rural health policy at the Colorado Hospital Association, said “top-down” directives won’t work.

He said the association’s members believe they can find efficiencies and are eager to collaborate. But “a state agency shouldn’t be making those determinations,” he said.

Hannes said members are worried Colorado’s plan to classify rural health facilities as a “hub, spoke, or telehealth node” will compel service reductions. The classification will help determine “which services are sustainable locally and which are best provided regionally or through telehealth,” .

Spokespeople for the Colorado and Oklahoma health departments said no facility will be forced to end services. But Oklahoma spokesperson Rachel Klein said some facilities might choose to do so as part of a broader effort to make sure they’re meeting community needs while remaining financially stable.

“A hospital might shift certain services to a nearby regional provider with higher patient volume and specialized staff while expanding other local services,” such as primary, outpatient, or community-based care, she said.

Wiens and Darrell Messersmith, CEO of Dahl Memorial Hospital in the southeastern Montana town of Ekalaka, said they worry the only way hospitals will get their share of funding is to cut services or become Rural Emergency Hospitals that don’t offer inpatient services.

“I would hate to see things shift toward a pack-and-ship facility,” Messersmith said. “Right now, we function quite well as an inpatient facility.”

Not all Montana health leaders are worried.

Ed Buttrey, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association, said he thinks his state’s plan could help rural hospitals become financially sustainable and survive Medicaid cuts. Buttrey is also a Republican state lawmaker.

Chauvet, the Big Sandy rancher, said his perspective on whether remote towns like his should have a hospital is forever changed because of his accident.

“I always would say, ‘Oh, they’re nice to have,’ but now I look at the hospital and say, ‘That’s essential to our community,’” he said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Sam Walker, 35, has severe autism and other disabilities. He is deaf and cannot speak. Sometimes when he’s frustrated, he hits himself or others.

Medicaid provides about $8,500 a month for health workers who visit his apartment in the basement of his parents’ home. The staffers help him with everyday tasks, including dressing, bathing, and eating. They also take Walker on outings, such as dining at restaurants, volunteering at Goodwill, and exercising at a recreation center or on park trails. They stick to a strict routine, which soothes him.

His parents say that without the in-home services, their son would need to move to a specialized residential facility in another state. Sending him away would break their hearts and cost taxpayers much more money. They strive to keep him home because they know change makes him anxious.

“The last thing I want is to put him into some kind of care facility, where he’ll just get kicked out,” said his mother, Leisa. The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ questions about the Walkers’ case.

Federal Cuts Raise Pressure

Patient advocates say state administrators in Iowa appear to be reining in Medicaid spending by cutting what are known as home and community-based services for people with disabilities, and they’ve heard of multiple families facing battles like the Walkers’.

Disability rights advocates expect the pressure to intensify as states respond to reductions in federal Medicaid funding called for under the Trump administration’s signature tax and spending law, which passed last year.

June Klein-Bacon, CEO of the Brain Injury Association of Iowa, said the cuts and proposed rule changes appear to be part of a quiet attempt to save money in response to the state’s budget deficit and expected reductions in federal Medicaid funding.

Medicaid, jointly financed by the federal and state governments, covers people with low incomes or disabilities. Walker is one of served by “Medicaid waiver” programs, which pay for care that allows people with disabilities or who are at least 65 to live at home.

Unlike most parts of Medicaid, waiver programs are optional for states. Idaho’s governor noted that fact in January, when he suggested legislators consider cutting them. Disability rights groups fear other states will do the same. Leaders in , , and have considered such cuts this year.

Leisa Walker has heard Trump administration officials claim the national Medicaid cuts are intended to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. That’s not how it will play out, she said. “These are real people, real families, and this causes real suffering when you do this to people,” she said. “It’s a very scary time.”

a private insurance company that manages Sam Walker’s Medicaid benefits, intends to cut his in-home care coverage by about $3,200 per month, his mother said. Company leaders told a judge they are following state officials’ direction, but they did not dispute Leisa Walker’s math.

Walker has been on the waiver program for three decades. It covers assistance from workers known as “direct service providers” — one of whom has been with him for 25 years. His parents receive no pay for the hours they spend caring for him when the aides aren’t working.

On a February morning, Leisa and Kent Walker drove an hour and a half to Des Moines for an appeal hearing. An administrative law judge sat behind a wooden desk in a conference room as the Walkers and their lawyer faced off against three representatives from Iowa Total Care, a subsidiary of the national insurer Centene Corp.

Leisa testified that her son is 6 feet tall and weighs 230 pounds. Although he knows some sign language, he has trouble communicating, she said. When he becomes frustrated or his routine is interrupted, he sometimes wails and hits himself or other people. “It’s devastating to watch,” she testified.

He’s not a bad person, she said. “He doesn’t understand how strong he is.”

She said her family would try to keep his main caregiver employed under the planned Medicaid reduction but would have to drop others who cover nights and weekends. She said no residential facility near their southern Iowa home could address her son’s complicated needs. She said a case manager told her that a Florida facility might be the closest one that could safely handle him.

Leisa Walker testified that the state’s Medicaid program would pay about $22,000 per month to put him in an institution, more than double what the program spends on his home care.

Sam Walker’s longtime psychiatrist, Christopher Okiishi, testified that Walker’s family and their support staff spent years developing a “fragile” but stable existence for him.

Lori Palm, a senior manager for Iowa Total Care, testified that Sam Walker gets about 16 hours of daily assistance financed by Medicaid. Palm said much of that time amounts to “supervision.” She said state officials recently advised her company that the program should pay mainly for “skill-building” time, not supervision.

The Walkers showed the judge a 2018 document in which a previous Iowa Medicaid director stipulated that supervision of people with disabilities is an allowable service for workers paid under the program.

Judge Rachel Morgan asked the Iowa Total Care representatives if the recent policy change was made in writing by the state Department of Health and Human Services. They said it was not and that they couldn’t specify who at the department had given them the new guidance.

The judge suggested during the hearing that for someone like Sam Walker, learning to regulate emotions could be an important form of skill-building. Three days later, the judge ruled in the Walkers’ favor, writing that the insurer’s attempt to cut care hours was improper. The insurer appealed the decision to the director of the Iowa Department of Health Human Services, who could overrule it. The dispute could eventually wind up in district court.

Iowa Total Care and the state Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about the reports that many other Iowans with disabilities face reductions in care hours covered by Medicaid. Department spokesperson Danielle Sample said in an email that the agency supports home and community-based services, which, she noted, help “states save money by avoiding expensive long-term facility care.”

Spokespeople for the federal Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicaid nationally, did not respond to a request for comment on the issue.

Medicaid waiver programs started in the 1980s, after President Ronald Reagan heard about an Iowa girl with a disability who was forced to live in a hospital for months because Medicaid wouldn’t pay for home care. The Republican president thought it was outrageous that the girl, had to live that way, even though home care would have been cheaper.

Members of Congress approved allowing states to use their Medicaid programs to pay for in-home care. But they made the change optional, to offer states flexibility and encourage innovation.

Designating such spending as optional “waiver programs” also made the change more politically palatable, said Kim Musheno, senior director of Medicaid policy for , which represents people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Prospects were much different for babies born with serious disabilities before the change, Musheno said. “Doctors instructed families to forget they existed, and to put them in an institution.”

Waivers Have Been Cut Before

All states have Medicaid waiver programs, but benefits and the number of people covered vary significantly. Applicants often wait months or years to get into the programs because of limited funding. More than 600,000 Americans were on waiting lists or “interest lists” for waiver services in 2025, , a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Disability rights advocates and care providers have fought for decades to maintain funding for the programs, but a national leader said the threat feels especially severe now.

“When Medicaid is cut, people with disabilities are at the center of the impact,” said Barbara Merrill, CEO of the American Network of Community Outcomes and Resources, which represents agencies that care for people with intellectual disabilities or autism.

That’s what happened after Congress reduced Medicaid funding in 2011, according to a recent paper published by .

States could again rein in waiver programs by limiting enrollment, reducing covered services, or cutting pay for caregivers, who already are in short supply.

However, states that try to cut the in-home care programs could face legal challenges, Musheno said. The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1999 that people with disabilities have a right to live outside of institutions if possible. The decision, in the case of , has been cited in lawsuits against states that fail to provide care options apart from nursing homes and similar facilities.

Several Iowans who belong to a Facebook group for Medicaid participants have posted in recent weeks that their families were notified of impending cuts in coverage of home care services for people with disabilities.

Sam Walker’s main caregiver, Andy Koettel, has worked with him since Walker was in fourth grade. Koettel, who works full-time, knows how to keep Walker calm in most situations and soothe him during a blowup. Their relationship took years to build, and it is a key reason Walker can continue to live at home with his parents, Koettel said.

“If I was not there, it would be incredibly difficult for all of them,” he said.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But plans to spend those nine-digit awards aren’t all warmly received.

At least one group of Republican state lawmakers appears to have scuttled an initiative preapproved by federal officials. And at least one hospital association persuaded its state health leaders to alter who greenlights spending. Other critics are taking a more cautious approach.

That’s because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program, says states could lose money if they make major changes to the plans approved in their applications. Changes could also delay states’ ability to get projects rolling in time to show the agency that they’re meeting progress deadlines.

“During the application period, states were advised to only propose initiatives and state policy actions that the state deemed feasible,” said CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who noted that the agency will work with states case by case.

The recent pushback reflects “tension” over state plans — which were approved by the federal government — from state lawmakers and health leaders who want more input amid tight deadlines, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics.

Cochran-McClain said many states must pass a bill to allow federal dollars to be spent and added that because the program rolled out so quickly “there’s important work that still needs to be done in some states between the legislatures and the governors.”

State lawmakers want to have a say, she said, in “how the funding is being allocated — how the implementation will go.”

Congressional Republicans created the program as a last-minute sweetener to include in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

CMS officials announced first-year funding — ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — on Dec. 29, after scoring applications. Federal officials will begin evaluating progress in late summer and announce 2027 allocations at the end of October.

A chorus of critics say the program won’t make up for harm caused by Medicaid cuts.

The program is “a complete sham,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a rural policy conference in February.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income and disabled Americans, serves nearly , and many rural hospitals depend on it to stay afloat.

But the rural health program tilts toward seeding innovative projects and technologies, not shoring up rural hospital finances. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

That hasn’t stopped some federal officials and lawmakers from framing the program as a rural hospital rescue.

For example, the White House , “President Trump secured $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals.”

Now that applications have been approved, some state Republican lawmakers — who are more likely to represent rural voters than Democrats are — and hospital associations are upset that the political rhetoric doesn’t match what they see.

They’re also lobbing criticisms at specific aspects of their states’ plans, including the proposed projects, what’s not included, and the spending approval process.

In Wyoming, lawmakers didn’t just criticize an initiative from their state’s application. They moved to kill it.

State Rep. John Bear, a Republican, said he and other lawmakers declined to fund “BearCare,” a proposed state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies. But they did approve other aspects of the rural health program.

The Wyoming Department of Health won’t “proceed with BearCare without express legislative authority to do so,” said spokesperson Lindsay Mills.

While Wyoming lawmakers removed an initiative from their state’s rural health plan, a group in Ohio wants to add something.

Ohio Rep. Kellie Deeter and other Republican lawmakers to use the maximum allowed funding for provider payments — 15% — to support 13 independent, rural hospitals.

“We understand that the rural transformation fund is not designed to be given directly to prop up hospitals,” Deeter said. “We just want to capitalize on the mechanism of the fund that can be utilized for that purpose.”

Those hospitals “operate with very, very narrow margins, and it’s just difficult and, frankly, unsustainable,” she added.

Ken Gordon, a press secretary responding for the governor’s office and the state health department, said, “It’s still very early in this process, and many details are being worked out.”

State lawmakers around the country are also trying to ensure the federal program’s dollars benefit rural areas.

In North Dakota, Rep. Bill Tveit, a Republican who lives in a town with about 2,000 residents, that would have required the state to reserve its funding for programs located more than 35 miles from urban areas and small cities.

During a hearing, lawmakers appeared sympathetic to Tveit’s concerns but quickly shot down his idea.

State Sen. Brad Bekkedahl said the North Dakota health department already committed to prioritizing funding for the most pressing rural health needs. He also said he’s concerned any significant changes could cause the state to lose funding because CMS already reviewed and approved the plan.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Michigan and North Carolina have criticized their states’ definitions of “partially rural” or “rural,” saying that counties that include urban population centers could take money from lower-density counties, according to and .

Lawmakers aren’t the only ones speaking out.

The Colorado Hospital Association to state lawmakers denouncing how the state created its plan and two of its proposed initiatives.

“Not only were Colorado’s rural hospitals’ recommendations disregarded,” president and CEO Jeff Tieman wrote, but the plan includes ideas “they actively oppose and believe will harm the communities they serve.”

The department responded to one of the association’s concerns by adding rural health leaders to the .

Meanwhile, and Nebraska, some health groups are upset that their states’ plans lack specific funding streams for rural hospitals.

Lauren LaPine-Ray, who oversees rural health policy at the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, predicted the state’s rural hospitals will compete with other organizations, such as academic centers and health clinics, for funding. She said about 65% of the group’s rural members have never applied for a state grant before.

“The rural hospitals, the ones that really need the funding the most, will not be well equipped to apply for and pull down these dollars,” LaPine-Ray said.

Jed Hansen, executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, said the federal funding won’t go to “rural hospitals, rural clinics, and rural providers in a meaningful way.”

“Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state,” he said. “I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La regulación de la inteligencia artificial, en especial su uso por parte de las aseguradoras de salud, se está convirtiendo en un tema que divide políticamente y altera las líneas partidarias tradicionales.

Quienes la impulsan, con Trump a la cabeza, no solo quieren insertar la IA de lleno en el gobierno, como en el experimento de Medicare que la utiliza en las autorizaciones previas (el proceso para autorizar ciertos tratamientos y medicamentos), sino que además buscan frenar a los estados que pretenden poner reglas y límites. Una firmada en diciembre busca invalidar la mayoría de los esfuerzos de los estados para regularla, al plantear que existe “una carrera con adversarios por la supremacía” en una nueva “revolución tecnológica”.

“Para ganar, las empresas estadounidenses de IA deben tener la libertad de innovar sin regulaciones engorrosas”, dice la orden de Trump. “Pero la regulación estatal excesiva frustra este imperativo”.

En todo el país, los estados se están rebelando. Al menos cuatro —Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska y Texas— aprobaron el año pasado leyes que limitan el uso de la IA en los seguros de salud. Otros dos, Illinois y California, habían aprobado leyes similares el año anterior.

Los legisladores de Rhode Island se proponen intentarlo de nuevo este año, después de que durante 2025 no lograran sancionar un proyecto que exigía a los organismos reguladores que recopilaran datos sobre el uso de las tecnologías. El año pasado, en Carolina del Norte, una iniciativa que exige que las aseguradoras no utilicen la IA como única base para decidir la cobertura generó interés entre legisladores republicanos.

DeSantis, ex candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano, ha presentado una “Carta de Derechos de la IA”, incluyen restricciones a su uso en la tramitación de reclamos de seguros y el requisito de que un organismo regulador estatal inspeccione los algoritmos.

“Tenemos la responsabilidad de garantizar que las nuevas tecnologías se desarrollen de forma moral y ética, de modo que refuercen nuestros valores estadounidenses, no que los erosionen”, dijo DeSantis durante su discurso anual sobre la situación de su estado en enero.

Lista para regular

Las encuestas muestran que los estadounidenses desconfían de la IA. En , un relevamiento  de Fox News encontró que el 63% de los votantes se describen como “muy” o “extremadamente” preocupados por la inteligencia artificial. La preocupación es mayoritaria en todo el espectro político. Casi dos tercios de los demócratas y poco más de 3 de cada 5 republicanos dijeron tener reparos sobre la IA.

Las tácticas de las aseguradoras de salud para reducir costos también preocupan a la población. Una de KFF mostró un descontento generalizado en temas como la autorización previa.

En los últimos años, y han destacado el uso de algoritmos para rechazar rápidamente reclamos de seguros o solicitudes de autorización previa, al parecer con muy poca revisión por parte de un profesional de salud.

En enero, el Comité de Medios y Arbitrios de la Cámara de Representantes convocó a ejecutivos de Cigna, UnitedHealth Group y otras grandes aseguradoras para discutir preocupaciones sobre los altos costos de la atención médica.

Cuando se les preguntó directamente, los ejecutivos negaron o evitaron referirse al uso de la tecnología más avanzada para rechazar solicitudes de autorización o descartar reclamos.

La IA “nunca se utiliza para una denegación”, aseguró a los legisladores David Cordani, director ejecutivo de Cigna. Al igual que otras empresas del sector de seguros de salud, la compañía enfrenta demandas por sus métodos para rechazar reclamos, como destacó ProPublica. Justine Sessions, vocera de Cigna, dijo que el proceso de rechazo de reclamos de la empresa “no está impulsado por la IA”.

De hecho, las compañías insisten en presentar la IA como una herramienta de apoyo que no decide sola. Optum, parte del gigante de la salud UnitedHealth Group, anunció el 4 de febrero que implementaría autorización previa impulsada por tecnología, destacando que permitirá aprobaciones más rápidas.

“Estamos transformando el proceso de autorización previa para abordar los puntos de conflicto que genera”, dijo John Kontor, vicepresidente sénior de Optum, en un .

Aun así, Alex Bores, científico informático y miembro de la Asamblea de Nueva York, una figura clave en el debate legislativo del estado sobre la IA—que terminó en una ley integral para regular esta tecnología—, aseguró que la IA es un campo que, naturalmente, requiere regulación.

“Muchas personas consideran que las respuestas que reciben de sus aseguradoras son difíciles de entender”, dijo Bores, demócrata que compite por un escaño en el Congreso. “Agregar una tecnología que no puede explicar sus propias decisiones no ayudará a hacer las cosas más claras”.

Al menos una parte del ámbito de la salud —por ejemplo, muchos médicos— respalda a los legisladores y a quienes defienden las regulaciones.

La Asociación Médica Americana (AMA, por sus siglas en inglés) “apoya las regulaciones estatales que buscan más responsabilidad y transparencia de las aseguradoras comerciales que usan herramientas de IA y aprendizaje automático para revisar solicitudes de autorización previa”, dijo John Whyte, su director ejecutivo.

Whyte señaló que las aseguradoras ya utilizan IA y que “los médicos siguen enfrentando retrasos en la atención de los pacientes, decisiones poco claras de las aseguradoras, reglas de autorización inconsistentes y una carga administrativa abrumadora”.

Las aseguradoras responden

Con legislación aprobada o pendiente de aprobación en por lo menos nueve estados, aún no está claro el impacto real que tendrán esas leyes estatales, dijo Daniel Schwarcz, profesor de Derecho en la Universidad de Minnesota. Los estados no pueden regular los planes “autoasegurados”, que utilizan muchos empleadores; solo el gobierno federal tiene esa facultad.

Pero hay problemas más profundos, dijo Schwarcz: la mayoría de las leyes estatales que ha visto exigirían que un ser humano apruebe cualquier decisión propuesta por la IA, pero no especifican qué significa eso en la práctica.

Las leyes no ofrecen un marco claro para entender cuánta revisión es suficiente y, con el tiempo, los humanos tienden a volverse un poco descuidados y simplemente dan el visto bueno a cualquier sugerencia de una computadora, dijo.

Aun así, las aseguradoras ven esta ola de proyectos de ley como un problema.

“En términos generales, la carga regulatoria es real”, dijo Dan Jones, vicepresidente sénior de asuntos federales de la Alliance of Community Health Plans, un grupo comercial que representa a algunas aseguradoras de salud sin fines de lucro. Si las aseguradoras pasan mucho tiempo lidiando con un mosaico de leyes estatales y federales, agregó, eso significa que se dispondrá de “menos tiempo y recursos para enfocarnos en lo que se supone que debemos hacer: asegurarnos de que los pacientes tengan el acceso adecuado a la atención médica”.

Linda Ujifusa, senadora estatal demócrata en Rhode Island, dijo que las aseguradoras se opusieron el año pasado a un proyecto que presentó para restringir el uso de la IA en las denegaciones de cobertura. Fue aprobado en una cámara, pero en la otra no avanzó.

“Hay una oposición enorme” a cualquier intento de regular prácticas como la autorización previa, dijo, y también “una oposición enorme” a señalar a intermediarios —como las aseguradoras privadas o los administradores de beneficios farmacéuticos— “como parte del problema”.

En , AHIP, el principal grupo que representa a las aseguradoras, pidió “políticas equilibradas que promuevan la innovación y, al mismo tiempo, protejan a los pacientes”.

“Los planes de salud reconocen que la IA tiene el potencial de impulsar mejores resultados en la atención médica mejorando la experiencia del paciente, cerrando brechas en la atención, acelerando la innovación y reduciendo la carga administrativa y los costos para mejorar el enfoque en la atención al paciente”, dijo Chris Bond, portavoz de AHIP, a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Y agregó que el sector necesita “un enfoque nacional coherente basado en un marco federal integral de políticas de IA”.

En busca de equilibrio

En California, Newsom ha promulgado algunas leyes que regulan la IA, incluida una que exige que las aseguradoras de salud garanticen que sus algoritmos se apliquen de manera justa y equitativa. Pero el gobernador demócrata ha vetado otras iniciativas con un enfoque más amplio, como un proyecto que imponía más requisitos sobre cómo debe funcionar la tecnología y que exigía revelar su uso a reguladores, médicos y pacientes cuando lo pidieran.

Según Chris Micheli, lobista de Sacramento, es probable que el gobernador quiera asegurarse de que el presupuesto estatal —que se mantiene fuerte gracias a las grandes ganancias de la Bolsa, especialmente de las empresas tecnológicas— no se resienta. Y para eso, dijo, hace falta equilibrio.

Newsom está tratando de “garantizar que ese flujo de dinero continúe y, al mismo tiempo, que haya algunas protecciones para los consumidores de California”, afirmó. Añadió que las aseguradoras consideran que ya están sujetas a una gran cantidad de regulaciones.

La administración Trump parece estar de acuerdo. La reciente orden ejecutiva del presidente propone demandar ante la Justicia y restringir ciertos fondos federales a cualquier estado que apruebe lo que caracteriza como una regulación estatal “excesiva”, con algunas excepciones, como las políticas destinadas a proteger a los niños.

Esa orden posiblemente sea inconstitucional, dijo Carmel Shachar, experta en políticas de salud de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. La autoridad para invalidar leyes estatales generalmente recae en el Congreso, explicó, y los legisladores federales consideraron en dos ocasiones, pero finalmente rechazaron, una disposición que prohibía a los estados regular la IA.

“Según nuestro conocimiento previo del federalismo y del equilibrio de poderes entre el Congreso y el Poder Ejecutivo, es muy probable que una impugnación tenga éxito”, dijo Shachar.

Algunos legisladores ven la orden de Trump con mucho escepticismo, y señalan que la administración ha eliminado controles y ha impedido que otros los establezcan, en un grado extremo.

“En este momento, no se trata de decidir si la regulación debe ser federal o estatal”, dijo Alex Bores. “La pregunta es si va a haber regulación a nivel estatal o directamente no va a haber ninguna”.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.) Reporting and in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum,

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a , AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

Do you have an experience navigating prior authorization to get medical treatment that you’d like to share with us for our reporting? Share it with us here.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Last year was a tough one for farmers. Amid such as corn and soybeans, for supplies like , as well as the Trump tariffs and the , many farms weren’t profitable last year.

And now, the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that many Americans, including farmers, relied on to purchase health insurance are gone, having .

James Davis, 55, who grows cotton, soybeans, and corn in northern Louisiana, said he didn’t know how he and his wife would afford coverage. Their share of their insurance premium quadrupled for 2026, jumping to about $2,700 a month.

“You can’t afford it,” Davis said. “Bottom line. There’s nothing to discuss. You can’t afford it without the subsidies.”

More than a quarter of the agricultural workforce purchases health insurance through the individual marketplace, according to , a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

That 27% rate is much higher than the overall population’s — only .

Farmers are used to facing challenges such as unpredictable weather and fluctuating commodity prices. But the loss of the enhanced subsidies, coupled with challenging economic conditions, will make coverage unaffordable for many.

Without major intervention from Washington, farmers say they’ll have to choose between being uninsured or leaving the farm work behind for a job that offers health insurance.

A Gamble for Farmers

Farming is dangerous work. Agricultural workers spend much of their time outside and exposed to the elements. Many of their duties can lead to injury or illness. They drive and operate heavy machinery, work with toxic chemicals, and handle large animals.

The rate of work-related deaths for farmers is .

The financial toll of non-fatal farm injuries is also significant. from the University of Nebraska Medical Center found that the average cost of a farming injury was $10,878 in medical care and $4,735 in lost work.

It’s essential that farmers can purchase comprehensive insurance, said , a rural sociologist and associate professor of agricultural health and safety at Pennsylvania State University, where she studies the social and economic needs of farm households.

In a , Becot found that more than 20% of U.S. farm households had medical debt exceeding $1,000 and that more than half were not confident they could cover the costs of a major illness or injury.

“That shows you the level of vulnerability and concerns that farmers are facing,” she said.

Mental health is also a concern. as likely to die by suicide compared with the general population. Mental health hotlines that serve rural communities have an in calls.

These concerns around farmers’ , coupled with a , conjures memories of the farm crisis of the 1980s, said , a vice president at the industry group . During that decade, there was a raft of foreclosures, and .

“We’re really afraid of what’s going to happen,” Klein said.

Farmers can be reluctant to acknowledge that they rely on government-subsidized insurance, said Meghan Palmer, 43, who runs a dairy farm in northeastern Iowa with her husband, John, 45.

“We’re not handout-takers,” Palmer said.

More than 40% of dairy farmers lack health insurance — among all agricultural sectors.

But going uninsured is not an option for the Palmers.

During their first year of marriage, the couple recalled, they were uninsured and had to pay out-of-pocket for two unexpected health crises: Palmer had an appendectomy, and her husband needed stitches after getting kicked in the face by one of his cows.

“It was stupid of us,” Palmer said of the decision to forgo coverage.

But this year, the combined out-of-pocket monthly cost of their plans is increasing by more than 90%, to $368.18. Their total 2026 deductible is $7,200.

Palmer is a registered nurse who picks up shifts on an as-needed basis, allowing her the flexibility to prioritize her work on the farm. She’s now searching for a job with health benefits. But she worries a job that doesn’t allow her to keep up with the farm work will create a greater burden for her husband.

“John is working exhausted most of the time,” she said. “That’s when mistakes get made and you end up in the ER.”

Political Consequences

Even after the enhanced subsidies expired at the end of 2025, the Palmers estimate their income will still be low enough that they’ll qualify for some tax credits to purchase coverage.

However, under the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, , so if the Palmers have a surprisingly profitable 2026, they’ll be forced to pay some, or even all, of that subsidy back at tax time.

A farmer’s income can vary drastically year to year, Becot said, partly because commodity prices can fluctuate rapidly.

Some farmers might deliberately choose to not expand their businesses, because too much profit might mean they lose access to health care subsidies.

Farmers who are insured through Medicaid have similar concerns, Becot said. But prioritizing health care affordability by suppressing operational growth can have long-term consequences for a farm’s success.

Palmer, in Iowa, and Davis, in Louisiana, are both upset that lawmakers aren’t more sensitive to the economic demands of farming and how those have coincided with rising health costs.

President Donald Trump recently pledged $12 billion in one-time to row crop farmers, but that’s not going to stop health care costs from ballooning.

Republicans are aware that health care affordability is a problem and have put forth proposals, said , a political scientist at the University of Northern Iowa. But most don’t support extending the enhanced ACA subsidies, because they don’t see them as a good solution to the problem of rising health care costs.

This article is from a partnership that includes the , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But there are strings attached.

In late December, President Donald Trump’s administration announced how much all 50 states would get under its new Rural Health Transformation Program, assigning them to use the money to fix systemic problems that leave rural Americans without access to good health care. Now, the clock is ticking.

Within eight months, states must submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use. Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October.

The money — divided into unique allocations for each state, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — represents the first $10 billion installment from the five-year, $50 billion program. Congress created the fund as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer to offset the anticipated in rural communities from the statute’s nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade.

Federal officials crafted the fund to give states “space to be creative,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said on a call with reporters after announcing the funding Dec. 29. “Some states will fail, and we will learn from that.”

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

In 2026, each state will receive an equal $100 million share for the first half of the money, plus additional funding from the second half. Oz’s staff steered payouts from the second portion based on each state’s rural score, as well as results from a “technical” scoring system for project proposals.

Within hours of the announcement, academics and researchers began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism.

At first glance, total awards do not appear to favor states governed by either Republicans or Democrats. But teased out the amount awarded for each state’s technical score, which is the part determined by the discretion of agency officials.

The analysis was performed at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which specializes in rural health. A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of the Sheps Center data found that states with Republican governors tended to receive more money for the parts of their application based on the technical score. Democratic-controlled states crowded the bottom quarter of those technical score awards.

Overall, though, the state awards reveal wild variation in how much money each state will get per rural resident, almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom.

In an emailed statement to , a spokesperson for Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs accused the administration of shortchanging rural residents in the state, which was awarded $167 million this year from the program.

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in an emailed statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “politics played no role in funding decisions.”

On the December call, Oz pushed states to start working on policy actions championed by the administration — such as approving presidential fitness tests and restricting food benefits — that could require legislative approval.

Half of states promised to mandate the presidential fitness test, Oz said. Many states also proposed food waivers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which would limit low-nutrition items such as soda. He also said some states promised to teach health care professionals about nutrition. And others confirmed they will repeal certificate-of-need laws, which require companies to prove that new health facilities they want to open are necessary.

Krepich said CMS’ new Office of Rural Health Transformation is hiring program officers to serve as point people for three or four states. Many states are setting up their own offices to oversee the new funding.

Oz highlighted Alabama’s “big maternity initiative with robotics doing ultrasounds” and said states are tackling issues ranging from behavioral health to obesity.

A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of state “” and “” released by CMS shows that many states plan to address the workforce challenges in rural areas. Delaware, for example, plans to use its funding to create the state’s first four-year medical school with a rural primary care track.

A third of states said they want to improve electronic health records, and every state mentioned telehealth.

Many state legislatures to distribute the funding to their state offices. Meanwhile, state officials are hiring staff, , and .

“I’m excited about what’s next,” said Terry Scoggin, former interim chief executive of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, or TORCH. Texas was awarded the biggest allocation. The money will bolster a rural hospital funding bill Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed last year, Scoggin said.

More than two dozen cash-strapped rural hospitals in Texas to clinics since 2005, a nationwide trend that hit the Lone Star State particularly hard. The state has the largest rural population in the United States. Texas’ allocation amounts to about $66 per rural resident, . By contrast, Rhode Island was granted about $6,300 per rural resident.

Scoggin said he has “a ton of concerns” about companies taking the money instead of it helping rural hospitals and residents. “I was blown away about how many for-profit companies reached out.” The companies have also called rural hospitals and asked to work with them to apply for state money, he said.

The awards should be judged on how they benefit rural residents because “the stated goal of the program is to improve rural health,” said Paula Chatterjee, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who co-authored on the transformation fund.

Researchers at the Sheps Center conducted the analysis to estimate how much money states received from the technical score, which is the portion of funding based on the quality of their proposals and state policy actions that align with "Make America Healthy Again" priorities.

New Mexico won the least amount of technical funding, with less than 10% of its award based on the discretionary metrics. Alaska won the largest technical award, according to the Sheps Center data.

Texas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rounded out the top five recipients of technical funding. In addition to New Mexico, the other lowest technical awards went to Michigan, New Jersey, Arizona, and California.

Mark Holmes, director of the Sheps Center, declined to comment on whether he saw any political bias in the awards but said the nuance in the final portion of discretionary awards based on technical scores is important because those dollars can be redistributed and potentially clawed back in future years.

“We can be fairly certain that every state will get at least a slightly, if not a vastly, different amount next year based on this re-pooling and reallocation piece,” Holmes said.

States now have a limited time to show they’re using the money effectively to secure future funding.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).