Rural healthcare pay-to-play

The Trump Administration is holding a gun to the heads of rural citizens in blue states. To get taxpayer dollars to care for chronic illnesses and addiction and mitigate hours-long drives for basic services, states will need to change their laws:

“When the Trump administration begins distributing the money at the end of the year, it will divide half of the $50 billion among all states that apply evenly, regardless of population — giving smaller states vastly more money per capita. It will also dole out a quarter of the funds based on factors like the size of a state’s rural population, how much free health care its providers give to people who can’t afford to pay, and how large its land area is.


“The rest is up to the discretion of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services based on how well states’ plans align with the Trump administration’s vision for the program.


“And $3.75 billion of that, or 7.5 percent of the total, hinges on whether states pass a series of policies. States will receive “full credit” for laws they’ve already changed, and “partial credit” for pledges to make those changes. But if states don’t implement those promised policies by the end of 2027, or 2028 for some of the more complex ones, the Trump administration has threatened to “claw back” a portion of the money.”

As residents of the smallest state in the union, my rural neighbors stand to benefit from this policy. But the nanny state coercion of Trump’s Big Government control is unprecedented and concerning. It has all the earmarks of another Trump corruption scheme.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/07/sort-of-blackmail-billions-in-rural-health-funding-hinge-on-states-passing-trumps-policies-00679082

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more