Rural hospitals in Nevada and across the country will be in dire economic straits once the COVID funding runs out, according to a new report.

Researchers at the Bipartisan Policy Center found 441 rural hospitals have multiple financial risk factors.

Julia Harris, senior policy analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center and the report's co-author, said 116 hospitals closed between 2010 and 2019, and then the pace slowed during COVID.

"So, the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan really did a lot to stave off more hospitals from closing," Harris acknowledged. "But that aid masked the fact that the underlying finances of rural hospitals continue to deteriorate, especially with new pressures brought on from the pandemic. "

All hospitals and especially rural facilities, have been hard hit during COVID with huge staff shortages and supply-chain issues driving up the price of goods they must purchase. And hospitals with a low volume of patients generally receive less funding.

According to an analysis from Becker's Hospital Report in March, six of Nevada's 13 rural hospitals are at risk of closing.

Joan Hall, president of Nevada Rural Hospital Partners, said some are considering joining a new federal program which would allow them to pare down their services but keep their emergency room.

"Some hospitals would not have inpatient services available," Hall explained. "They would have an emergency room and outpatient services, diagnostic labs, imaging, but perhaps you wouldn't be able to stay in the hospital if you needed. You'd have to be transferred."

The report recommended the administration and Congress hold off on scheduled budget cuts, make higher Medicare payments permanent, and keep flexibility in telehealth until two years after the public health emergency ends. Meanwhile, the state is collaborating with the University of Nevada Reno and the University of Nevada Las Vegas to train or recruit more medical professionals, especially nurses and respiratory therapists.

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email

As President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in next month, the farming community wonders if he'll follow through on tariff threats. One expert says for top soybean states such as North Dakota, farmers aren't in a great position to withstand any fallout.

The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture farm income forecast paints a gloomy picture, with declines in commodity prices dragging things down. And the incoming administration appears poised to enact more tariffs - as it did during Trump's first term.

Ben Palen, who runs the consulting firm Ag Management Partners, said this time around, there's increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition.

"I just don't think that you can have a coherent and consistent policy for agriculture if you go from one crisis to another," he said.

Trump regained strong support from agricultural counties in this election, but Palen said his fellow producers need to be prepared for what happens now that the votes have been counted. In Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But Palen noted there's a strong push for the new administration to pursue budget cuts, so financial relief could be harder to come by.

Even though many farmers still back Trump, Palen said he feels this sector doesn't want to get swept up in trade rhetoric and have to be bailed out.

"I think farmers are very good at production," he said. "It's just part of our DNA; we want to produce, produce, produce."

He argued that it's up to policymakers to find new markets for farmers to sell their crops, as opposed to simply focusing on trade disputes.

Other voices, such as the Texas agriculture commissioner, have welcomed the idea of new tariffs, saying the U.S. needs to hold firm against countries such as China.

In the first trade war, U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion.


get more stories like this via email