By Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Arizona News Connection reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

In Matthew Roach’s two years as vital statistics manager for the Arizona Department of Health Services, and 10 years previously in its epidemiology program, he has witnessed a trend in mortality rates that has rural health experts worried.

As Roach tracked the health of Arizona residents, the gap between mortality rates of people living in rural areas and those of their urban peers was widening.

The health disparities between rural and urban Americans have long been documented, but a recent report from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found the chasm has grown in recent decades. In their examination, USDA researchers found rural Americans from the ages of 25 to 54 die from natural causes, like chronic diseases and cancer, at wildly higher rates than the same age group living in urban areas. The analysis did not include external causes of death, such as suicide or accidental overdose.

The research analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention death data from two three-year periods — 1999 through 2001 and 2017 through 2019. In 1999, the natural-cause mortality rate for people ages 25 to 54 in rural areas was only 6% higher than for city dwellers in the same age bracket. By 2019, the gap widened to 43%.

The researchers found the expanding gap was driven by rapid growth in the number of women living in rural places who succumb young to treatable or preventable diseases. In the most rural places, counties without an urban core population of 10,000 or more, women in this age group saw an 18% increase in natural-cause mortality rates during the study period, while their male peers experienced a 3% increase.

Within the prime working-age group, cancer and heart disease were the leading natural causes of death for both men and women in both rural and urban areas. Among women, the incidence of lung disease in remote parts of the nation grew the most when compared with rates in urban areas, followed by hepatitis. Pregnancy-related deaths also played a role, accounting for the highest rate of natural-cause mortality growth for women ages 25 to 54 in rural areas.

The negative trends for rural non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native people were especially pronounced. The analysis shows Native Americans 25 to 54 years old had a 46% natural-cause mortality rate increase over those two decades. Native women had an even greater mortality rate jump, 55%, between the two studied time periods, while the rate for non-Hispanic White women went up 23%.

The rural-urban gap grew in all regions across the nation but was widest in the South.

The increased mortality rates are an indicator of worsening population health, the study authors noted, which can harm local economies and employment.

As access to and quality of health services in rural areas continue to erode, rural health experts said, the USDA findings should spur stronger policies focused on rural health.

Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, said he found the report “shocking,” though, “unfortunately, not surprising.”

The disparity warrants greater attention from state and national leaders, Morgan said.

The study does not address causes for the increase in mortality rates, but the authors note that differences in health care resources could compromise the accessibility, quality, and affordability of care in rural areas. Hospitals in small and remote communities have long struggled, and continued closures or conversions limit health care services in many places. The authors note that persistently higher rates of poverty, disability, and chronic disease in rural areas, compounded by fewer physicians per capita and the closure of hospitals, affect community health.

Roach said his past job as an epidemiologist included working with social vulnerability indexes, which factor in income, race, education, and access to resources like housing to get a sense of a community’s resilience against adverse health outcomes. A map of Arizona shows that rural counties and reservations have some of the highest vulnerability rankings.

Janice C. Probst, a retired professor at the University of South Carolina whose work focused on rural health, said many current rural health efforts are focused on sustaining hospitals, which she noted are essential sources of health care. But she said that may not be the best way to address the inequities.

“We may have to take a community approach,” said Probst, who reviewed the report before its release. “Not how do we keep the hospital in the community, but how do we keep the community alive at all?”

The disparities among demographics stood out to Probst, along with something else. She said the states with the highest rates of natural-cause mortality in rural areas included South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and others that have not expanded Medicaid, the joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, though there are efforts to expand it in some states, particularly Mississippi.

It’s an observation the USDA researchers make as well.

“Regionally, differences in State implementation of Medicaid expansion under the 2010 Affordable Care Act could have increased implications for uninsured rural residents in States without expansions by potentially influencing the frequency of medical care for those at risk,” they wrote.

Wesley James, founding executive director of the Center for Community Research and Evaluation, at the University of Memphis, said state lawmakers could address part of the problem by advocating for Medicaid expansion in their states, which would increase access to health care in rural areas. A large group of people want it, but politicians aren’t listening to their needs, he said. James also reviewed the report before it was published.

According to KFF polling, two-thirds of people living in nonexpansion states want their state to expand the health insurance program.

Morgan added the study focused on deaths that occurred prior to the covid-19 pandemic, which had a devastating effect in rural areas.

“Covid really changed the nature of public health in rural America,” he said. “I hope that this prompts Congress to direct the CDC to look at rural-urban life expectancies during covid and since covid to get a handle on what we’re actually seeing nationwide.”

In Arizona, the leading cause of death for people 45 to 64 in 2021 in both rural and urban areas was covid, according to Roach.


Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez wrote this story for KFF Health News.


get more stories like this via email

World Hepatitis Day is this Sunday, and for the Oregon Health Authority, it's an opportunity to promote its plan to eliminate hepatitis across the state.

Released in March, the plan includes major goals and strategies to limit the spread of hepatitis A, B and C over the next six years. It's gotten new attention after 2,400 patients in Oregon hospitals were potentially exposed to hepatitis and HIV earlier this month.

Concerns are high, but epidemiologist Dr. Dean Sidelinger, Oregon's state health officer, said people should be aware of the threats of hepatitis, but not anxious.

"In day-to-day times, people should feel safe and confident in going to the doctor," he said. "The risk of exposure to these viruses is extremely low in most cases."

Hepatitis is inflammation of the liver, and contagious viruses are among the causes. Sidelinger said he's confident Oregon has the technology and resources to fully eliminate the threat.

While many people may have heard of hepatitis, they may not fully understand how prevalent it is in their communities. According to OHA data, the proportion of chronic hepatitis C cases among people in their 20s tripled between 2010 and 2019.

Sidelinger said there's a good chance most Oregonians know someone who is affected by chronic hepatitis.

"It can seem out of the blue to be talking about hepatitis and [a] hepatitis awareness day, but this is a disease that affects many individuals," he said. "But the good news is, everyone can take steps to protect themselves."

The OHA says you can help prevent the spread of hepatitis by washing hands and fresh produce, staying current on vaccinations, avoiding sharing needles, and getting tested regularly. These tips and more are part of the state's plan to eliminate hepatitis by 2030.


get more stories like this via email

CoveredCA announced Wednesday that the average premium for plans on the marketplace will rise 7.9% in 2025, but subsidies are expected to blunt the impact and even lower costs for many consumers.

The Biden-Harris administration's Inflation Reduction Act caps premiums at 8.5% of income for many, and goes even further for those with low incomes.

Rachel Linn Gish, director of communications for the nonprofit Health Access California, said the state has put the federal funds to good use.

"Because of this financial help," she said, "California has been able to take even further steps to lower costs for many CoveredCA enrollees by eliminating deductibles and reducing copays for many health services such as doctors' visits, lab work, generic drugs."

However, the enhanced premium subsidies in the IRA will expire next year, sending costs soaring unless Congress extends them. If not, Gish said, she expects premiums to rise 60% to 80%, costing thousands more per year. Opponents of the extension have cited the need to limit federal spending.

Gish said if the federal premium help ends, people could start seeing much higher deductibles.

"Without the federal assistance, California stands to lose $1.7 billion in assistance, which the state can only backfill a fraction of," she said, "which means consumers could again see deductibles of $5,000 or more."

Other big changes are on the way. Starting Nov. 1, about 40,000 income-eligible DACA recipients in California will be able to apply for premium subsidies through Covered California.

Connecticut insurance companies are requesting rate increases. Companies want a more than 8% increase for individuals and an almost 12% increase for small groups. However, insurance costs are already problematic for residents. A 2022 survey shows 46% of people delayed important medical care due to coverage costs.

Liz Dupont-Diehl, associate director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said unaffordable insurance is all too common.

"It is an unfortunate American right of passage to spend hours a week appealing claims denials, or dealing with rising copays, and surprise costs. Even those of us lucky enough to think we have good coverage are continually surprised by hings that are not covered," she said.

Of the legislative solutions lawmakers can take, polls show voters across party lines support the government setting limits on out-of-pocket medical care costs for people with insurance.

Connecticut's Insurance Department will host an informational meeting for people to share their experiences and hear testimony. It will be held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 20 at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford and over Zoom.

One way Connecticut's General Assembly can better regulate insurance companies is by increasing transparency surrounding pharmacy benefit managers. A recent Federal Trade Commission report finds the six largest pharmacy benefit managers manage 95% of the country's prescriptions.

Dupont-Diehl said this can help people better understand why certain claims get denied.

"We would be interested in knowing exactly which claims are denied based on ZIP code, based on race and ethnicity, based on age, based on gender," she continued.

She notes that much of what needs to be done to fix health care can be done at the federal level, although states can take the lead. Part of Connecticut's 2023 budget calls for the state's Insurance Department to work with the Office of Health Strategy to study ways to make care more affordable.