One year after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, states are beginning to live with one of its central health care contradictions.
Read more Organized Money: The Roll-Up of All Media Is No Longer Inevitable (with Adam Conover)
The same law that cut Medicaid by $1 trillion also created the Rural Health Transformation Program, a $50 billion, five-year fund for states with approved rural health transformation plans. The money is being promoted as a rural hospital rescue effort. In some places, it may help. Rural communities need workforce support, better technology, behavioral health access, stronger primary care, and more sustainable operating models.
But the program is not simply a grant program. It is leverage. States are being asked to manage the consequences of reduced federal health care financing through plans that must satisfy federal expectations. If a state does not use the funds in accordance with its approved application, the federal government can withhold, reduce, or recover funds. The statute also bars administrative or judicial review of those decisions.
That matters because the program is built partly around the familiar vocabulary of health care reform: choice, competition, technology, transparency, partnerships, right-sizing, and value-based care. Those ideas are not inherently wrong. The problem is that access-sustaining money is being used to push market-style policy in places where the market case for that policy is often weakest.
Read: Trump funding cuts endangering city and rural hospitals alike
Choice and competition are powerful words in health care politics. They promise lower prices without bureaucracy, innovation without mandates, and consumer power without public control. They also sound like common sense. Why should patients not have more options, and why should providers not have to compete for business?
Often, they should. Some health care rules protect the providers already in place. Some make it harder for new clinicians, new care models, or lower-cost providers to enter a market. Some prices are hidden because the people collecting them benefit from opacity. Some services are genuinely shoppable, and some patients, employers, and public purchasers would be better off if prices were clearer, quality information more usable, and alternatives easier to find.
But not every promise of choice describes a real choice. And not every call for competition identifies an actual market.
A patient with chest pain is not shopping among emergency departments. A pregnant patient in labor is not comparison-shopping maternity units. In more and more communities, there is one local provider, a distant provider, or no provider at all.
That does not make choice meaningless. It means choice has conditions. Much of health care violates those conditions. Rural health care violates them more often.
A rural hospital may be the only emergency department for miles. A local maternity unit may close not because another competitor served patients better, but because there were too few births, too few clinicians, too much standby cost, and no way to make the service financially sustainable. A behavioral health provider may not face competitive pressure because there are not enough professionals willing or able to practice in the area. A primary care practice may have a waiting list, not because regulation protected it from competition, but because workforce supply is inadequate and the patient population is older, poorer, sicker, and harder to serve.
hospital payment chapter points in this direction, though carefully. Hospital closures are rarely caused by one factor, but in looking at those that closed in 2024 and 2025, MedPAC reported that Medicare payment rates did not appear to be the main contributor to financial distress, based on hospital press releases and news reports. The most commonly cited factor was low patient volume. That points away from a simple story in which the answer is just a better price signal or a more efficient market.
In those settings, the policy question is not simply: How do we make this provider compete? It is: What services must exist locally, how should those services be financed, and what should the hospital owe the community in return? That last question matters because many communities are already supporting nonprofit hospitals through tax exemptions. The question is whether nonprofit health systems are meeting their public obligations.
Read more Yes, Trump Will Attempt a Coup
Market language lets policymakers speak as if the problem is insufficient consumer power, when the more basic problems may be geography, scale, workforce, low volume, and essential-service obligations. If there is no realistic market to restore, then telling states to create one does not solve the access problem. It may simply change the vocabulary used while services disappear.
Many Republican-led states are rural, and many rural communities rely heavily on the very public financing streams that the recent budget law reduced. At the same time, those states are being invited, or pressured, to compete for rural transformation money by submitting plans aligned with federal “choice and competition” priorities.
That mismatch should matter to conservatives as much as progressives. If the goal is to make markets work, the first obligation is to honestly define the market. Competition for what? Among whom? Across what distance? For which services? And with what realistic ability for the patient, employer, or public payer to choose something else? Without those questions, “competition” becomes a slogan rather than a discipline.
Technology cannot create a workforce where one does not exist, nor can it replace an existing workforce while also ensuring competition. Price transparency cannot create a second emergency department in a county that can barely support one. It also cannot inform the care decisions required for a family with one unemployed parent, a second struggling with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, and a child with epilepsy and asthma. It does not tell this family which care can safely wait and which care cannot. Consumer choice cannot solve maternity access if the nearest delivery unit is an hour away. Value-based care cannot eliminate the standby cost of keeping essential services available in low-volume settings.
Rural health care shows what happens when theories about choice and competition reach a place where they do not fit. The response has not been to retreat from the theories. It has been to attach the theories to money states cannot easily refuse.
That is a problem. Access-sustaining public money should not become a lever for forcing market language onto places where markets cannot do the work being assigned to them.
From a regulator’s seat, the task is not to choose reflexively between markets and regulation. The task is to match the regulatory tool to the problem’s structure. Loosen rules when they mainly protect existing providers; strengthen rules when they make prices, quality, entry, and comparison more real. Regulate directly when concentrated market power lets providers extract too much. And in the rural health context, sustain access where geography, scale, low volume, and workforce constraints make competition structurally unavailable.
To be clear, sustaining access cannot mean writing blank checks to hospitals. Rural hospitals, despite being community anchors, have their own incentives, business strategies, pricing practices, executive structures, and political power. Their decisions matter. A hospital that aspires to anchor a community can, instead, drown it when its prices bankrupt individuals, small businesses, or municipalities.
If public money is used to sustain essential access, public obligations should follow. That could mean limits on excessive commercial prices, transparency around executive compensation, commitments to essential service lines, clearer community-benefit expectations, quality and access reporting, and public disclosure of how the money is used. The point is not to punish rural providers. It is to make the bargain explicit.
That matters because rural health policy is too often forced into false choices. Either we defend hospitals as they are, or we let the market decide. Either we subsidize existing institutions, or we demand transformation. Either we protect access, or we pursue affordability. But regulators need enough authority and information to tell when a hospital is asking for help to preserve essential care, when it is asking the public to subsidize high prices or poor management, and when the right answer is a different service model altogether.
The Rural Health Transformation Program could help states make some of those distinctions. But that requires honesty about what the program can and cannot do.
Read more ICE Finds New Ways to Expand Detention