, ,
Click Below for the full article:
Key Findings
- Non-elderly adults and children in small towns and rural areas are more likely than those living in metro areas to rely on Medicaid/CHIP for their health insurance. As a consequence, reductions in federal Medicaid funding being contemplated in Congress are more likely to cause greater harm to rural areas and small towns than metro areas.
- For children this is especially true in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, California, Minnesota, Georgia, South Dakota, and Alaska.
- For adults this is especially true in Arizona, New York, Washington, Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, Louisiana, Oregon, South Carolina and Montana.
- For people over age 65, the rate of Medicaid coverage is slightly lower in rural areas than metro ones.
- In six states, at least half of children living in small towns and rural areas are covered by Medicaid/CHIP. These include New Mexico (59.9%), Louisiana (57.7%), Arizona (55.9%), Florida (51.9%), South Carolina (51.1%), and Arkansas (50.5%).
- In fifteen states, at least one-fifth of non-elderly adults living in small towns and rural areas are covered by Medicaid. These include Arizona (35.9%), New York (33.9%), New Mexico (31.6%), Louisiana (30.2%), Kentucky (28.5%), West Virginia (25.5%), Oregon (24.9%), Washington (24.4%), Montana (22.2%), Arkansas (22.0%), Maine (21.9%), Vermont (21.7%), Massachusetts (21.5%), Michigan (21.2%), and Alaska (20.4%).
- Residents of rural counties with a large share of American Indian or Alaska Native residents and tribal lands are more likely to rely on Medicaid for coverage for all age groups, including seniors.
- Large reductions in federal Medicaid funding would put the residents of small towns and rural communities and their health care systems at serious risk.