The 2024 presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are intensifying, with each candidate presenting starkly different visions for rural healthcare, a critical issue in swing states like Wisconsin. The recent Harris/Walz campaign event highlighted these contrasts, drawing attention to the implications their healthcare policies could have on rural communities.
Harris’s Healthcare Initiatives for Rural Communities
Affordable Care Act and Inflation Reduction Act
A focal point of the Harris/Walz campaign is the positive impact that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Inflation Reduction Act have had on rural healthcare. Dr. Kay Gruling, a family physician based in Wausau, praised these initiatives for their role in lowering drug prices and making healthcare more accessible. She illustrated how affordable medications could prevent patients from experiencing severe complications and ultimately reduce long-term institutionalization.
Vice President Harris’s commitment to maintaining and strengthening the ACA forms the backbone of her rural healthcare strategy. Dr. Gruling criticized Trump’s intention to repeal these laws, arguing it would disproportionately impact seniors who already struggle to afford necessary healthcare. This attack on the ACA, according to Gruling, could lead to deteriorated health outcomes for many, particularly impacting the older generation in rural areas who depend heavily on accessible healthcare services.
Role of Critical Access Hospitals
Another key supporter of Harris, Dr. Brian Ewart, a kidney specialist, emphasized the pivotal role the Inflation Reduction Act plays in sustaining critical access hospitals in rural areas. These hospitals depend significantly on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to operate. Without this financial support, many rural hospitals face the possibility of closure, which could leave rural communities deprived of essential healthcare services.
Dr. Ewart highlighted Harris’s decisive vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which enabled price negotiations for vital medications like Dapagliflozin and Empagliflozin, ensuring these drugs remain affordable. The reduced costs of such essential medications help rural hospitals maintain their services and provide adequate care. For many communities, the availability and accessibility of healthcare hinge on these financial supports, making Harris’s policies crucial for the continued operation and sustainability of rural healthcare facilities.
Trump’s Vision for Rural Healthcare
Criticism of the ACA
Republicans, represented by Kevin Hermening, Chair of the Republican Party of Marathon County, voiced strong opposition to the ACA during the Harris/Walz roundtable discussion. Hermening labeled the ACA unaffordable and restrictive, attributing many issues within rural healthcare to its flawed structure. He argued that the excessive regulations imposed by the ACA stifle competition, which in turn drives up costs rather than lowering them.
Hermening’s critique reflects a broader Republican viewpoint that the ACA imposes unnecessary financial burdens on healthcare providers and patients alike. The Trump campaign promotes an alternative narrative focusing on reducing governmental intervention and promoting competition within the healthcare market. Republicans believe that a market-driven approach will naturally lead to lower costs, improved services, and greater sustainability for rural healthcare facilities, which is critical for these communities’ long-term health and economic well-being.
Efforts to Lower Drug Prices
Trump’s administration has focused on initiatives aimed at reducing drug costs, which his supporters contend have been underappreciated. Hermening emphasized efforts to lower insulin prices as a tangible example of the Trump campaign’s commitment to making healthcare more affordable. According to Hermening, the key to improving rural healthcare lies not in expanding government interventions but in fostering competition and reforming Medicaid’s reimbursement rates.
Proponents of Trump’s policies argue that less regulatory burden and more market-driven solutions are necessary to reduce healthcare costs and improve service delivery. By focusing on financial reforms within Medicaid, they believe rural healthcare facilities can achieve financial viability and continue to serve their communities effectively. This perspective represents a fundamental conservative belief that market efficiency and innovation, rather than governmental regulations, are the solutions to rural healthcare’s persistent challenges.
Impact on Reproductive Healthcare in Rural Areas
Shortage of OB/GYNs
Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez of Wisconsin highlighted a critical issue exacerbated by Trump’s healthcare policies: the acute shortage of OB/GYNs in rural areas. She linked this shortage to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has significantly deterred prospective healthcare professionals from practicing in Wisconsin due to its increasingly restrictive abortion laws. This scarcity is already crippling an essential segment of rural healthcare.
Rodriguez warned that Trump’s proposed national abortion ban, as part of Project 2025, would further worsen this shortage. Under such stringent conditions, fewer medical professionals are willing to work in rural areas already grappling with limited resources and challenging working conditions. This decline in healthcare professionals, particularly OB/GYNs, could severely impact women’s health services in rural communities, already teetering on the brink of adequacy.
Alternative Perspectives on Reproductive Rights
On the flip side, Hermening defended the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that the ruling rightly returned decision-making power to individual states. He insisted that rural healthcare challenges are rooted in inadequate Medicaid reimbursement rates, not restrictions on reproductive rights. According to Hermening, the Trump campaign’s focus on addressing these financial disparities within Medicaid is crucial for sustaining rural healthcare services.
This conservative perspective places less emphasis on the effects of reproductive rights policies and more on the financing mechanisms that sustain healthcare operations. By reforming reimbursement rates and cutting down on regulations, Trump’s supporters believe rural healthcare can achieve greater efficiencies. This clash of views underscores the broader ideological divide between the two campaigns, each proposing vastly different solutions to complex healthcare issues within rural communities.
Broader Implications for Rural Healthcare
Affordability and Accessibility
Proponents of Harris’s policies stress the importance of making healthcare affordable and accessible to improve rural healthcare outcomes. They argue that the ACA and the Inflation Reduction Act have provided significant benefits, making medications and treatments more affordable for rural populations. By helping to prevent minor health issues from escalating into serious conditions, these initiatives are particularly critical in areas with fewer healthcare resources and long travel distances for specialized care.
Supporters believe that expanded healthcare coverage and reduced drug prices are vital for sustaining the overall health of rural communities. They argue that these policies not only save lives but also reduce the financial burden on rural healthcare facilities by minimizing preventable hospitalizations and treatments. Harris’s approach, they claim, provides a more equitable healthcare system that addresses the unique challenges faced by rural populations, ensuring they receive the care needed to maintain their health and well-being.
Market Competition and Financial Viability
The 2024 presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are heating up, with each candidate proposing vastly different strategies for addressing rural healthcare, a pressing issue in pivotal swing states like Wisconsin. Harris, who has teamed up with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, recently held a campaign event that underscored the significant contrasts between her approach and Trump’s. The Harris/Walz campaign emphasized the need for expanded access to healthcare services in rural areas, arguing that their policies would better serve these often neglected communities.
In contrast, Trump’s campaign is focused on deregulation and promoting private sector solutions to healthcare challenges. His team argues that reducing government intervention will foster competition and, in turn, improve healthcare quality and affordability. Both campaigns are keenly aware that voters in rural areas, who historically have felt marginalized, could be the key to securing victory in these battleground states.
As the election season progresses, rural healthcare is emerging as a critical talking point, with each candidate vying to convince voters that their vision will best address the unique needs of rural America.
