CARES Act Funding Not Enough for Orgs in Medically Underserved Areas

Medically underserved areas of the country received higher payments from The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Provider Relief Fund. But these funds are likely insufficient for infrastructure and long-term support, found a new Data Insight from Xtelligent Healthcare Media.

The CARES Act provided economic stimulus to individuals and provider organizations struggling during the peak of state lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. A portion of the bill, the Provider Relief Fund, accolated over $50 billion to Medicare fee-for-service providers to support expenses and lost revenue.

Funding was also set aside for Medicaid and CHIP providers and a third bundle of $20 billion gave providers the option to receive aid to cover financial losses and operational expenses.

An analysis of these payments found that medically underserved areas – counties that lack access to sufficient primary care services for the size and disease state of the population – received more frequent and robust payments than their resource-rich counterparts. Over 240,000 more providers received funding in medically underserved areas averaging $20,000 more per payment.

The difference in total payments to medically underserved areas compared to non-medically underserved areas was over $66 billion.

But these medically underserved areas were struggling before COVID-19 hit, having few providers and sicker populations. With over 12,000 payments being less than $100, how much does this funding really help providers keep doors open?

Small payments do not promote sustainability. Providers needed support to obtain enough personal protective equipment (PPE) to keep staff and patients safe and funding to build out or support telehealth technologies that continued patient care.

It is reassuring that providers in resource limited areas received the greatest amount of funding on average, but this funding is not enough. Small payments would not allow these organizations to build in safeguards to support efforts for a post-pandemic world. It does not necessarily help provide the IT support to maintain telehealth technologies or the continued supply of PPE to keep patients and staff safe.

With an influx of patients on deck to receive COVID-19 vaccinations, these payments do not support infrastructure like refrigeration to store doses of the vaccine. Or there could be increased patient hesitancy to seek care after the pandemic as patients slowly adjust back to a normal routine. Funds do not necessarily support keeping staff onboard for continued low patient volume.

A short-term solution appears to have many long-term consequences. The second relief bill passed by Congress recently will show where priorities lie and designation of those funds will either reiterate support to struggling areas or highlight further need.

Regardless, for a community to eliminate its designation as medically underserved, more emphasis will need to be placed on long-term infrastructure as these communities need the resources that will allow their populations to thrive in a pandemic world and after.

For a more in-depth look at the analysis from this Data Insight, click here.