News

Memorial Hermann Health System in Houston is earning national recognition for embedding healthy work environments into daily operations — a strategy leaders say is key to retaining nurses in today’s competitive workforce climate.

In January, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses recognized 580 hospital units nationwide with its Beacon Award for Excellence, which honors units demonstrating strong patient outcomes, professional practice and work environments aligned with the association’s Healthy Work Environment standards. These include skilled communication, true collaboration, effective decision-making, appropriate staffing, meaningful recognition and authentic leadership.

Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center had 12 units earn the recognition this year, the most of any hospital in the nation. In total, 24 units across the system hold active Beacon Awards.

Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital has two gold-level Beacon Awards — the most gold-level recognitions within the system — and has emerged as a model for embedding healthy work environment standards into daily operations.

As an inner-city, 260-bed community hospital in Houston, Memorial Hermann Greater Heights operates in a competitive nursing market, where leaders say a strong work environment has become a valuable strategy to attract and retain nurses. 

“A healthy work environment is a baseline expectation for us,” Beth Reimschissel, PhD, vice president and chief nursing officer of Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital, told Becker’s. “It’s not something that we’re kind of crossing our fingers, hoping to gain, but truly the baseline expectation for those already working in those environments, for those that we try to recruit into those environments. It’s actually one of our biggest tactics to get people to [stay].”

Positive work environments also support greater staff engagement, better adoption of evidence-based practice and, ultimately, stronger patient outcomes, Dr. Reimschissel said.

She credited the hospital’s nursing engagement, in part, to strong transparency and shared ownership of performance. Rather than shielding bedside nurses from quality data, performance metrics are reviewed openly “whether it’s good or bad,” Dr. Reimschissel said. Fluctuations are expected and discussed as part of a continuous improvement cycle.

Kham Thai, MSN, RN, director of patient care at Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital, echoed this message, saying performance is defined less by perfect metrics and more by how teams respond when performance shifts.

Beyond sharing data, leaders intentionally bring improvement conversations to the bedside through shared governance structures, allowing front-line nurses to help shape solutions.

“We will never resolve all the issues around the table as healthcare executives if you’re missing the key component of the person that was closest to the problem,” Dr. Reimschissel said.

That transparency extends across the system, as well. Dr. Reimschissel said performance data is shared openly across campuses, allowing teams to benchmark against one another and learn from higher-performing peers. Rather than using metrics punitively, the organization approaches them as opportunities for collaboration and shared improvement.

Ultimately, Dr. Reimschissel and Mr. Thai said the Beacon Awards offer an opportunity to celebrate front-line teams while reinforcing the culture that sustains nursing performance. That culture, they emphasized, extends far beyond the designation itself.

“Beacon award is just not designation. It’s not just the award,” Mr. Thai said. “It’s a collection of the teamwork, the leadership support and the units’ ongoing commitment to excellence for both patients and for our own nurses, as well.”

The post The culture behind Memorial Hermann’s award-winning nursing units appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

A data-driven approach to physician staffing across multiple hospitals can significantly cut overtime and idle time, translating into meaningful cost savings for health systems, according to a new study.

In a study published in the February edition of Operations Research, researchers examined a dynamic staffing model implemented at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s anesthesiology department. The model combines historical data with updated short-term forecasts to assign physicians either to specific hospitals or to a shared on-call pool weeks in advance. Those assignments are then adjusted closer to the day of surgery as demand becomes clearer. 

The model also accounts for real-world constraints, including which physicians are credentialed to work at certain facilities, fairness rules for on-call rotations and uncertainty in both projected surgery volumes and the total anesthesia hours ultimately required.

After implementation across 11 hospitals, researchers found the system reduced daily overtime by nearly 13 hours and idle time by 14 hours. Even after factoring in additional pay for on-call coverage, the changes led to net estimated savings of about $2,200 per day, or more than $800,000 annually.

Researchers said the framework could be applied to other areas of clinical staffing facing similar demand variability and workforce constraints, including nurse scheduling.

“Combining an on-call structure with robust, data-driven planning can substantially reduce overtime and idle time,” Kumar Rajaram, PhD, study author and professor at UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles, said in a news release. “Our approach also demonstrates how fairness constraints, such as ensuring no one is placed on consecutive on-call days, can be integrated without sacrificing efficiency.”

The post Data-driven physician staffing tied to significant savings for health systems, study finds appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

A federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted a temporary restraining order Feb. 12 blocking the Trump administration from terminating more than $600 million in CDC-administered public health grants to California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota for 14 days.

Judge Manish Shah wrote in a two-page order that the states made a sufficient showing to temporarily halt the funding terminations while the case proceeds. A status hearing is set for Feb. 18.

The restraining order follows a Feb. 11 lawsuit filed by the four Democratic-led states after the Office of Management and Budget directed the CDC — which is part of HHS — to rescind $602 million in grants. HHS notified Congress Feb. 10 of its intent to terminate the funding.

The targeted grants include funding for public health infrastructure, as well as testing and treatment programs for diseases such as HIV. The largest program at issue is the Public Health Infrastructure Grant, which operates in all 50 states.

An HHS spokesperson previously told Becker’s the grants are being terminated because they “do not reflect agency priorities.” Becker’s has reached out for additional or updated comments.

The 26-page complaint alleged the funding cuts would “impose catastrophic irreparable harm” and are “based on political animus and disagreements about unrelated topics such as federal immigration enforcement, political protest and clean energy.”

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue the planned terminations violate the Administrative Procedure Act and exceed federal agencies’ statutory authority by imposing retroactive conditions on previously awarded funding.

In a written opinion accompanying the order, Judge Shah wrote that plaintiffs had shown the administration likely issued internal guidance directing agencies to terminate public health grants. He also wrote that “recent statements plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’” The judge emphasized that his findings are preliminary and based on a limited record.

The decision comes after HHS moved in early January to halt roughly $10 billion in federal funds to the same four states, along with New York. A federal judge later blocked that funding freeze through a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

Separately, the Minnesota Department of Health said Feb. 12 that the CDC confirmed cancellation of approximately $38 million in Public Health Infrastructure Grant funding for the state, effective Feb. 11, citing that the funding was “inconsistent with agency priorities.”

The post Federal judge blocks $602M in CDC cuts to 4 states appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Of the 28 hospitals CMS has fined for alleged price transparency violations, only two have bed counts above 550, while 10 have 30 or fewer beds.

CMS bases its civil monetary penalties on hospital bed counts. Fines fall into three tiers:

• Hospitals with more than 550 beds can be fined up to $5,500 per day.
• Hospitals with 31 to 550 beds face a daily fine of $10 per bed.
• Hospitals with 30 or fewer beds may receive a daily fine of up to $300.

In its fine notices, CMS does not specify exact bed counts for hospitals in the smallest and largest tiers.

Here are the bed counts for the 28 hospitals that have received price transparency fines from CMS, according to the notices the agency sent to the hospitals:  

551+ beds: 

• Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami) 
• Northside Hospital (Atlanta)

31-550 beds: 

• UF Health North (Jacksonville, Fla.): 536
• Holy Cross Hospital (Silver Spring, Md.): 423 beds
• Community First Medical Center (Chicago):  213 beds 
• Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamón (Puerto Rico): 146 beds 
• Northlake Behavioral Health System (Mandeville, La.): 140 beds
• Betsy Johnson Hospital (Dunn, N.C.): 126 beds 
• Arkansas Methodist Medical Center (Paragould): 114 beds 
• Northside Hospital Cherokee (Canton, Ga.): 114 beds 
• Samaritan Hospital-Albany (N.Y.) Memorial Campus: 73 beds 
• Lawrence Rehabilitation Hospital (Brick, N.J.): 60 beds 
• Frisbie Memorial Hospital (Rochester, N.H.): 58 beds 
• D.W. McMillan Memorial Hospital (Brewton, Ala.): 46 beds
• Kell West Regional Hospital (Wichita Falls, Texas): 41 beds
• Community Care Hospital (New Orleans): 38 beds
• Falls Community Hospital and Clinic (Marlin, Texas): 36 beds
• Hill Hospital of Sumter County (York, Ala.): 33 beds 

30 or fewer beds: 

• Baytown (Texas) Medical Center
• Bucktail Medical Center (Renovo, Pa.)
• CCM Health Hospital and Clinic (Montevideo, Minn.)
• First Surgical Hospital (Bellaire, Texas)
• Fulton County Hospital (Salem, Ark.)
• Hospital General Castaner (Lares, Puerto Rico)
• Pinnacle Hospital (Crown Point, Ind.)
• Southeast Regional Medical Center (Kentwood, La.)
• West Chase Houston Hospital
• West Covina (Calif.) Medical Center

The post 28 hospital price transparency fines, by bed count  appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Patients with endometrial hyperplasia or benign uterine pathology had a 66% reduced risk of developing endometrial cancer when treated with progestins and a GLP-1 compared to patients treated with progestins alone, according to a study published Feb. 10 in JAMA Network Open.

GLP-1 medications have also been associated with a “dramatically” lower mortality rate among colon cancer patients.

The study was led by researchers from the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, which are both based in Boston. They analyzed deidentified TriNetX data of adult women with endometrial hyperplasia or benign uterine pathology who received progestins between May 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2022, to identify the effects of GLP-1 therapy on future cancer and hysterectomy risk. 

Here are five things to know from the study:

1. Outcomes from four treatment pathways and combinations were compared: GLP-1 plus progestins, metformin plus progestins, progestins only, and a triple therapy of GLP-1s, metformin and progestins.
2. Of the study cohort, 18,414 women were treated with a GLP-1 plus progestins and 426,406 were treated with progestins alone.
3. The 66% reduction in endometrial cancer risk associated with GLP-1 plus progestin therapy remained consistent across subgroups, baseline risk, BMI, age and progestin administration route.

   GLP-1 plus progestin therapy was associated with a 70% reduction in endometrial cancer risk when compared to metformin plus progestins.

4. The triple therapy of GLP-1s, metformin and progestins was associated with a 63% lower endometrial cancer risk when compared to metformin plus progestins and a 56% lower risk when compared to progestins alone.
5. Patients treated with a GLP-1 plus progestins had a lower risk of hysterectomy during a two-year and five-year follow-up, at 53% and 41%, respectively. 

Read the full study here. 

The post Another win for GLP-1s and cancer risk: 5 study notes appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Hospital affiliations with primary care providers are up about 17% in the last four years and are seeing mixed results, a recent Medscape report found.

The “Realities of Primary Care Affiliations Report 2026,” published Feb. 6, surveyed 1,363 physicians across 29 specialties between July 2 and Nov. 19.

Here are seven key findings:

1. Among primary care providers, 64% are affiliated with a hospital or health system, up from 47.9% in 2022.

2. Eighty-three percent of primary care providers who worked full time in a hospital, healthcare organization or outpatient clinic reported an affiliation, as did 55% of those who worked in a medical office.

3. Affiliations with hospitals resulted in increased access to resources and technology, as well as administrative burden. However, more than half of PCPs said financial benefits stayed the same.

4. Feelings toward hospital affiliations were almost evenly split between positive, negative and neutral. PCPs who work in hospitals or outpatient clinics reported positive attitudes 38% of the time, compared to 28% for those in medical offices.

5. An affiliation’s impact on patient quality of care differed by setting. Among primary care providers who work in hospitals or health systems, 31% said affiliation improved quality while 28% it worsened quality. Among those working in medical offices, 37% reported a decline in patient quality.

6. About half of primary care providers said patient and payer spending on care rose after affiliation.

7. Only 6% of PCPs reported being acquired and consolidated by a private equity firm. Among those, 53% reported a decrease in spending on patient care, 61% reported a decrease in quality of care, and 41% reported a decrease in practice efficiencies.

The post Hospital-primary care affiliations on the rise: 7 things to know appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

The federal direct-to-consumer website TrumpRx.gov currently lists 43 brand-name medications accessible through manufacturer-run cash discount programs.

The website, launched Feb. 5, connects consumers to pricing tied to most-favored-nation agreements between drugmakers and the federal government. The platform is primarily designed for uninsured patients or those without coverage for medications commonly prescribed for chronic, high-expenditure conditions. 

At present, the platform offers medications from the first five drugmakers to strike most-favored-nation agreements: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novo Nordisk and Pfizer. Additional products from other participating drugmakers will be added over time, the administration said.

While the website highlights significant discounts from manufacturer list prices, TrumpRx has faced early scrutiny over whether it delivers meaningful new savings beyond options already available to many patients. The website also notes some patients may be able to pay less through insurance.

Below is a snapshot of the drugs currently listed on TrumpRx, including the original list price and discounted price. Medications are listed in alphabetical order. 

1. Abrilada

• Use: Biosimilar to Humira; treats rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $207.60
• Original price: $519.00

2. Airsupra

• Use: Rescue inhaler for asthma (albuterol + budesonide)
• TrumpRx price: $201.00
• Original price: $503.93

3. Azulfidine

• Use: Ulcerative colitis and rheumatoid arthritis
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $99.60
• Original price: $199.20

4. Azulfidine En-Tabs

• Use: Delayed-release sulfasalazine for ulcerative colitis and RA
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $130.80
• Original price: $261.60

5. Bevespi

• Use: Maintenance inhaler for COPD
• TrumpRx price: $51.00
• Original price: $458.05

6. Cetrotide

• Use: Fertility medication (prevents premature ovulation)
• TrumpRx price: $22.50
• Original price: $316.12

7. Chantix

• Use: Smoking cessation
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $94.34
• Original price: $189.74

8. Cleocin

• Use: Antibiotic (clindamycin)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $36.56
• Original price: $73.12

9. Colestid

• Use: Lowers cholesterol
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $67.20
• Original price: $135.60

10. Cortef

• Use: Steroid (hydrocortisone)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $45.00
• Original price: $91.80

11. Cytomel

• Use: Thyroid hormone (liothyronine)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $6.00
• Original price: $12.00

12. Diflucan

• Use: Antifungal (fluconazole)
• TrumpRx price: $14.06
• Original price: $28.12

13. Duavee

• Use: Menopause symptom treatment and osteoporosis prevention
• TrumpRx price: $30.30
• Original price: $202.00

14. Estring

• Use: Vaginal estrogen ring for menopause symptoms
• TrumpRx price: $249.00
• Original price: $577.18

15. Eucrisa

• Use: Topical treatment for eczema
• TrumpRx price: $158.48
• Original price: $792.40

16. Farxiga

• Use: Type 2 diabetes, heart failure and CKD (SGLT2 inhibitor)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $181.59
• Original price: $377.82

17. Genotropin

• Use: Growth hormone therapy
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $89.67
• Original price: $224.14

18. Gonal-F

• Use: Fertility treatment (stimulates ovulation)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $168.00
• Original price: $966.04

19. Insulin Lispro

• Use: Rapid-acting insulin for diabetes
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $25.00
• Original price: Not listed

20. Levoxyl

• Use: Thyroid hormone (levothyroxine)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $35.10
• Original price: $72.00

21. Lopid

• Use: Lowers triglycerides (gemfibrozil)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $39.60
• Original price: $79.20

22. Medrol

• Use: Steroid (methylprednisolone)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $3.15
• Original price: $6.30

23. Ngenla

• Use: Weekly growth hormone injection
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $2,217.00
• Original price: $4,434.20

24. Nicotrol

• Use: Nicotine inhaler for smoking cessation
• TrumpRx price: $271.16
• Original price: $542.34

25. Ovidrel

• Use: Fertility treatment (triggers ovulation)
• TrumpRx price: $84.00
• Original price: $251.84

26. Ozempic Pen

• Use: GLP-1 for Type 2 diabetes
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $199.00
• Original price: $1,027.51

27. Premarin

• Use: Estrogen therapy for menopause
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $99.00
• Original price: $217.86

28. Premarin Vaginal Cream

• Use: Vaginal estrogen therapy
• TrumpRx price: $236.65
• Original price: $473.30

29. Prempro

• Use: Combination estrogen/progestin therapy
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $98.84
• Original price: $254.30

30. Pristiq

• Use: Antidepressant (desvenlafaxine)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $200.10
• Original price: $435.00

31. Protonix

• Use: Acid reflux/GERD (pantoprazole)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $200.10
• Original price: $447.28

32. Tikosyn

• Use: Treats atrial fibrillation
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $336.00
• Original price: $672.00

33. Toviaz

• Use: Treats overactive bladder
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $43.50
• Original price: $290.00

34. Vfend

• Use: Antifungal (voriconazole)
• TrumpRx price: $306.98
• Original price: $613.96

35. Viracept

• Use: HIV treatment (nelfinavir)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $607.20
• Original price: $1,214.40

36. Wegovy Pen

• Use: GLP-1 for weight loss
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $199.00
• Original price: $1,349.02

37. Wegovy Pill

• Use: Oral semaglutide for weight loss
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $149.00
• Original price: $1,349.02

38. Xeljanz

• Use: Rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, psoriatic arthritis
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $1,518.00
• Original price: $3,204.00

39. Xigduo XR

• Use: Type 2 diabetes (dapagliflozin + metformin)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $181.59
• Original price: $599.72

40. Zarontin

• Use: Absence seizures
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $71.10
• Original price: $143.46

41. Zavzpret

• Use: Migraine nasal spray
• TrumpRx price: $594.84
• Original price: $1,189.65

42. Zepbound

• Use: Weight loss (tirzepatide)
• TrumpRx price: Starting at $299.00
• Original price: $1,087.00

43. Zyvox

• Use: Antibiotic (linezolid)
• TrumpRx price: $122.74

Original price: $245.48

The post The 43 medications on TrumpRx appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

CMS has fined 28 hospitals in 16 states and Puerto Rico for alleged price transparency violations.

Here are the hospitals that have been fined, by state or territory:

Alabama (2)

• D.W. McMillan Memorial Hospital (Brewton)
• Hill Hospital of Sumter County (York)

Arkansas (2)

• Arkansas Methodist Medical Center (Paragould)
• Fulton County Hospital (Salem)

California (1)

• West Covina Medical Center

Florida (2)

• Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami)
• UF Health North (Jacksonville)

Georgia (2)

• Northside Hospital Atlanta
• Northside Hospital Cherokee (Canton)

Illinois (1)

• Community First Medical Center (Chicago)

Indiana (1)

• Pinnacle Hospital (Crown Point)

Louisiana (3)

• Community Care Hospital (New Orleans)
• Northlake Behavioral Health System (Mandeville)
• Southeast Regional Medical Center (Kentwood)

Maryland (1)

• Holy Cross Hospital (Silver Spring)

Minnesota (1)

• CCM Health (Montevideo)

New Hampshire (1)

• Frisbie Memorial Hospital (Rochester)

New Jersey (1)

• Lawrence Rehabilitation Hospital (Brick)

New York (1)

• Samaritan Hospital-Albany Memorial Campus

North Carolina (1)

• Betsy Johnson Hospital (Dunn)

Pennsylvania (1)

• Bucktail Medical Center (Renovo)

Puerto Rico (2)

• Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamón
• Hospital General Castañer (Lares)

Texas (5)

• Baytown Medical Center
• Falls Community Hospital and Clinic (Marlin)
• First Surgical Hospital (Bellaire)
• Kell West Regional Hospital (Wichita Falls)
• West Chase Houston Hospital

The post The 28 hospitals fined for price transparency violations, by state appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Price transparency laws for healthcare organizations were first implemented in 2021 and have progressively strengthened since, but have they helped patients?

The laws were introduced during President Donald Trump’s first term and require hospitals to publicly post their payer-specific negotiation rates. In 2022, a companion rule imposed similar requirements on insurers. And in February 2025, an executive order directed agencies to escalate enforcement further, requiring “actual prices, not estimates.” 

The goal was to make it easier for patients to compare prices at hospitals. However, the results haven’t been so simple, NPR reported Feb. 10. Here’s what to know.

1. A study found that only a third of facilities complied with the transparency regulations in the first 10 months of implementation. Between 2022 and 2025, 27 hospitals were notified by CMS that they would be fined for lack of compliance.

2. What data is released by hospitals is often sparse or in confusing formats that require deep knowledge of billing codes. President Joe Biden attempted to improve this by requiring increased data standardization and toughening compliance criteria. CMS also increased the required details within pricing data. But hospitals argue they made “detailed assumptions about how to apply complex contracting terms and assess historic data to create a reasonable value for an expected allowed amount,” the American Hospital Association told the Trump administration in July 2025. 

3. Patients are rarely the ones using this price data. Many simply do not compare services, while others struggle to make comparisons. Unlike other products, healthcare services rarely have a one-to-one comparison, and the medical treatment required isn’t always predictable. Some patients may require more interventions or emergency care, which cannot be price checked beforehand.

4. Instead of helping patients, price transparency data has primarily been used by health systems and insurers. Often this data has become the foundation of negotiations and lawsuits over the proper level of compensation. 

5. In some cases, it’s also been used by providers who look at the data from comparable health systems and find themselves saying, “I need to be paid more,” NPR reported.

The post Are price transparency laws helping patients? 5 notes appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Healthcare employment continued to grow in January, with the industry adding 81,900 jobs, according to the latest report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

BLS released the January jobs report Feb. 11.

Here are three more takeaways:

1. January’s healthcare job growth was above the industry’s average monthly gain of 33,000 per month for 2025. It’s also above the industry’s gain of 33,400 in December.

2. Ambulatory healthcare services accounted for the bulk of January’s growth, adding 50,300 jobs. Hospitals added 18,300, and nursing and residential care facilities added 13,300.

3. The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in January, driven by gains in healthcare, social assistance and construction.

The post Healthcare adds nearly 82,000 jobs in January: 4 notes appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Forbes recognized 56 hospitals and health systems on its 11th annual list of America’s Best Large Employers released Feb. 10.

The publication partnered with the market research firm Statista to survey more than 217,000 U.S. employees at companies with more than 1,000 employees. Companies that employ more than 5,000 people were considered for the large employers list. 

Respondents were asked whether they would recommend their current employer and rated them on factors such as wages, work-life balance, leadership training and growth opportunities. Participants also evaluated previous employers from the past two years, as well as companies they were familiar with through industry experience or personal connections. Responses were compiled into scores for each employer, with the 700 highest-scoring organizations named to America’s Best Large Employers for 2026.

The hospitals and health systems featured on the list, along with their relative rank:

2. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (Memphis, Tenn.)

9. Hoag (Newport Beach, Calif.)

10. Houston Methodist (Houston, Texas)

16. MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston)

26. St. Luke’s University Health Network (Bethlehem, Pa.)

29. Community Health Network (Indianapolis, Ind.)

32. Cedars-Sinai (Los Angeles)

34. Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minn.)

35. Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Columbus)

38. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 

41. Cook Children’s Health Care System (Fort Worth, Texas)

43. Covenant Health (Knoxville, Tenn.)

45. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta 

46. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital (New York City)

55. Cincinnati Children’s

65. Children’s Hospital Colorado (Aurora)

66. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles 

67. University of Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson.)

69. FirstHealth of the Carolinas (Pinehurst, N.C.)

78. Sutter Health (Sacramento, Calif.)

85. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston)

86. Memorial Hermann Health System (Houston)

99. Texas Health Resources (Arlington, Texas)

101. Cleveland Clinic (main campus)

102. UW Health University Hospital (Madison, Wis.)

103. University of Chicago Medicine 

105. Duke University Health System (Durham, N.C.)

112. JPS Health Network (Fort Worth, Texas)

114. Cooper University Health Care (Camden, N.J.)

117. UC Davis Health (Sacramento, Calif.)

120. The University of Kansas Health System (Kansas City)

122. BJC Health System (St. Louis)

123. Boston Children’s Hospital

125. University Hospitals (Cleveland)

135. Tampa General Hospital 

139. NYU Langone Health (New York City)

147. Broward Health (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.)

149. Methodist Health System (Omaha, Neb.)

154. Tucson (Ariz.) Medical Center

157. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (Columbus)

160. Johns Hopkins Medicine (Baltimore)

164. University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center 

165. CHRISTUS Health (Irving, Texas)

168. Nemours Children’s Health (Jacksonville, Fla.)

184. HealthPartners (Bloomington, Minn.)

189. Sarasota (Fla.) Memorial Health Care System 

194. Seattle Children’s 

208. Arkansas Children’s Hospital (Little Rock)

210. Northwell Health (New Hyde Park, N.Y.)

211. CAMC Health System (Charleston, W.Va.)

213. Scripps Health (San Diego)

215. Norton Healthcare (Louisville, Ky.)

226. VCU Health (Richmond, Va.)

232. University of Virginia Health System (Charlottesville, Va.)

238. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York City)

245. Stanford Medicine Children’s Health (Palo Alto, Calif.)

View the full list here.

The post 56 health systems among Forbes’ best large employers appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

There are 417 rural hospitals that are vulnerable to closure, according to a Feb. 10 report from Chartis, a healthcare advisory services firm. 

Chartis’ Rural Hospital Vulnerability Index assesses more than a dozen indicators to identify which are statistically significant for determining the likelihood of closure.

The number of overall rural hospitals vulnerable is down from 432 last year, but Chartis said there are “notable shifts at the state level.” In Tennessee, the percentage of vulnerable hospitals increased from 44% to 61%. In South Dakota, the percentage increased from 28% to 42%. Mississippi, which Chartis said has long been a “weak spot in the rural health safety net,” saw an improvement from 49% to 42%. Kansas also saw an improvement from 47% to 44%. 

Chartis’ analysis found that 17 states have 10 or more rural hospitals vulnerable to closure this year. Texas has the most with 50, followed by Kansas (44), Tennessee (27), Georgia (25), and Mississippi (24). These states are receiving a combined $1.1 billion in the first round of CMS’ Rural Health Transformation Fund initiative.  

Six states have at least 41% of their rural hospitals that are at risk of closure:

• Tennessee (61%)
• Arkansas (55%)
• Florida (52%)
• Kansas (44%) 
• South Dakota (42%) 
• Mississippi (42%)

Three more states — Alabama, Georgia and Texas — have between 31% and 41% of their rural hospitals at risk of closure. 

Since 2010, there have been 206 rural hospitals that have either closed or converted to models that exclude inpatient care, such as the rural emergency hospital designation, according to the report. Texas has experienced the greatest loss of inpatient care, with 27 closures and conversions, followed by Tennessee (18), Oklahoma (13), Kansas (12), and Mississippi (12).

Read the full report here. 

The post 417 rural hospitals at risk of closure: Chartis appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

About 2,100 nurses and healthcare workers from four hospitals operated by Ontario, Calif.-based Prime Healthcare are set to strike this month across California and Nevada.

Six things to know:

1. One-day strikes are planned at Shasta Regional Medical Center in Redding, Calif. (Feb. 19), Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, Calif. (Feb. 19), and Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev. (Feb. 18). A three-day strike is also slated to begin Feb. 17 at West Anaheim Medical Center in Anaheim, Calif.

2. The strikes affect about 800 nurses at Centinela Hospital Medical Center, who are represented by the California Nurses Association; 350 nurses at Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center, who are represented by National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United; more than 360 nurses at West Anaheim Medical Center, who are represented by the California Nurses Association; and 600 nurses and healthcare workers at Shasta Regional Medical Center, who are represented by California Nurses Association/Caregivers and Healthcare Employees Union, an affiliate of National Nurses United.

3. Union members at the four Prime hospitals voted to authorize strikes in January. Nurses at Centinela Hospital Medical Center and Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center have been in contract negotiations since summer 2025, while nurses at West Anaheim Medical Center have been negotiating since February 2025 and nurses and healthcare workers at Shasta Regional Medical Center since August 2025.

4. Union representatives said in news releases that members are striking due to concerns about patient care, retention and recruitment of workers and safe staffing.

5. In statements shared with Becker’s, hospital spokespeople pointed to wage increases already implemented that will provide millions of dollars in additional compensation over the next three years. They said the wage increases, along with comprehensive benefit programs, have been included in proposals presented during negotiations.

6. All four hospitals said they will remain fully open and operational should the strikes occur as planned. It would mark the second strike in the last year for the Anaheim nurses, who also held a one-day strike in August 2025.

The post 2,100 nurses, healthcare workers to strike across California, Nevada: 6 notes appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Successfully approaching organizational change — whether it involves new technology, policies or workflows — is a key responsibility for hospital and health system CEOs, especially in 2026 as they navigate a convergence of financial strain, workforce pressure and emerging tools like artificial intelligence.

Leaders say some of their most important lessons about change management have come the hard way — learning that readiness matters more than timelines, that trust is built over time and that values don’t automatically scale. These lessons continue to shape how they lead through change today.

Becker’s asked four CEOs to respond to the following question: 

Looking back at the biggest change you’ve led as CEO, what lesson about change management did you learn the hard way — and how does that lesson show up in how you lead change today? 

Editor’s note: Responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

Angela Ammons Handley. CEO of Clinch Memorial Hospital (Homerville, Ga.): Looking back, the hardest lesson I learned about change management is that meaningful change never happens on my timeline, it happens on the organization’s readiness. Early in my tenure, I believed that if I could clearly see what needed to change and articulate it well enough, momentum would follow quickly. What I learned the hard way is that as a leader, you often see the problem long before others are emotionally or professionally ready to confront it. Change requires patience, repetition and trust built over time, not just a good plan.

I also learned that not everyone who starts the journey with you will be there at the end, and that doesn’t always mean failure. Some people grow with the organization; others reach a point where the change being asked of them no longer aligns with where they are. Accepting that reality without bitterness or avoidance was a critical leadership lesson for me.

Today, that experience shapes how I lead change. I spend more time listening before acting, setting clear expectations early, and giving people space to adapt, while still holding firm to the direction we’re going. I’ve learned that sustainable change is less about speed and more about consistency, transparency and earning trust one decision at a time.

Colin McHugh. President and CEO of Southern New Hampshire Health (Nashua): Having spent more than 30 years in healthcare I’ve been through a number of changes that have shaped my priorities and goals. One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned is that to successfully navigate change, whatever it may be, you need to have strong, innovative and people-focused leadership at every level of a healthcare system.

Over the last four years we have bolstered our team here at Southern New Hampshire Health, the nonprofit health system based in Nashua, N.H., with some of the very best leaders in the industry. This has allowed us to refocus our approach, expand access, enhance patient care, recruit and retain staff, and streamline our business operations. We have done all of this while making the community aware of how we can best serve their needs. Since 2022, we have reshaped our executive leadership team with new faces and elevated others who we recognized as making vital contributions to our organization. Combined, these leaders have more than 200 years of experience in healthcare and know how to best bring our health system into the future.

Change is always a challenge, but the most successful way to navigate that change is to put a team in place that is trustworthy, and worthy of the responsibility they hold. We are proud to have that team at Southern New Hampshire Health.

David Verinder. President and CEO of Sarasota (Fla.) Memorial Health Care System: I spent the early part of my career as CFO before moving into a CEO role, so I tend to look at change from both sides of the ledger.

Numbers and margins matter. But after 30 years in healthcare leadership, I have learned that it’s an organization’s culture and values, which don’t show up on the balance sheet, that really count.

For the past 20 years, I have had the privilege of leading Sarasota Memorial Health System, a trusted, century-old public institution, through decades of transformational change. During my tenure, SMH has grown from a respected, but financially strapped local hospital to a $2.5-billion-a-year multi-hospital health system. As our regional footprint expanded, so did our staff, from roughly 5,000 employees to nearly 11,000 today.

The hard part wasn’t the growth itself — it was making sure we didn’t lose who we were along the way. One thing I learned quickly is that an organization’s culture does not scale automatically. You can’t just write it down and expect it to stick.

As we got bigger, there was a real risk of drifting away from the community-first mission that defined us. Retention and succession planning became essential. Longtime employees with institutional knowledge and values provide stability and help mentor and develop new leaders. That’s why we made a point of staffing new facilities with experienced leaders and employees from our existing campuses — people who have lived the culture and can model expectations, person to person, behavior to behavior, decision to decision, and maintain the critical balance of mission and margin.

Because in the end, our goal is not simply to get bigger — but to grow without losing the values that make Sarasota Memorial worth expanding in the first place.

Meagan Weber. CEO of Scotland County Hospital (Memphis, Mo.): Looking back, the biggest change I’ve led was a cultural shift, moving our organization from quietly working around problems to openly bringing them to the table and solving them together.

Early on, I underestimated how personal change feels to people, especially in a hospital setting where physicians and staff take enormous pride in their autonomy and clinical judgment. I thought if the vision was clear and the data made sense, people would naturally get on board. What I learned the hard way is that change doesn’t fail because of strategy, it fails because people don’t feel heard, safe or involved early enough.

The key lesson for me was that you can’t just roll out change, you have to build it with people. I invite dissent early, normalize raising concerns and make it clear that surfacing problems is not a threat, it’s an expectation and a sign of professionalism.

The post The change management lessons learned for 4 hospital CEOs appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

A majority of nurses who left bedside roles in recent years are willing to return, with adequate staffing levels cited as the main factor that would reattract them, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing in Philadelphia.

The study, published Feb. 9 in JAMA Network Open, is based on survey data from more than 4,000 registered nurses who left a bedside hospital position between 2019 and 2023 and were not currently working in healthcare. Of this group, 56% were retired, 36% were unemployed and 8% said they were employed outside healthcare.

Among nurses who were unemployed. 51% said they had searched for healthcare jobs within the past year and reported being likely to return to nursing. Nurses employed outside healthcare were less likely to return, though 20% said they were very likely to do so.

Adequate staffing emerged as the top-selected response (65%) when nonretired RNs were asked what would increase their likelihood of returning to work as a bedside nurse. This was followed equally by flexible scheduling options and better wages or benefits (59%).

“Unsafe staffing drives nurses away from hospital employment — and adequate staffing is the key to bringing them back,” Karen Lasater, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and the Jessie M. Scott Term Chair in Nursing and Health Policy at Penn Nursing, said in a news release. “The problem and the solution are the same. High nurse turnover is a solvable crisis, because the reasons nurses leave are the same reasons they would return, if addressed.”

Among retired nurses, nearly 40% said they left earlier than planned, even as 90% reported being satisfied with nursing as a career. Researchers said the disconnect indicates premature workforce exits are largely driven by modifiable organizational factors, rather than dissatisfaction with the profession itself.

The post Top factors that would bring RNs back to the bedside: Penn Nursing study appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

CMS has issued fines to 28 hospitals for alleged price transparency violations.

Here are the fine amounts CMS has levied against those hospitals:

1. UF Health North (Jacksonville, Fla.): $979,000
2. Northside Hospital Atlanta: $883,180
3. Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami): $871,122
4. Community First Medical Center (Chicago): $847,740
5. Holy Cross Hospital (Silver Spring, Md.): $325,710
6. Arkansas Methodist Medical Center (Paragould): $309,738
7. Northlake Behavioral Health System (Mandeville, La.): $257,180
8. Northside Hospital Cherokee (Canton, Ga.): $214,320
9. Lawrence Rehabilitation Hospital (Brick, N.J.): $120,120
10. Kell West Regional Hospital (Wichita Falls, Texas): $117,260
11. Frisbie Memorial Hospital (Rochester, N.H.): $102,660
12. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamón (Puerto Rico): $102,200
13. Hospital General Castañer (Lares, Puerto Rico): $101,400
14. Betsy Johnson Hospital (Dunn, N.C.): $99,540
15. Community Care Hospital (New Orleans): $93,214
16. Hill Hospital of Sumter County (York, Ala.): $84,216
17. Bucktail Medical Center (Renovo, Pa.): $75,582
18. D.W. McMillan Memorial Hospital (Brewton, Ala.): $71,852
19. Falls Community Hospital and Clinic (Marlin, Texas): $70,560  
20. Fulton County Hospital (Salem, Ark.): $63,900
21. First Surgical Hospital (Bellaire, Texas): $62,016
22. West Covina (Calif.) Medical Center: $59,100
23. Samaritan Hospital-Albany (N.Y.) Memorial Campus: $56,940
24. CCM Health (Montevideo, Minn.): $55,611
25. Pinnacle Hospital (Crown Point, Ind.): $51,615
26. Baytown (Texas) Medical Center: $50,711
27. West Chase Houston Hospital: $44,251
28. Southeast Regional Medical Center (Kentwood, La.): $32,301

The post 28 hospital price transparency fines from highest to lowest appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Patients who take advantage of zero-cost preventive screenings see better health outcomes and reduced spending, according to January research from BCBS Association and Blue Health Intelligence.

The groups reviewed claims data of BCBS members with breast or colorectal cancer. The research pointed to lower likelihood of invasive tests and treatment.

Eighty-one percent of members who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer through a preventive screening were classified in an early stage, compared to a 73% rate overall. For breast cancer, that figure was 86% during preventive screening. The early-stage rate was 82% overall. 

Breast cancer treatment costs an average of $82,931 with stage 1 detection, versus $249,187 at stage 4. With colon cancer, that number jumps from $110,882 to $255,666. Early cancer detection also has a reduced risk of disease spread, and near-term spending was lower.

Overall per-member, per-month healthcare costs were 9.7% lower over 90 days and 20.4% lower over one year for those diagnosed with breast cancer in a preventive screening. For colorectal cancer, these costs were down 23.2% over 90 days and 33% over one year.

Another analysis found, in 2023, out of 5.6 million individual market members, 18.8 million of their visits included preventive services. Blues plans provided 13.1 million free visits, which is 71.7% of all its preventive care visits.

Preventive care utilization decreased as social vulnerability increased. Across preventive care, chronic conditions and health promotion were the service categories with the greatest utilization.

The post Preventive screenings boost outcomes, lower spending appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

The CDC on Feb. 4 published a new framework for hospitals aimed at reducing missed, delayed and incorrect diagnoses, positioning diagnostic excellence as a patient safety priority alongside efforts such as antibiotic stewardship.

The framework, titled “Core Elements of Hospital Diagnostic Excellence,” outlines key actions hospitals can take to improve diagnostic reasoning, testing and communication while also  reducing unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis.

The framework was developed with federal partners including CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and informed by clinical and patient experts.

The resource highlights six core elements of hospital diagnostic excellence programs: 

• Leadership commitment and accountability
• Multidisciplinary expertise that includes lab and radiology testing experts
• Patient, family and caregiver engagement
• Hospital actions focused on diagnostic stewardship, strengthening systems and processes, and learning from diagnostic safety events
• Education for patients and clinicians 
• Tracking and reporting program activity and outcomes 

By establishing dedicated, multidisciplinary diagnostic excellence programs that continuously measure, learn and improve, health systems can improve patient outcomes, strengthen safety culture and reduce costs tied to unnecessary testing and downstream care, the CDC said.

Learn more here.

The post CDC outlines 6 core elements for hospital diagnostic excellence appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Nurses’ clinical intervention and barcode medication scanning emerged as the two biggest safeguards preventing patient harm in intensive care units at Los Angeles-based Cedars-Sinai, according to a study published in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Researchers analyzed 288 near misses reported in 2024 from inpatient critical care units at the health system. Using a human factors approach, they identified 396 contributing factors to these near misses, along with the interventions that prevented them from escalating to patient harm.

Nursing interventions accounted for the largest share of near-miss prevention, stopping 41% of events, followed by barcode medication scanning at 31%. 

“Nurses’ actions included following up on irregular orders, conducting routine medication safety checks and facilitating communication among care teams,” study author Tara Cohen, PhD, a research scientist and associate professor in the Jim and Eleanor Randall Department of Surgery at Cedars-Sinai, said in a Feb. 3 news release. “Their clinical judgment, experience and adherence to safety routines were instrumental in identifying potential threats before they reached patients.”

The authors conclude that systematically analyzing near-miss events through a human factors lens can help hospitals identify underlying workflow and system vulnerabilities and strengthen the front-line interventions and safeguards that prevent errors from reaching patients in high-risk ICU settings.

The post What Cedars-Sinai’s near-miss analysis reveals about ICU patient safety appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Eighteen attorneys general are urging HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, MD, to reinstate minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities.

The minimum staffing requirements, along with other protections, were established by the Nursing Home Reform initiative. These include set minimum staffing standards for nursing hours per resident per day, required SNF to have registered nurses on site 24/7 and established minimum hours for certified nurse assistants. These protections were designed to improve quality of care, prevent adverse health outcomes and save up to $465 million in Medicare costs by cutting medical emergencies and hospitalizations, according to a Feb. 2 letter the attorneys general sent to Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Oz. These protections were overturned by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The coalition is requesting replacement protections be implemented. 

“States have proven that quantitative minimum staffing standards are an effective tool to improve the quality of care in long-term care facilities and deter fraud,” the letter said. “A tailored, enhanced federal minimum staffing regulation would bring these positive outcomes to other states nationwide and further enable states and federal enforcement agencies to protect vulnerable residents of nursing homes who otherwise face increased risk of preventable neglect and abuse.”

The signing attorney generals are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The post 18 states push for reinstatement of SNF minimum staffing appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Health systems are increasing their expectations for nurse managers without proper support, which risks workforce stability, according to a Feb. 5 article from Vizient and Kaufman Hall. 

The position “has become increasingly unsustainable” because of elevated turnover and growing scopes of control, with 1 in 4 nurse managers overseeing more than 75 direct reports, Vizient said. 

The average nurse manager turnover rate is 7.5%, with nurse managers most likely to return as a front-line employee within the first four years of entering the management role. For their direct reports, the RN turnover rate is 16.4% with a vacancy rate of 9.6%. The average acute care hospital is losing $4.75 million due to annual turnover. 

Amid this high retention risk, organizations are requiring nurse managers to do more. They are asked to manage employee burnout, ensure adequate staffing during a decadeslong nurse shortage, infuse executive-level priorities into daily workflows, and perform other duties. 

Expectations have increased. Help for nurse managers has not. 

“This creates a paradox at the center of the workforce challenge,” Vizient said. “The role with the greatest influence on workforce stability is itself at elevated risk. When nurse managers are stretched beyond capacity, the consequences cascade — accelerating RN turnover, eroding unit culture and undermining quality and safety.”

Vizient outlined three recommendations for health systems: Invest in retention efforts; bolster nurse leaders with skills such as financial acumen, change management and quality improvement; and optimize the workforce by using predictive analytics to redesign staffing models. 

Read more here. 

The post Workforce stability suffers as nurse manager expectations increase: Vizient appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

With health systems now controlling the majority of U.S. hospital beds, mergers often promise better care. However, a paper published in September 2025 in Social Science & Medicine by University of Pennsylvania researchers Mark Pauly, PhD, and Lawton Burns, PhD, found the claims do not hold up.

The paper, obtained by Becker’s, analyzed three decades of research records. It found that hospital mergers frequently raise prices while failing to improve patient care quality.

“The quality defense for a merger is not supported by theory or evidence,” the researchers said in a news release. “The only sure thing is that a merger will result in higher prices for the merged hospitals, not improved quality. We argue that this non-result is to be expected, since a firm that gains more pricing power through a merger will not find it profitable to improve quality at the same time, even if it could.”

The paper reviewed research on mortality rates, complication rates and patient satisfaction scores. It found no evidence of improvement following mergers, with a quality decline in certain instances. 

The study also found several reasons for why larger systems don’t always provide better care. Merged hospitals don’t always consolidate their medical staff or reduce care sites, which can prevent the volume-based learning that could improve outcomes. They also don’t regularly enhance work conditions or increase nurse staffing ratios.

“Here is some advice: No. 1, treat nonprofit mergers the same as for-profit mergers,” Dr. Pauly and Dr. Burns said in the release. “There is no evidence that ownership form makes a difference for hospitals; No. 2, say ‘no’ to horizontal mergers that reduce competition in local markets; and No. 3, if you must approve a merger, make it conditional on improvement in quality goals or the merger will be unwound.”

The post Hospital mergers don’t improve quality: Study appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

As the fastest-growing U.S. state, South Carolina’s population growth is prompting health systems to expand and strengthen their workforce to meet rising demand for care. 

Driven by a net domestic migration increase of 66,622, the state’s population grew 1.5%, or by 79,958 residents, between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025. 

While growth can expand the talent pool, it also means more residents are seeking healthcare. South Carolina-based health system CHROs are investing in workforce development to attract new talent, support existing staff and keep pace with demand.

At Greenville, S.C.-based Prisma Health, the focus remains on ensuring facilities and staffing can accommodate rising patient needs across its service area, the largest in the state.

To support population growth, Prisma is investing in capital growth, which requires additional staffing, as well as upskilling and reskiling to address emerging healthcare challenges and opportunities. The system is also focused on retaining existing staff, CHRO Amy Linsin told Becker’s

“[We’re] making sure we are building talent pipeline programs and partnerships with schools to ensure more and more skilled healthcare providers are available at all levels to meet current and future healthcare needs,” Ms. Linsin said. 

The system has also maintained competitive wages alongside these investments, she said.

Florence, S.C.-based McLeod Health is investing in its local workforce as parts of its service region see unprecedented growth, CHRO Octavia Williams-Blake told Becker’s. The system is focusing on local high school students to address current and future staffing needs, she said.

“This investment helps us build a direct pipeline to critical and high-demand positions such as nursing, radiology, and pharmacy,” Ms. Williams-Blake said. “Our experience shows that students who are local have a very high retention rate and are more likely to stay with us long-term.”

McLeod Health has already seen success reducing job vacancy rates through its high school student apprenticeship program. 

“By building these direct pipeline programs to essential healthcare roles, we are ensuring we have a skilled and dedicated workforce ready to meet the demands of our growing region,” she said.

The post Workforce strategies in the fastest-growing state appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

As U.S. immigration officials receive access to Medicaid beneficiary data, hospitals and states are unsure whether to warn patients who are immigrants, according to a Feb. 6 KFF Health News report. 

Healthcare facilities are facing a dilemma: Telling patients the Department of Homeland Security may access their personal information could deter them from signing up for Emergency Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals for treating immigrants ineligible for standard Medicaid coverage, according to the report. But if hospitals do not disclose this, patients could risk being found by immigration officials. 

In summer 2025, HHS officials ordered CMS to provide the personal data of Medicaid enrollees, including immigration status and home addresses, to DHS. Nursing associations pushed back, saying such a data transfer is a “betrayal of trust.” Clinicians reported some patients are delaying or avoiding care in fear of immigration officials’ presence in medical settings. 

More than 20 states sued to block sharing Medicaid data with DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Twenty-eight states and Washington, D.C., did not sue, meaning the federal government can freely share those states’ CMS data with ICE, according to KFF Health News. 

KFF Health News contacted more than a dozen hospitals in states that have seen increased ICE presence, and many declined to comment on whether they have changed disclosure policies. Among those that responded, none said they are directly warning patients, according to the report. 

The post Hospitals weigh patient warnings amid ICE involvement appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

The White House launched TrumpRx.gov Feb. 5, a federal direct-to-consumer platform offering discounts on 40 high-cost prescription drugs.

The site was first announced in September when the administration began negotiating most-favored-nation pricing agreements requiring drugmakers to match U.S. prices to the lowest paid in other developed countries. As of February, 16 of the 17 largest pharmaceutical manufacturers had signed on to the framework.

The launch of TrumpRx is a key part of President Donald Trump’s 2026 healthcare proposal released Jan. 15, which calls on Congress to codify the most-favored-nation pricing model and expand access to direct-pay drug discounts. The platform is designed to reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients by bypassing traditional insurance and applying manufacturer-set cash prices directly.

Those discounts are already reflected in price reductions for many of the country’s highest-expenditure drugs. For example, Novo Nordisk’s oral Wegovy pill entered the U.S. market in January at $299 per month through a manufacturer-run self-pay program. On TrumpRx.gov, the same product is now listed at prices starting as low as $149, depending on dosage. Similar discounts apply to injectable GLP-1 therapies, insulin, fertility treatments and other branded drugs included in the initial rollout.

Five takeaways:

1. The site launched with 40 of the nation’s highest-cost brand-name drugs.

TrumpRx.gov offers direct access to manufacturer discounts for 40 medications widely prescribed for chronic, high-expenditure conditions. The administration said the platform focuses on drugs with the greatest out-of-pocket burden for patients and the highest annual spending across payers. Prices reflect “most-favored-nation” benchmarks — the lowest prices paid by other developed countries.

Depending on the manufacturer, patients can access these prices in one of two ways:

• Printable or digital TrumpRx coupons redeemable at retail pharmacies

• Manufacturer-integrated tools, such as ordering portals or fulfillment links built into TrumpRx.gov

TrumpRx.gov does not process payments but serves as a connector to manufacturer-run programs. Eligibility requires a valid prescription, and participation varies by drug.

2. Five manufacturers are participating under MFN pricing agreements.

The initial launch includes discounted products from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novo Nordisk and Pfizer — the first drugmakers to sign voluntary MFN pricing deals with the Trump administration. Additional manufacturers that have signed agreements will have products added to the platform over time.

3. Prices for GLP-1 drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity dropped by up to 85%.

These therapies are among the highest-spend medications in the U.S. Ozempic and injectable Wegovy dropped from $1,028 and $1,349 per month to average prices around $350, with some doses as low as $199. The newly approved Wegovy pill, which launched in January at $299 per month, is now available on the site starting at $149. Eli Lilly’s Zepbound was reduced from $1,088 per month to as low as $299. Pricing varies by dosage.

4. The platform includes fertility medications with significant out-of-pocket savings.

The administration said many patients pay for fertility drugs entirely out of pocket and will now save more than $2,000 per treatment cycle, on average. Gonal-F is listed as low as $168 per pen. Cetrotide and Ovidrel — both commonly used in fertility protocols — are discounted from $316 and $251 to $22.50 and $84, respectively.

5. Additional treatments are available for respiratory, dermatologic and hormonal conditions.

Several other high-cost medications were included in the first wave of pricing deals:

• Bevespi Aerosphere for COPD: $458 to $51
• Airsupra for asthma: $504 to $201
• Eucrisa for atopic dermatitis: $792 to $158
• Duavee for hot flashes and osteoporosis: $202 to $30
• Insulin lispro: as low as $25 per month

These medications are used to manage long-term conditions and were among the branded products listed with the steepest price reductions.

The post TrumpRx launches with discounts on 40 drugs: 5 takeaways  appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Clinical leaders across the country are well aware of the challenges individuals face when they are uninsured: delays in care and worsening health conditions, which ultimately lead to more complex and costly treatment.

The prospect of a widening pool of uninsured is increasingly an imminent reality. Millions of people are projected to lose insurance coverage in the coming years following the expiration of enhanced ACA tax credits and upcoming cuts to Medicaid under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Nearly 15 million people could become uninsured over the next decade: 5 million without an extension of the subsidies, and another 10 million under OBBBA’s Medicare and Medicaid provisions, according to estimates from the Urban Institute and Congressional Budget Office.

“Influxes of uninsured patients place significant strain on hospitals and health systems,” said Gena Lawday, BSN, RN, chief quality officer of UVA Community Health, part of Charlottesville, Va.-based UVA Health. “Gaps in chronic disease management, limited access to primary and specialty care, and reliance on the emergency department as a first point of contact for non-emergent conditions all contribute to overwhelming already vulnerable institutions. Hospitals and health systems can better prepare for this challenge through early intervention, strong community engagement and a focus on operational efficiency.”

To stay ahead of these challenges, health systems are prioritizing efforts to address social determinants of health, expand care in community settings and help patients navigate administrative hurdles to avoid lapses in coverage.

Becker’s spoke to three clinical leaders about how their systems are preparing to support uninsured patients and prevent deteriorating health that could result in emergency department visits.

Community partnerships and local care delivery

One consistent theme stood out in every leader’s remarks: Community partnerships are central to keeping patients connected to preventive care and avoiding further strain on already crowded emergency departments.

“We’ve been building a lot of relationships, and we’re only helping to strengthen those over the coming months,” said Baligh Yehia, MD, president of Philadelphia-based Jefferson Health.

The 33-hospital system works closely with a network of federally qualified health centers across Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Also known as community health centers, FQHCs provide primary care services and receive federal funding through grants and enhanced reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. This funding structure allows them to offer discounted care on a sliding scale, or in some cases, at no cost to patients based on income.

A number of Jefferson physicians serve as medical directors at these community clinics, and specialists from the system also rotate through the sites to ensure continuity of care.

Dr. Yehia said these centers will be a critical safety net to ensure vulnerable patients, particularly those with chronic conditions, continue to receive routine care.

For years, Durham, N.C.-based Duke Health has also partnered with local clinics to expand access to care for low-income and uninsured individuals, according to Alice Cooper, RN, medical director for access and associate chief medical officer for the Duke Health Integrated Practice. One of its most prominent collaborations is with Lincoln Community Health Center, a large FQHC serving about 40,000 patients annually. Duke supports the center financially and provides clinical staffing, Ms. Cooper said. 

Strengthening ties with community organizations isn’t just about expanding access to medical care; it’s about connecting patients to resources that help meet basic needs so they’re in a position to stay on top of their care in the first place, leaders said.

“It’s hard to talk to people about advanced care when they’re hungry or homeless, or their basic needs have not been met in a way that they would really care too much about prevention because their fundamental needs have not yet been addressed,” Ms. Cooper said. 

With more patients at risk of losing coverage, leaders say this moment has reiterated a longstanding but increasingly urgent commitment to address the social factors that affect a person’s health. When patients must pay out of pocket for care, it often means pulling from limited budgets meant for food, housing or education. Recognizing that, health systems are leaning more heavily into partnerships and programs that help fill these gaps. 

At Duke, much of that work is led by the system’s community health office, which is overseen by Ian Brown, who serves as the system’s chief community health and social impact officer. A familiar face in Durham’s neighborhoods, Ms. Cooper said Mr. Brown builds trust by routinely showing up in churches and other community spaces. There, he connects residents to resources ranging from local vaccine programs to food assistance.

Dr. Yehia said Jefferson has also ramped up its work in this area, forging new partnerships with food pantries and pharmacies to help ensure patients can afford medications and don’t go without necessities.

Similarly, Ms. Lawday said UVA Health has invested heavily in community outreach and prevention efforts. The system routinely conducts community-based screenings for high blood pressure and other chronic conditions, hosts chronic disease management classes and offers free immunization clinics. UVA has also taken steps to improve emergency department efficiency amid rising demand, implementing upright care processes designed to expedite treatment for patients with lower-acuity needs.

Many systems have long been engaged in these types of efforts, but leaders said the current environment has brought a new level of visibility and urgency to the work. The shift has prompted a sharper strategic focus, with greater resources dedicated to forging new partnerships. 

Navigation support and flexible access 

Health systems’ roles are expanding beyond care delivery, with some moving further upstream to prevent coverage loss and ensure patients can access care without disruption.

In addition to expanding community partnerships, Jefferson is focused on preventing coverage loss by identifying patients at risk of losing Medicaid and offering logistical support before lapses occur. A key concern stems from changes included under OBBBA, which introduces more frequent Medicaid eligibility redeterminations. The change, set to take effect in 2027, will require individuals to verify their eligibility every six months rather than once a year. Dr. Yehia said this could result in people losing coverage not because they’re ineligible, but because they miss paperwork deadlines or aren’t fully aware of the requirements.

In Pennsylvania, Jefferson’s primary market, up to 198,000 adults could lose Medicaid coverage under federal work requirements, according to an analysis from the Urban Institute. Many of these losses would likely result from confusion or administrative challenges.

“How do you make sure that you’re able to get ahead of that curve? We’re investing in navigation, in people and in technology to make sure that we’re keeping track of folks and of their eligibility — making sure that they’re able to get all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed to have their application resubmitted and be able to stay on insurance,” Dr. Yehia said.

With more people at risk of losing Medicaid, Ms. Cooper said it is imperative for systems to take stock of their access offerings and tailor them to the unique risks this population may face. For some people, taking time off work for a medical appointment could jeopardize their income or job stability.

“What would work for someone who just could not risk taking time away from work for fear of recrimination in the workplace? They’re working hard. Their Medicaid is at risk,” she said. “They can’t take a hit to their wages or their attendance because it could affect their long-term employment or stability of their family. So we have to think about, as a system, what access options are available and make it as easy as possible to get care.”

A return to pre-ACA strategies

In many ways, the strategies health systems are leaning on today mirror those from more than 15 years ago, before the Affordable Care Act significantly expanded coverage. At that time, many hospitals relied on local partnerships and free clinics to help patients access basic care.

While today’s healthcare landscape has a more structured safety-net infrastructure, many of the same tactics are resurfacing. Only this time, healthcare providers are operating under even greater financial and access pressures, requiring health systems to approach this work with more strategy and intention.

“It’s a little bit of ‘Back to the Future’ here.” Dr. Yehia. “We’re dusting off that playbook from before that we can now leverage.”

Moving forward, health system leaders say stronger policy action is needed to support safety-net providers and independent physician practices. Without additional support, a growing number of providers may be forced to scale back services or limit the number of uninsured patients they can accommodate. Such a shift could deepen strain on larger safety-net systems already caring for high volumes of Medicaid and Medicare patients.

“On a macro-level, we need to be aware of the delicate balance and web that keeps healthcare afloat in many areas,” Dr. Yehia said. 

The post How systems are preparing to care for a spike in uninsured patients appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Leaders at hospital providers nationwide tell me the same thing: “We can’t find enough physicians.” But here’s what the data actually shows—the issue isn’t just quantity, it’s location.

Data from our proprietary Covista Care Capacity Monitor—fielded by Gallup and surveying over 1,300 clinicians and 160 healthcare executives across all 50 states— confirms what healthcare leaders experience daily: physician shortages have become a measurable care quality crisis, with geography and community access playing an outsized role.

The Geographic and Socioeconomic Reality

85% of healthcare executives outside large metro areas say a shortage of talent in their geographic area is a major barrier to hiring, compared to just 45% in large metros. Within those metros, underserved urban communities face physician shortages just as severe, with safety-net hospitals and community clinics reporting the same physician recruitment challenges.

The hardest roles to fill? Family medicine (62%) and internal medicine (56%)—precisely the specialties rural communities and underserved urban neighborhoods alike need most. Whether practicing in a rural clinic or an urban safety-net hospital, physicians face similar capacity pressures—with clinicians in underserved areas consistently reporting that staffing shortages significantly impact care quality.

From my perspective overseeing medical education within America’s largest healthcare educator—graduating 790 MDs in 2023-2024 and 24,000 healthcare professionals across all disciplines—the data reveals why traditional recruitment strategies aren’t working: we’re trying to solve geographic problems with solutions that ignore where care gaps actually exist.

Why Recruitment Can’t Solve Geographic and Community Access Gaps

The conventional approach assumes the solution is recruiting harder. But recruitment can’t solve a problem that starts with capacity. U.S. medical schools have limited seats, turning away qualified students who are committed to becoming physicians and serving the communities that need them most. Broadening pathways to medical education creates access for these students. But that’s only part of the solution.

Even with an expanded medical school pipeline and the ability to graduate more practice-ready physicians, where they complete residency training largely determines where they practice. When residency placements concentrate in urban academic centers, physicians don’t end up in the underserved areas that need them most.

This structural mismatch explains why 68% of executives nationwide cite shortage of available talent in their geographic area as a major barrier. Whether they lead rural hospitals or urban safety-net systems.

Geographic and Community-Based Solutions for Systemic Problems

The answer isn’t to recruit harder. It’s to rethink how residency and clinical pathways connect to community needs—whether that community is a rural town or an urban neighborhood that’s been systematically underserved.

Here’s what we know from preparing physicians at scale: where they complete residency, training largely determines where they practice. Exposing students early to underserved communities through clinical rotations shapes where they pursue residencies. We provide clinical rotations in underserved areas, including hospitals like Sinai Chicago and Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, preparing graduates to serve patients where the need is great. The impact is measurable: more than 450 Covista students and graduates matched into primary care residencies, with over 55% training in primary care health professional shortage areas. We’ve created infrastructure connecting medical education to the communities facing the greatest physician shortages.

To further this momentum, healthcare systems must articulate what “practice-ready” means for their specific environment. Physicians prepared for rural practice need different clinical experiences than those bound for suburban academic centers. The same is true for physicians serving underserved urban communities, where clinical and social complexity requires specific preparation. The more precisely healthcare systems define these requirements, the more effectively education partners can build pathways that deliver.

The Strategic Shift Required

The Care Capacity Monitor reveals that 87% of executives are prioritizing adequate staffing for 2026. But the data also shows that it’s time to recalibrate strategies and solutions.

For healthcare executives, this means treating workforce development as infrastructure requiring long-term partnerships with education institutions—not as a recruiting problem to solve quarterly. It means articulating specific needs by specialty and location years ahead and building the pathways that connect medical education to your community’s residency programs. For a rural health system, urban safety-net hospital, or community health center, this could mean partnering with an education institution to create dedicated residency slots in their community, with commitments made three to five years in advance.

The physician shortage isn’t just a supply problem. It’s a geographic and access mismatch between where healthcare systems need physicians and where traditional training pathways concentrate them. Solving it requires education partners who can build pathways connecting medical graduates to the residency programs and clinical experiences all communities need—whether rural or underserved urban—and have the scale and commitment to create that alignment at the volume required.

Scott Liles serves as President of Medical and Veterinary at Covista, America’s largest healthcare educator. Covista graduated 790 MDs in 2023-2024—more than any U.S. medical school—and 24,000 healthcare professionals annually across all clinical disciplines.

The Covista Care Capacity Monitor combines survey data from 1,347 clinicians and 167 healthcare executives with labor market analysis from U.S. Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast and IPEDS. Explore the platform at covista.com/research.

The post The Hidden Geographic Mismatch Driving Physician Shortages appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

For nurses at Houston-based University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, tech adoption hinges on one question: Does it improve patient care?

“Nurses have long memories,” said Lavonia Thomas, DNP, RN, chief nursing informatics and innovation officer of MD Anderson. If a technology fails — especially as a result of them not being involved in the implementation process — they might be less likely to adopt it in the future.

The $7.3 billion organization is keeping this in mind as it explores how AI and other emerging technologies can give nurses and other clinicians more time at the bedside. In this Becker’s Q&A, Dr. Thomas and MD Anderson Chief Innovation Officer Dan Shoenthal explain why building trust and understanding workflows are critical to determining which tech succeeds.

Question: When it comes to AI, where are you seeing the most meaningful clinical or operational impact today, and where is it still more promise than reality?

Dan Shoenthal: Generally, the vast majority of solutions are promise, not reality. On the research side, in the therapeutic development space, we’ve seen promise from AI.

In terms of commercial solutions, there’s more hope than actual real impact being seen. Where we’ve seen impact is probably in simpler tasks. If you think about tools that have gotten a lot of press, it’s things like ambient solutions. What they do today is very simple — improving documentation, very basic tasks.

Other areas where we’ve seen promise are spaces like supply chain. There’s a lot of waste in healthcare, and there’s a lot of promise for cost savings there.

Dr. Lavonia Thomas: One of the things that comes to mind is you’ve got to build the foundation first. A lot of people want to talk about the AI solution — that’s the roof. There’s a lot in the middle.

With nursing, a lot of it is looking at what is out there, ideating, and matching what our problems are. There’s no point bringing AI in if it’s not going to solve a problem or help patient care. Nurses are the guardians and the patient advocates, and that’s a crucial question nurses are always going to ask.

Q: Innovation often fails at the point of adoption. What have you learned about integrating new technologies into clinical workflows?

LT: The success is going to depend on the workflow design, the nurse acceptance, and incremental trust building, more so than the sophistication of the technology itself.

I have not yet deployed AI in nursing. However, I have successfully led the integration and scaling of virtual nursing across MD Anderson, and that required many of the same principles.

We intentionally started by leveraging technology we already had. We didn’t deploy full in-room camera suites. We used iPads and launched secure video visits for the virtual nurse.

We selected very basic but very important workflows around admission and discharge. Those carry a significant administrative burden and pull bedside nurses away from other direct care activities.

Once they saw it in action, the list of workflows just grew exponentially. I fear that had we made all that capital asset investment before testing user acceptance, it would not have been as well accepted.

DS: At a broader institutional level, you have to have good partners and people who are deep domain experts.

Me trying to understand how a front-line nurse works is not going to meet the need. Some of the subtle things Lavonia pointed out, like user psychology, how people think about experimentation — if you don’t frame that properly, you might not be able to work with that group forever.

How I work with nursing is different from how I work with finance or supply chain. Different groups have different expectations and different day-to-day stresses.

Q: Ambient AI has been more challenging to apply in nursing workflows. How are you approaching that?

LT: We’re talking to nurses about the struggles they have with documentation, getting them to ideate around what this technology could do, and letting them look at the technology.

Sometimes you introduce something and it doesn’t work, but that’s as much knowledge as if it does work. It’s not the technology — it’s the work design and the user adoption that’s either going to say this is successful or not.

DS: We had experimented with ambient technology on the physician side prepandemic. We paused the effort, but we learned a lot. The technology wasn’t ready, and the practice patterns weren’t ready. Fast forward three years, and now we’re deploying those technologies broadly on the provider side and beginning experimentation within nursing.

Q: How do you think about ROI, especially given the cost of AI investments?

DS: One element of the foundation, especially with AI, is data. We made a fairly significant investment in maturing our data infrastructure and our data strategy.

With ambient tools, we haven’t necessarily seen a hard-dollar return, but we’ve seen very positive impact in terms of cognitive load for providers and enhanced patient experience. At some level, it’s hard to measure that financially.

Q: Looking five to 10 years ahead, how do you expect emerging technologies to change cancer care delivery?

DS: What we’ve been focused on is setting up a culture and environment that creates a flywheel for innovation. One bet we’re placing is that for the first time in a long time, we’re going to untether providers from machines. Ambient solutions are a first step in allowing providers and patients to engage at a much deeper level.

LT: Our North Star is whatever we do, we do it to give the front-line nurse more hands-on time with the patient.

Q: How else are you engaging nurses in shaping the future of innovation?

LT: We’re hosting innovation days where nurses can see what 2035 could look like and talk to us about how they feel about that.

We’ve established innovation units and an innovations work group largely comprised of front-line nurses. We’re launching a work-sampling study to delineate pain points.

The introduction of technology for technology’s sake is only going to increase the workload of the nurse, and that is not where we want to go.

The post Why nurses are AI gatekeepers at MD Anderson appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Hospital supply chain leaders say the playbook that worked just a few years ago no longer holds. 

Global economic instability, fragile supplier networks, pricing pressures and uneven clinical purchasing patterns inside hospitals are converging at the same time health systems are demanding greater savings from supply operations — leaving leaders to rethink how reliability, cost control and clinical alignment can coexist. 

At Ventura, Calif.-based Community Memorial Healthcare, Michael Alfaro, director of materials management, said the most acute pressure comes from the intersection of forces both outside and inside the organization.

“The biggest challenge right now is the collision between macroeconomic volatility and internal clinical variation,” Mr. Alfaro said.

He pointed to tariffs, geopolitical instability and reimbursement uncertainty as structural cost drivers colliding with physician preference items that fall outside committed contracts. That combination, he said, can undermine market share strategies and prior value analysis work unless governance and physician alignment are tightly integrated.

At Tewksbury, Mass.-based Covenant Health, Eric Berger, system director of supply chain, described a different but equally persistent challenge: managing competing priorities across operations and contracting while trying to justify investment in supply chain expertise.

“The things that keep me up at night are the assorted competing priorities that impact the supply chain,” Mr. Berger said.

He said supply chain teams are balancing product availability and continuity alongside price increases — both on and off GPO contracts — while margins remain tight. Staffing teams with the right skill sets for analytics, utilization and technology is increasingly difficult, particularly when demonstrating ROI is an uphill battle.

“But that is a hard sell in organizations where the margin is tight and everyone is being asked to do more with less,” Mr. Berger said.

For some leaders, the biggest concern is no longer price alone, but reliability. Don Barton, chief technical officer and director of supply chain management at Shelbyville, Ind.-based Major Health Partners, said single-source dependencies and vendor instability have elevated sourcing risk to a clinical issue.

“The biggest supply chain challenge keeping me up at night right now is ensuring long-term dependability and reliability when selecting products,” Mr. Barton said.

In response, his team has shifted vendor selection criteria away from lowest cost and toward supply chain resilience, evaluating factors such as dual sourcing, geographic diversification and delivery performance. Contract structures are also evolving to include stronger safeguards against disruption.

At Little Rock, Ark.-based Baptist Health Medical Group, Lisa Farmer, corporate vice president of supply chain, said the deeper challenge lies in healthcare’s pricing and reimbursement structures themselves.

“For me, it’s beyond common supply chain issues like shortages, substitutes and inventory management,” Ms. Farmer said.

She questioned why product pricing often remains disconnected from reimbursement realities, pointing to uniform GPO pricing despite wide variation in state-level reimbursement and value delivered.

“All things I think we need to attempt to disrupt,” she said.

The post What keeps supply chain leaders up at night appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

President Donald Trump signed the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act into law Feb. 3 after the House voted 217-214 to approve it, ending a three-and-a-half-day partial government shutdown.

The vote saw 21 Republicans reach across party lines to vote no and 21 Democrats vote yes. 

The partial shutdown began Jan. 31 after Congress missed a Jan. 30 funding deadline. While the Senate voted 71-29 to pass the revised package late Jan. 30, it stalled in the House for three more days before making it to President Trump’s desk. The package included appropriations for five agencies, including HHS, through Sept. 30, plus a two-week stopgap measure for the Department of Homeland Security, a major point of contention in negotiations.

However, the two-week DHS funding extension merely delays the next potential challenge. Should lawmakers not be able to reach an agreement by Feb. 13, with Democrats demanding reforms to the administration’s immigration enforcement operations, another partial shutdown could take effect later this month, CBS News reported Feb. 3.

During the partial shutdown, HHS furloughed 23,128 employees, 31% of staff, but retained 51,082 employees through its fiscal 2026 lapse plan.

Here are five notes: 

1. The law includes $116.6 billion to HHS while reducing departmental spending by more than $100 million, according to a news release from Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., Republican chairman of the  House Appropriations Committee. 

It comprises $49 billion for the National Institutes of Health to maintain national leadership in biomedical research on cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and chronic diseases. The legislation also increases funds for mental health and substance use block grants, including programs such as first responder training grants, State Opioid Response Grants, suicide prevention grants and medication-assisted treatment services for substance use disorders.

2. The package extends pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities through 2027 and the CMS hospital-at-home waiver through Sept. 30, 2030. The shutdown disrupted hospital-at-home programs even before the new waiver extension took effect, as temporary lapses required hospitals to pause services to avoid violating Medicare Conditions of Participation. The package also eliminates scheduled Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payment cuts, delaying the next potential reductions until fiscal 2028.

3. Primary care is prioritized under the legislation, with $418 million for rural health, targeting rural hospitals at risk of closure and expanding rural residency opportunities. The funding package maintains $1.9 billion for community health centers that provide care in underserved communities and provides $1.4 billion to strengthen the healthcare workforce in rural and underserved areas. It also includes $1.2 billion for maternal and child health.

4. The law eliminates the CDC’s Social Determinants of Health program. It also provides $3.2 billion for medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, a $73 million increase.

5. The package includes pharmacy benefit manager reform-related provisions that expand CMS oversight of PBMs in Medicare Part D. The bill requires the groups to report detailed data on drug pricing, rebates, pharmacy reimbursement and payments retained by PBMs and their affiliates and authorizes audits and enforcement actions, including requiring PBMs to repay money they were not allowed to collect or keep. It also directs CMS to monitor reimbursement and network participation trends for “essential retail pharmacies,” with reporting requirements to begin in 2028.

The post Government reopens after partial shutdown: 5 healthcare takeaways appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Massachusetts has the most hospitals per 100,000 rural residents while Delaware has the fewest, according to a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill report.

The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC-Chapel Hill used CMS’ rural health transformation program data to determine the number of healthcare facilities and population in rural communities. The report includes population, hospital and non-hospital facilities, and uncompensated care in every state. The data was published in October.

Here is how the states stack up with respect to hospitals per 100,000 rural residents:

1. Massachusetts: 13.99
2. North Dakota: 12.13
3. South Dakota: 10.40
4. Kansas: 9.54
5. Nebraska: 9.49
6. Montana: 9.44
7. Florida: 8.80
8. Arizona: 7.38
9. Iowa: 6.76
10. Nevada: 6.62
11. Alaska: 6.55
12. Wyoming: 6.37
13. Minnesota: 6.37
14. Louisiana: 6.40
15. Connecticut: 6.19
16. Oklahoma: 6.02
17. Washington: 5.38
18. Hawaii: 5.31
19. Illinois: 5.95
20. Colorado: 5.85
21. Utah: 5.80
22. Idaho: 5.50
23. New York: 5.03
24. Michigan: 4.92
25. Texas: 4.89
26. West Virginia: 4.80
27. Wisconsin: 4.76
28. Mississippi: 4.68
29. Arkansas: 4.64
30. New Mexico: 4.44
31. California: 4.20
32. Alabama: 4.21
33. Rhode Island: 4.04
34. Ohio: 3.86
35. Indiana: 3.88
36. Pennsylvania: 3.83
37. Maine: 3.90
38. Georgia: 3.68
39. Missouri: 3.66
40. Oregon: 3.65
41. Virginia: 3.56
42. Kentucky: 3.43
43. Tennessee: 3.21
44. South Carolina: 3.21
45. New Hampshire: 3.20
46. Vermont: 2.95
47. New Jersey: 2.90
48. North Carolina: 2.50
49. Maryland: 1.86
50. Delaware: 1.64

In 2024, the Sheps Center published a report with the number of total hospitals per state. Read the report here.

The post States with the most rural hospitals per 100,000 appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Research College of Nursing — a private institution in Kansas City, Mo., that is affiliated with Research Medical Center and part of Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Healthcare — is launching a new accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing pathway.

Approved by the Missouri State Board of Nursing, the 12-month program is designed for students without a prior bachelor’s degree, according to a Feb. 3 news release shared with Becker’s. It aims to reduce student debt and accelerate entry into the nursing workforce. HCA said it is the first offering of its kind in the region.

The launch coincides with the opening of the college’s new $36.5 million, 78,000-square-foot campus, which welcomed students in January. The facility includes a Center for Clinical Advancement located on the Research Medical Center campus, expected to be completed in 2026 — the college’s 120th anniversary year.

The first cohort in the fast-track program is set to begin in May.

Research College of Nursing is part of HCA Midwest Health, which includes more than 10,000 employees across seven hospitals, clinics, surgery centers and outpatient facilities.

The post HCA nursing college to launch fast-track BSN program  appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

While U.S. population growth slowed significantly between 2024 and 2025, five states recorded population growth rates of at least 1%, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau released Jan. 27.

Here are four things to know:

1. U.S. population growth increased 0.5%, or 1.8 million people, between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025. This marked the slowest growth since 2021, when the population increased 0.2%.

This period of slower growth followed 1% growth in 2024, or 3.2 million people, which was the fastest annual population growth rate since 2006.

2. The slowdown was largely attributed to a decrease in net international migration, which fell from 2.7 million to 1.3 million during the same period — a 53.8% decline.

3. All four census regions and every state, except Montana and West Virginia, experienced slower population growth. 

4. South Carolina was the fastest-growing state, with its population increasing by 79,958 residents, or 1.5%. This marked a slight decrease from the state’s 1.8% growth rate in 2024.

Here are the 10 fastest-growing states in the U.S. based on population percent growth from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025:

1. South Carolina: 1.5%

2. Idaho: 1.4%

3. North Carolina: 1.3%

4. Texas: 1.2%

5. Utah: 1.0%

6. Delaware: 0.9%

7. Washington: 0.9%

8. Arizona: 0.9%

9. Nevada: 0.9%

10. Tennessee: 0.9%

The post The 10 fastest-growing states in the US appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Many U.S. emergency departments operate “good enough,” and this level of performance is harming patients, margins and morale, according to a Jan. 29 report from Kaufman Hall. 

“Average ED performance is not neutral. It is a decision to tolerate risk, leakage, patient dissatisfaction and variable quality of care,” the report said. “It exposes patients to avoidable harm, quietly erodes margin and accelerates workforce fatigue, while signaling to patients that mediocrity is an acceptable standard.”

The typical ED has a median door-to-provider time between 25 and 45 minutes, as well as a left-without-being-seen rate of 3% to 5%. These EDs usually operate with reactive staffing models, thus creating predictable bottlenecks in patient flow, according to the report. 

“Many EDs staff to historical averages in daily volume, arrival patterns and acuity,” the report said. “But emergency care is defined by variability. Arrival patterns change by hour, day and season. Fluctuations can quickly overwhelm resources.”

Additionally, “staffing to averages guarantees average outcomes” while fueling burnout for an already strained workforce, the report said.  

Kaufman Hall recommends EDs staff to demand not based on historical averages but on patient arrival data and predictable surges. The report also underlines the importance of ensuring physicians, nurses and support staff operate in tiers that are flexible to demand shifts. 

Read the report here. 

The post ‘Average’ ED performance linked to low care quality: Report appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

As rural hospitals face the brunt of workforce shortages, their CEOs are taking a more proactive — and creative — approach to recruitment and retention.

Recruitment has become a greater strategic focus for Rozanna Penney, CRNA, president and CEO of Heywood Healthcare in Gardner, Mass., over the past year. While shortages are not unique to the region, their effect is felt most acutely in rural areas, she said.

“Unlike large systems, we do not have an active residency program that creates a natural pipeline of new providers,” Ms. Penney said. “Our practices are smaller and have less bench depth, so we seek clinicians who are comfortable practicing with greater independence and clinical breadth.” 

Heywood Healthcare is intentionally recruiting physicians and advanced practice providers who are mission-driven and value a private-practice feel, she said.

“As one of the very few remaining independent community hospitals, we operate with significantly less red tape and bureaucracy than practices owned by large systems, allowing physicians and [advanced practice providers] not only to focus on patient care but also to actively partner with leadership in clinical and operational decision-making,” she said.

That approach has resonated especially in challenging times. Heywood Healthcare emerged from bankruptcy in 2024, a period that tested the organization under “extraordinary pressure.”

“We demonstrated not only our resilience but also how we lead, collaborate and uphold our values in the most challenging circumstances,” Ms. Penney said. “That experience resonates with motivated, high-performing physicians who want a meaningful voice in shaping care delivery and who are committed to improving the health and well-being of the communities in which they live and practice.”

She added that the organization offers a compelling value proposition for the right candidates.

“For providers who value proximity to nature, such as hiking and skiing, clean air, affordable land and housing, and strong school systems, our region is a hidden gem, just an hour from Boston,” Ms. Penney said. “Massachusetts is not often thought of as a rural healthcare market, but once providers experience our community and practice environment, they tend to stay for the entirety of their careers. Our challenge, and our opportunity, is to be strategic and intentional about telling that story and getting the word out.”

Recruitment also looks different in Hugo, Colo., where Lincoln Health CEO Kevin Stansbury said the system has partnered with an immigration law firm to support international nurse recruitment, primarily for its long-term care facility and, to a lesser extent, its acute care hospital.

Culture fit is a central element of Lincoln Health’s recruitment strategy, Mr. Stansbury said.

“First, we want to make sure that the physicians we recruit to our community understand what it’s like to live in a remote frontier community where it’s roughly 100 miles in any direction to the next closest hospital,” he said. “There are people who want to live in those communities, and that’s what we’ve been successful finding.”

Growing the local pipeline

In addition to international recruitment, Lincoln Health is investing in growing its local workforce. COO Carrie Owens, BSN, RN, recently began teaching a certified nursing assistant course for high school students through a local community college.

Heywood Healthcare is also working to strengthen its support workforce by expanding training programs for medical assistants, Ms. Penney said.

“Strengthening this pipeline not only supports our clinicians at the top of their licenses but also creates meaningful career pathways for local residents and helps ensure long-term workforce resilience,” she said.

At Scotland County Hospital in Memphis, Mo., recruitment has been a major focus for CEO Meagan Weber for the past three years. In 2022, the hospital launched high school medical clubs through its local school district, where a hospital coordinator works with school counselors to introduce students to various healthcare roles.

Students are offered observation hours across hospital departments. Since launching, the hospital has recruited and hired four nurses and one lab technician from the club.

“This is our biggest recruitment focus, along with adding funds to our education assistance programs through the hospital,” Ms. Weber said. “Leading a rural hospital means hiring people who understand and appreciate rural living, so growing our own is one of the best things we can do for our future healthcare team.”

Retention through culture

Recruitment remains a top priority for rural hospitals, but so does retention. At Lincoln Health, the latter has benefited from a strong, values-driven culture.

“We’re never going to be able to compete with the bigger systems financially, but I can give nurses an opportunity to do different things,” Mr. Stansbury said. “I can make sure they know how much I appreciate them.”

He said culture-driven gestures can have a significant impact.

“I can foster an environment where our medical staff is very respectful to other clinical staff, and that our service and support staff feel empowered to do the right thing,” he said. “Those are the kinds of things we can do, and it doesn’t cost me any money to do that.”

Lincoln Health has not used agency nurses for the past 15 to 20 years, he added.

“That’s just a testament to the community and the kind of folks that we have working here, and also a commitment from the board and the leadership that we’re really going to value people,” Mr. Stansbury said. “We can’t compete financially, but we can whip the urban systems with our culture.”

The post Rural hospital CEOs lean on culture, local talent to fill roles appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

In healthcare organizations, office politics are often misunderstood. They’re usually assumed to  be about power, intent, or personal agendas. But in most cases, politics don’t begin that way.  They start as an adaptation. 

Hospitals and health systems are complex, high-stakes environments. Decisions are  interconnected, timelines are compressed, and the cost of misalignment is real. In that context,  people learn quickly where decisions truly take shape, which conversations matter before a  meeting, and whose early input helps work move rather than stall. 

Early on, none of this feels political. 

It feels practical. 

Alignment becomes less about agreement and more about readiness. Leaders and teams check in  early, share ideas upstream, and surface concerns before they slow execution. In healthcare,  surprises create friction with real consequences, so uncertainty gets handled early and often  privately. 

Most people don’t call this politics. 

They call it being responsible. 

Over time, however, the meaning of alignment begins to change. 

Meetings increasingly become places where direction is confirmed rather than formed. Input  happens earlier and more selectively. The goal shifts from testing ideas in real-time to ensuring  they land cleanly when they are publicly presented. 

First, this improves execution. Decisions move faster. Conflict decreases. The organization feels  more coordinated and efficient in environments where reliability and speed matter; this can feel  like progress. 

But gradually, access begins to matter more than clarity. 

Not because leaders prefer it, but because systems reward actions that reduce friction. 

Those who are consistently included early gain disproportionate influence, not because anyone  planned it that way, but because patterns that work get reused. Paths that smooth momentum get  reinforced. Over time, proximity becomes a quiet advantage. 

This is where office politics are often misread. 

What appears to be power is often not ambition or manipulation. It’s a system responding to  complexity. People adapt to the signals around them. They learn where speaking up accelerates  outcomes and where it hinders them.

The shift rarely shows up as resistance. 

It shows up as an absence. 

Questions become fewer, not because people stop thinking, but because they learn which  thoughts will travel and which won’t. Curiosity narrows. Direct challenges move offline or  disappear altogether. People still engage, but more carefully. 

Directness is often the first thing to go. Not honesty. Honesty thrives in side conversations and  one-on-one interactions. Directness requires a space where uncertainty is welcome, and when  alignment has already been established upstream, that space becomes increasingly challenging to  find. 

From the outside, things often look smoother. 

From the inside, something subtle has changed. 

Alignment was never meant to replace thinking. 

It was intended to aid in thinking. 

Pre-work, early conversations, and upstream input exist to strengthen decisions, not shield them from scrutiny. However, when access becomes the primary means by which ideas are  disseminated, the system stops testing direction and starts protecting it. 

The cost is rarely apparent. 

It isn’t creativity disappearing overnight or morale collapsing. It’s judgment. People stop trusting  that their perspective will shape outcomes unless it has already been endorsed. Leaders hear  fewer early signals and more late confirmations. Decisions feel cleaner, but less informed. 

Nothing feels unethical. 

Nothing feels broken. 

But efficiency, left unchecked, becomes fragile. 

When leaders view office politics as a personal or moral issue, they often overlook the real  problem. These behaviors are rarely about power. They’re about survival inside complex systems  that reward predictability, speed, and alignment. 

Understanding that distinction matters. 

When politics are interpreted as intent, leaders react emotionally. When they’re understood as an  adaptation, leaders can see what the system is quietly teaching people to do. What gets  rewarded? What gets delayed? What eventually stops being offered altogether. 

Most people adapt without realizing they’ve adapted. They don’t feel compromised. They feel  realistic, professional, and aligned.

And maybe that’s the hardest part. 

Because once a system teaches people how to survive inside it, the real question isn’t whether it  works. 

It’s whether it still hears what it needs to hear early enough to change course.

The post Office politics in healthcare aren’t about power. appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Researchers forecast the national prevalence of obesity to rise from 42.5% of the U.S. adult population in 2022 to 46.9% by 2035, according to a study published Jan. 28 in JAMA. 

In the U.S., approximately 20% of children and 40% of adults have obesity, according to the CDC. 2035’s The projected prevalence of the chronic disease by 2035 is a notable increase from the 1990 prevalence, which was 19.3%. 

The study calculated projected obesity prevalence rates across groups divided by race and ethnicity, state, sex and age. Women, Black men, Latino men and women, and residents of Midwestern and Southern states have higher projected prevalence rates than other groups, but all groups are predicted to have increased obesity rates by 2035. 

Conducted by researchers at Seattle-based University of Washington, the study predicted 126 million U.S. adults will have obesity by 2035. In 2022, that figure was 107 million, and in 1990, 34.7 million. 

The post 47% of US adults to have obesity by 2035: Study appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Nearly 23 million people have enrolled in ACA marketplace plans for 2026, down from 24.2 million in 2025, according to the latest data from CMS published Jan. 28.

For the 30 HealthCare.gov states, the data is through Jan. 15. For the 20 state-based exchanges plus D.C., the data is through Jan. 10.

The 1.2 million enrollment decline (roughly 5%) hit both new and returning enrollees. New enrollees fell to 3.4 million from 3.9 million, while returning consumers dropped to 19.6 million from 20.2 million.

Since 2025, North Carolina enrollment has decreased 22% (975,110 to 761,457), Ohio enrollment has decreased by 20% (583,443 to 469,616), and West Virginia, Indiana, Delaware, and Arizona all declined by at least 15%.

Texas has seen the largest gain, adding 206,000 enrollees (up 5% to 4.17 million). Florida, despite losing nearly 197,000 enrollees year-over-year, remains the largest marketplace state at 4.54 million enrollees. New Mexico enrollment has grown 14% to more than 80,000.

The latest enrollment figures come nearly a month after the enhanced subsidies expired on Dec. 31, following months of failed negotiations that included the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The House passed a three-year extension on Jan. 8, but the measure faces slim chances in the Senate, where a similar bill failed in December. 

A bipartisan group of senators has continued negotiating a compromise. Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said Jan. 28 that Republicans are preparing a “best and final” offer to Democrats on a two-year extension that would impose new income limits and expand health savings account eligibility, Politico reported.

The post ACA enrollment falls to 23 million for 2026 appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

U.S. life expectancy at birth reached 79 years in 2024, an all-time high, according to data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

Four notes:

1. The death rate for the U.S. population declined by nearly 4% in 2024, according to a Jan. 29 news release from the center. 

2. The death rate reached 722.1 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2024, down from 750.5 in 2023. As a result, life expectancy at birth increased from 78.4 years in 2023 to 79 years in 2024.

3. The U.S. saw the largest decrease in drug overdose death rates ever recorded, exceeding the record set in 2018. The rate declined 26.2% between 2023 and 2024, from 31.3 to 23.1 per 100,000. A total of 79,384 U.S. residents died from a drug overdose in 2024.

4. A separate CDC report from Jan. 14 found Vermont, Rhode Island and New York had the largest decreases in predicted drug overdose deaths between August 2024 and August 2025, each exceeding 35%.

The post US life expectancy hits all-time high amid decline in drug overdose deaths appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Casey Fleckenstein, BSN, RN, has been promoted to CEO of Monroe County Hospital in Forsyth, Ga.

Ms. Fleckenstein most recently served as hospital administrator and chief nursing officer, according to a January news release from the hospital. She has more than 20 years of experience with Monroe County Hospital and began her nursing career there.

The appointment was approved during a Jan. 22 hospital authority board meeting.

The post Georgia hospital promotes administrator to CEO appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Over the past year, healthcare supply leaders say their most critical supplier relationships have shifted from transactional purchasing arrangements to deeper, more strategic partnerships — often with new expectations, governance demands and operational complexity.

Rather than pointing to a single indispensable vendor, some leaders emphasized the growing need to maintain resilience across an ecosystem of partners.

“There is no single critical relationship — they are all critical,” said Larry Kennedy, executive director of campus operations and logistics at Jefferson Regional Medical Center in Pine Bluff, Ark. Mr. Kennedy said supply chain leaders must maintain strong relationships with distributors, manufacturers, group purchasing organizations and alternative sourcing partners, while balancing short- and long-term planning to avoid shortages.

That diversification reflects a broader industry lesson from recent years: Dependence on any one source can introduce risk. But in practice, several organizations report that certain partners have become especially central — particularly distributors and strategic cost-reduction firms.

At Community Memorial Healthcare in Ventura Calif., Director of Materials Management Michael Alfaro said the organization’s distribution partner has become its most critical supplier relationship, given its influence over product availability, pricing stability and day-to-day operational continuity.

As reliance on that distributor has grown, Mr. Alfaro said the relationship now requires closer alignment on contract compliance, savings goals and shared performance metrics to reduce hidden service costs.

“Balancing scale and standardization with flexibility and responsiveness during supply disruption remains the primary challenge,” he noted, adding that data transparency and disciplined governance have become essential.

At Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Chief Supply Chain Officer Michael McCaffrey pointed to a different kind of critical partnership — one focused on driving indirect, non-labor cost savings, rather than managing product flow. Over the past year, the health system has expanded its work with an external sourcing and cost-optimization partner, a shift that has required rethinking governance structures, communication workflows and stakeholder alignment.

“As the velocity and scope of work increased, it required us to rethink how to structure our partnership by aligning governance, communication, shared targets and stakeholder engagement so that both teams could operate at the pace required,” Mr. McCaffrey said. He described the collaboration as more integrated than a traditional vendor relationship, pairing external sourcing expertise with OHSU’s internal institutional knowledge.

That deeper level of transparency and joint problem-solving, Mr. McCaffrey said, has been necessary in managing coordination challenges in a large academic health system — and has already generated multimillion-dollar recurring savings that can be reinvested into mission priorities.

Nonetheless, leaders say the common thread is that supplier dependence now brings new operational expectations. What were once arm’s-length vendor relationships increasingly require shared accountability, real-time data visibility and governance structures that resemble strategic alliances more than procurement contracts.

As non-labor categories grow in scale and complexity, Mr. McCaffrey expects more health systems to adopt similar partnership models. And, as Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Alfaro suggested, the challenge ahead will be balancing efficiency, flexibility and risk — while ensuring no single relationship becomes a single point of failure.

The post How strategic supply partnerships are reshaping hospitals appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Faced with staffing shortages, administrative strain and geographic barriers, rural hospitals are increasingly adopting AI to expand care access and ease pressure on front-line teams. Rather than pursuing large-scale tech overhauls, many are implementing lightweight, targeted tools that support documentation, scheduling and care coordination.

A new American Hospital Association report released Jan. 26 highlights how hospitals such as Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health and Lewistown-based Central Montana Medical Center are applying AI to improve care delivery without adding staff or infrastructure.

Here are three findings from the report:

1. Documentation support frees up physician time.

Central Montana Medical Center, a 25-bed hospital, introduced ambient AI scribing to reduce the burden of clinical documentation. Physicians reported fewer after-hours charting demands and said the tool allowed them to focus more fully on patient care. Some said they would consider leaving if the tool were taken away.

2. Outreach tools improve appointment follow-up.

Sanford Health implemented an AI-powered outreach system that raised appointment connect rates from 40% to 56%. By automating routine follow-up coordination, the tool helped reduce gaps in care and allowed access teams to focus on higher-value tasks.

3. Virtual care expands behavioral health access.

More than 12,000 patients accessed mental health services for the first time through Sanford’s virtual care program. AI-supported infrastructure, including documentation and remote workflows, enabled clinicians to scale care across rural areas while maintaining quality and continuity, the report said.

The post 3 ways rural hospitals are using AI to boost access appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Healthgrades published its annual “America’s Best Hospitals Awards” Jan. 27, recognizing 250 hospitals across the country for strong quality performance.

The list recognizes the top 50, 100 and 250 best hospitals, representing the top 1%, 2% and 5% of hospitals in the country for clinical excellence, respectively, the consumer platform said in a news release. For the ranking, Healthgrades analyzed clinical performance for 4,500 hospitals across 30 common procedures and conditions. It covers Medicare data from 2022 through 2024. Full details on the methodology can be found here.

Healthgrades’ estimates more than 211,000 lives could be saved annually if all U.S. hospitals performed similarly to the top 250.

Below are the top 50 hospitals in 2026, per the ranking:  

Arizona

Mayo Clinic Hospital (Phoenix)

California

Mills-Peninsula Medical Center (Burlingame) 

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (West Hollywood) 

Sutter Roseville Medical Center (Roseville)

Northridge Hospital Medical Center (Northridge) 

Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (Mission Hills) 

Stanford Hospital 

Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas

Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (Oakland) 

Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego

Colorado

HCA HealthONE SKY Ridge (Lone Tree)

Connecticut 

Norwalk Hospital

Florida 

Mayo Clinic in Florida (Jacksonville)

AdventHealth Orlando

Cape Coral Hospital

Naples Community Hospital

Lee Memorial Hospital (Fort Myers) 

HCA Florida Kendall Hospital (Miami) 

Gulf Coast Medical Center (Fort Myers) 

Georgia

Emory University Hospital Midtown (Atlanta) 

Emory St. Joseph’s Hospital (Atlanta) 

Illinois

Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (Park Ridge)

Maryland

Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (Baltimore) 

Michigan

Beaumont Hospital, Troy

Ascension Providence Hospital-Southfield Campus

Minnesota

Mayo Clinic Hospital, St. Marys Campus (Rochester) 

Mayo Clinic Health System Mankato

North Carolina

Mission Hospital (Asheville) 

New Jersey 

Morristown Medical Center 

Overlook Medical Center (Summit) 

New York 

Vassar Brothers Medical Center (Poughkeepsie) 

Lenox Hill Hospital (New York) 

Stony Brook University Hospital

NYU Langone Hospitals (New York City) 

Mercy Health-Fairfield Hospital

Ohio

Mercy Health-Fairfield Hospital 

The Jewish Hospital-Mercy Health (Cincinnati) 

Mercy Health-West Hospital (Cincinnati) 

Akron City Hospital

Mercy Health-St. Elizabeth Youngstown Hospital

Pennsylvania 

Lancaster General Hospital

Lankenau Medical Center (Wynnewood) 

Chester County Hospital (West Chester) 

Reading Hospital 

St. Luke’s Hospital-Bethlehem Campus 

Riddle Memorial Hospital (Media) 

Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (Hershey) 

Texas

Houston Methodist Hospital 

Virginia

Inova Loudoun Hospital (Leesburg) 

Washington 

Evergreenhealth Medical Center-Kirkland 

West Virginia 

Cabell Huntington Hospital

The post 50 best hospitals in 2026: Healthgrades appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

While healthcare job gains drove overall U.S. employment growth in December, the sector’s momentum has slowed below its 2024 and 2025 averages.

Healthcare added an average of 56,000 jobs per month in 2024, but that figure fell to 34,000 in 2025. December saw just 21,100 new jobs in the sector, according to the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

Across industries, most companies are planning to maintain or reduce headcount in 2026. Only 1 in 3 CEOs say they plan to increase their workforce size.

Several policy changes are affecting hiring at hospitals and health systems. Three healthcare organizations have announced job cuts in 2026, including Pomona (Calif.) Valley Hospital Medical Center, which plans to eliminate 265 positions due to state and federal funding reductions. In 2025, more than 90 hospitals and health systems planned job cuts, including Oakland, Calif.-based Alameda Health System, which cited funding cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in its December decision to cut 296 jobs.

Uncertainty surrounding a new $100,000 fee tied to H-1B visa applications is also influencing hiring. As teaching hospitals await confirmation of potential exemptions for physicians and medical residents, many are deploying contingency plans. These include hiring more physician assistants, paying the fee for a reduced number of residents or reconsidering candidates who require H-1B sponsorship.

“We’re going to be as creative as we can to keep the workforce going,” Eric Appelbaum, DO, senior executive vice president and COO of New York City-based SBH Health System, told AAMC News.

Meanwhile, U.S. demographic shifts are expected to deepen healthcare workforce shortages in the future. The population is projected to slow over the next three decades before eventually shrinking, with the number of Americans 65 and older growing faster than younger cohorts.

Health system leaders say these trends present long-term workforce challenges.

“I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the generational shift in the workforce,” said Richard Lofgren, MD, president and CEO of Oklahoma City-based OU Health. “That shift is more profound than previous ones we’ve seen. If you approach workforce management monolithically, without understanding these generational differences, you simply aren’t going to optimize your talent.”

At the same time, new technologies are creating anxiety for workers. While fears of mass job loss from artificial intelligence have spread across many industries, healthcare has been largely insulated. However, AI has already reached hospitals and health systems, Sunil Dadlani, executive vice president and chief information, digital and cybersecurity officer of Morristown, N.J.-based Atlantic Health System, told Becker’s in August.

“From clinical decision support to revenue cycle automation, AI is already augmenting workflows, accelerating diagnosis and streamlining administrative tasks,” Mr. Dadlani said. “Roles in medical coding, documentation, scheduling, and even elements of diagnostics are increasingly supported — or replaced — by intelligent systems.”

The post Healthcare’s hiring spree cools off appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

As health systems head into 2026 amid margin pressure, policy uncertainty and rising demand, executives are converging around a shared set of priorities. Across responses from CEOs, CFOs and senior leaders, the message was consistent: growth must be disciplined, operationally grounded and closely tied to mission and access.

Becker’s gathered insight from 89 hospital and health system executives from across the U.S. who will speak at the 16th Annual Meeting, April 13-16 at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago. Here are the 10 themes cited most often by healthcare C-suite leaders when asked how they plan to balance stability with growth in the year ahead.

Hospital and health system leaders can apply for a complimentary reviewer badge here. Interested in sponsorships? Download the prospectus here.

1. Workforce stability as the foundation for everything else. Workforce stability is the prerequisite for both financial performance and growth. CEOs and CFOs emphasized that retention, engagement and staffing sustainability matter more than recruitment alone. Several noted that premium labor, turnover and burnout directly erode margins and limit capacity. Investments in leadership development, scheduling flexibility, housing, well-being and practicing at the top of license were consistently framed as growth enablers, not cost centers. Without a stable workforce, growth strains the organization rather than strengthens it.

2. Disciplined operating models and cost transformation. Executives repeatedly stressed that stability in 2026 depends on operational rigor and cost discipline. CEOs described the need to execute quickly, eliminate waste and standardize work before pursuing expansion. CFOs highlighted margin protection through labor management, expense control and productivity improvements rather than blunt cost cutting. Many leaders said they are embedding operating systems, Lean management and daily performance management to hardwire discipline. They noted operational excellence creates the financial headroom required for responsible growth.

3. Intentional, mission-aligned growth. Bigger is not inherently better. Growth decisions are increasingly being filtered through mission, community need and long-term sustainability. CEOs described focusing on where to win — specific service lines, geographies or populations — rather than broad expansion. Several cautioned that pursuing volume without operational readiness leads to instability and staff fatigue. The shared priority is purposeful growth that strengthens access, outcomes and financial resilience simultaneously.

4. Technology and AI as efficiency levers, not disruption. AI and digital tools appeared frequently, but rarely as standalone strategies. CEOs and CFOs framed technology as a way to reduce administrative burden, automate routine work and scale operations without adding linear cost. Leaders emphasized platform consolidation, governance and reliability over experimentation for its own sake. Many noted that AI must be paired with workflow redesign to deliver real ROI. The dominant theme was pragmatic adoption by using technology to fund growth by stabilizing operations.

5. Revenue cycle performance and denial reduction. Financial leaders highlighted revenue integrity as a top 2026 priority. Reducing denials, improving documentation, accelerating authorizations and tightening front-end processes were cited as essential to stability. Multiple CFOs stressed that organizations cannot afford uncompensated effort as reimbursement tightens. Leaders framed revenue cycle improvement as both a defensive and growth strategy, protecting earned revenue while freeing capital for reinvestment.

6. Access expansion through ambulatory, virtual and digital care. Many CEOs identified access, not inpatient volume, as the primary growth lever for 2026. Ambulatory care, virtual services and outpatient capacity were described as lower-cost, higher-leverage ways to meet demand. Leaders emphasized aligning access expansion with throughput, length-of-stay reduction and capacity management. Several noted that growth increasingly means seeing more patients without adding beds.

7. Standardization and systemness across the enterprise. Large system leaders frequently pointed to the need to operate as one system rather than a collection of sites. Standardized platforms, clinical pathways, staffing models and governance are seen as critical to absorbing growth without introducing variability. CEOs described systemness as a way to unlock scale advantages while improving reliability. CFOs linked standardization directly to cost control and predictability. Then growth works best when it plugs into a system that already functions well.

8. Culture, trust and leadership alignment. Culture surfaced as a recurring and operational priority. Leaders emphasized transparency, shared accountability and frontline trust as essential to executing difficult changes. Several CEOs noted that stability comes when teams understand the “why” behind decisions and feel included in them. Culture was framed not as a soft concept, but as a driver of performance, retention and adaptability. In uncertain times, aligned leadership and consistent messaging were seen as stabilizing forces.

9. Value-based care and population health focus. Many executives highlighted deeper investment in value-based care, population health and care management as part of their 2026 strategy. Leaders cited the need to manage risk, reduce avoidable utilization and align incentives across the continuum. Technology and data were frequently mentioned as enablers of these models. While acknowledging the complexity of the transition, CEOs and CFOs agreed that long-term stability depends on moving beyond pure volume-based growth. The emphasis was on balancing near-term margin needs with longer-term value creation.

10. Financial resilience and capital stewardship. Leaders returned to the importance of balance sheet strength and financial resilience. Maintaining bond ratings, liquidity and disciplined capital allocation were cited as prerequisites for growth. CFOs emphasized scenario planning, conservative assumptions and protecting core services. CEOs are describing “resilience” as the ability to invest through uncertainty rather than react to it.

The post 10 themes for health system growth in the next year appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Wyoming is the best state to retire in 2026, according to a Jan. 26 ranking from personal finance website WalletHub.

To create the list, WalletHub compared each state across 46 indicators in three categories: affordability, quality of life and healthcare. Metrics included adjusted cost of living, share of population aged 65 and older, elderly food insecurity rate, access to public transportation, family medicine physicians per capita and home health aides per capita.

Each of the four major U.S. Census regions had at least one state in the top 10.

Here are the 10 best and worst states to retire in 2026, according to WalletHub:

10 best

1. Wyoming

2. Florida

3. South Dakota

4. Colorado

5. Minnesota

6. Alaska

7. Delaware

8. Pennsylvania 

9. New Hampshire

10. Iowa 

10 worst

41. New Mexico

42. Rhode Island

43. Washington

44. Arkansas

45. New York

46. Hawaii

47. West Virginia

48. Mississippi

49. Oklahoma

50. Kentucky

The post 10 best, worst states to retire in 2026 appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Seven hundred and thirty-four rural hospitals across the U.S., which represent one-third of all rural facilities nationwide, are at risk of closing due to severe financial problems, according to the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform’s most recent analysis.

The hospitals now classified as at risk of closure represent a slight improvement from CHQPR’s previous analysis, when 756 rural facilities faced a closure risk. 

More than 100 rural hospitals have also shut their doors over the last decade, leaving millions of Americans without access to emergency rooms and inpatient care in the areas they live. An additional 44 hospitals have ended inpatient services since 2023 to qualify for federal grants exclusively available to rural emergency hospitals, the report said. 

The report said inadequate payments from private insurance companies is a primary driver for the hospital closures. Almost half of rural hospitals lose money delivering patient services, with costs per patient running higher in smaller, rural communities versus urban areas due to less residents served relative to fixed service costs.

Three hundred and nine hospitals are at immediate closure risk due to the severity of their financial challenges. In 10 states, 50% or more of rural hospitals are at risk. Facilities with the greatest risk of closure have exhausted financial reserves and carry more debt than assets.

Preventing these closures would cost around $6 billion annually, 0.1% of total national healthcare spending, the report states.

“Most of the higher spending would support primary care and emergency care, since these are the biggest causes of losses at most small rural hospitals,” the report said. “Spending would likely increase as much or more if hospitals close, because reduced access to preventive care and failure to receive prompt treatment will cause rural residents to be sicker and need more services in the future.”

The following state-by-state breakdown shows rural hospitals facing closure risk within six to seven years and those at immediate risk of shutting down in the next two to three years.

Alabama
28 hospitals at risk of closing (58%)
22 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (46%) 

Alaska
2 hospitals at risk of closing (12%)
1 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (6%) 

Arizona
4 hospitals at risk of closing (15%)
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (0%) 

Arkansas
31 hospitals at risk of closing (66%)
12 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (26%) 

California
16 hospitals at risk of closing (27%)
5 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (8%) 

Colorado
10 hospitals at risk of closing (23%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (5%) 

Connecticut
3 hospitals at risk of closing (75%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (50%) 

Delaware
0 hospitals at risk of closing
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years 

Florida
8 hospitals at risk of closing (36%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (14%) 

Georgia
25 hospitals at risk of closing (34%)
11 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (15%) 

Hawaii
8 hospitals at risk of closing (62%)
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years

Idaho
10 hospitals at risk of closing (37%)
1 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (4%)

Illinois
16 hospitals at risk of closing (20%)
8 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (10%) 

Indiana
9 hospitals at risk of closing (16%)
8 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (15%) 

Iowa
9 hospitals at risk of closing (10%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (2%) 

Kansas
68 hospitals at risk of closing (68%)
30 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (30%) 

Kentucky
15 hospitals at risk of closing (22%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (3%) 

Louisiana
25 hospitals at risk of closing (45%)
11 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (20%) 

Maine
10 hospitals at risk of closing (42%)
4 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (17%) 

Maryland
0 hospitals at risk of closing
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years 

Massachusetts
2 hospitals at risk of closing (29%)
1 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (14%) 

Michigan
9 hospitals at risk of closing (14%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (5%) 

Minnesota
19 hospitals at risk of closing (20%)
6 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (6%) 

Mississippi
35 hospitals at risk of closing (52%)
24 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (36%) 

Missouri
28 hospitals at risk of closing (49%)
10 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (18%) 

Montana
16 hospitals at risk of closing (30%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (6%) 

Nebraska
6 hospitals at risk of closing (8%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (4%) 

Nevada
4 hospitals at risk of closing (29%)
1 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (7%) 

New Hampshire
4 hospitals at risk of closing (22%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (11%)

New Jersey
0 hospitals at risk of closing
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years

New Mexico
8 hospitals at risk of closing (30%)
2 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (7%) 

New York
23 hospitals at risk of closing (45%)
15 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (29%) 

North Carolina
9 hospitals at risk of closing (16%)
6 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (11%) 

North Dakota
14 hospitals at risk of closing (37%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (8%) 

Ohio
7 hospitals at risk of closing (9%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (4%) 

Oklahoma
48 hospitals at risk of closing (65%)
20 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (27%) 

Oregon
7 hospitals at risk of closing (21%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (9%) 

Pennsylvania
17 hospitals at risk of closing (33%)
9 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (17%) 

Rhode Island
1 hospital at risk of closing (100%)
1 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (100%) 

South Carolina
7 hospitals at risk of closing (32%)
4 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (18%) 

South Dakota
6 hospitals at risk of closing (12%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (6%) 

Tennessee
17 hospitals at risk of closing (33%)
13 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (25%) 

Texas
84 hospitals at risk of closing (55%)
23 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (15%) 

Utah
0 hospitals at risk of closing
0 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years 

Virginia
8 hospitals at risk of closing (26%)
5 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (16%) 

Washington
19 hospitals at risk of closing (42%)
7 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (16%) 

West Virginia
13 hospitals at risk of closing (38%)
6 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (18%) 

Wisconsin
12 hospitals at risk of closing (15%)
5 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (6%) 

Wyoming
6 hospitals at risk of closing (22%)
3 at immediate risk of closing in the next two to three years (11%)

The post 734 hospitals at risk of closure, by state appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Hospitals are increasingly seeking out new financial arrangements for energy management, transitioning capital expenditures into operating expenses, according to a report from Moody’s Investor Services.

“Hospitals and health systems are embracing [Energy as a Service] models to address aging utility infrastructure, enhance energy efficiency and support sustainability initiatives,” the report notes. “EaaS arrangements typically involve long-term partnerships with third-party providers who design, build, finance, operate and maintain energy systems. These models require limited upfront capital investment, allowing institutions to redirect financial resources while gaining access to modern energy technologies and expertise.”

Five takeaways from the report:

1. More health systems are choosing to outsource building maintenance and upgrades because there are predictable operating costs in the outsourced contracts as compared to owning the infrastructure outright.

2. The outsourcing strategy provides improved energy efficiency and lower upfront costs for hospitals, in addition to advanced technologies for energy management. Hospitals can avoid large capital expenditures as a result.

3. Some health systems are using EaaS to make progress on green and sustainability goals to reduce their carbon footprint.

4. Moody’s predicts hospitals will further deploy alternative energy sources to align their financial and sustainability goals.

5. EaaS does have some incremental costs and rigidity, which could lead to higher financing expenses for health systems as compared to traditional debt.

“The credit impact of EaaS projects will vary over time, depending on provider guarantees and financial strength,” the report notes. “As health systems continue to modernize and pursue sustainability, EaaS models are likely to play an increasingly important role, though institutions will need to carefully assess the long-term financial and operational implications of these arrangements.”

The post Hospital rethink energy infrastructure spend: 5 notes appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Readmission penalties for hospitals with greater Medicare Advantage penetration are distorted, possibly due to unobserved severity, according to a University of Michigan of Ann Arbor study published Jan. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

CMS’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program is a value-based initiative designed to deter readmissions and promote patient and caregiver engagement with discharge plans.

The researchers evaluated Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program data across fiscal years 2019 to 2022, focusing on six conditions targeted by the program: acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, pneumonia, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and elective primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. The study encompassed 3,203 hospitals.

Here are four notes from the research:

1. After accommodating for MA penetration, estimates suggested hospitals in the first quintile of Medicare Advantage penetration were penalized $30,746 more on average versus those in the fifth quintile, which were penalized $26,915 less.

2. Peer grouping, or comparing hospitals to only similar ones, did not resolve the penalty differences.

3. Average MA penetration increased from 25.3% to 29.9% throughout the studied timeframe. 

4. Unobserved severity — patient well-being factors that may not present in claims data — could be one issue in the program. Risk adjustment may not account for every indicator of patient status. “Because MA beneficiaries are unobservably healthier than traditional Medicare counterparts on average, hospitals with greater MA beneficiary shares likely have unobservably higher-severity TM populations,” the paper said.

The post Hospital readmission penalties shift based on Medicare Advantage penetration: Study appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

A common acute care discharge order, “follow up in one week with primary care,” is a virtually impossible task amid ever-growing waitlists at primary care clinics across the U.S. So what if healthcare facilities stopped defaulting to this order? 

That is a question Craig Cheifetz, MD, president of Inova Health System’s primary care service line, is working through alongside a clinical council at the Fairfax, Va.-based system. 

Inova is approaching the patient access issue from several angles, including shared medical visits, e-consults, primary care walk-in clinics and plans for an after-hours virtual clinic.

Improving access to care could also be done through hiring more people and building more care facilities, but there is another, less expensive approach, according to Dr. Cheifetz, who has worked at Inova for about 29 years. 

For months, Dr. Cheifetz and the clinical council have discussed the idea of changing follow-up discharge orders based on each patient’s needs. The usual “follow up in one week” discharge order is more of a reflex than a national or organizational guideline, he said. 

As president of the system’s primary care service line, he oversees approximately 330 primary care physicians and advanced practice providers at 30 primary care clinics in Northern Virginia. A constant frustration that reaches his ears is around the routine “follow up in one week” order.

“If a very busy emergency room for the majority of time says, ‘Follow up with primary care in one week,’ those who really need it are going to be struggling against those who may not need it,” Dr. Cheifetz said. 

Similar to triage in emergency medicine, it could be beneficial to examine a patient’s readmission risk, condition and other factors to determine the appropriate timeline for a follow-up. If everyone receives the same time frame of one week, it clogs the system and sets an impossible goal.

“If the patient’s medical situation stipulates they need that [one week] follow up, that makes complete sense,” he said. “But we’re talking specifically about chronic, stable follow up, not somebody who has a changing situation.”

Shifting the cadence of follow-up discharge orders can create capacity for new patients and higher acuity cases by breaking the routine of writing “follow up in three months” orders for chronic, stable cases, Dr. Cheifetz said.

For example, if there are Type 2 diabetes patients who are seen every three months but can be safely moved to a four-month follow-up cadence, capacity opens up. 

“As I go out there and talk to folks, all I’m saying to them is, ‘I’m not getting on a soapbox and saying anybody’s wrong,’” he said. “I’m saying, ‘Look at your data to determine if you have capacity that won’t impact your patients or your clinical outcomes.’ So you can say it’s a hypothesis, but it’s a hypothesis that we can watch carefully in healthcare.”

Inova is in the education and technology phase of the idea, Dr. Cheifetz said. The system is working to build algorithms to educate and prompt providers to ask themselves, What is the appropriate follow-up timing for this patient? Does this patient need to be seen in seven days, or can they be seen in 14 days? 

“We’re naturally increasing capacity, without hiring more people and without building more sites and potentially [being] able to get people in sooner,” Dr. Cheifetz said. “This is just a piece to our strategy playbook to try to enhance access.”

The post Is ‘follow up in 1 week’ costing health systems capacity? appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

A number of hospitals and health systems are reducing their workforces amid ongoing financial strain. Executives have cited a mix of factors — including lower reimbursement, rising labor and supply costs, and the need to realign operations — as drivers of these decisions. For many organizations, the moves are part of broader efforts to stabilize finances and preserve long-term sustainability.

Below are job eliminations announced in 2026.

Editor’s note: This webpage was created Jan. 23 and will be continually updated.

January

Pomona (Calif.) Valley Hospital Medical Center shared plans to eliminate 265 positions amid significant state and federal funding cuts. The 427-bed nonprofit community medical center said the cuts affect management, clinical and nonclinical roles, including seven registered nurses. 

Ogdensburg, N.Y.-based North Star Health Alliance shared plans to eliminate more than 100 positions across its clinical and nonclinical and management teams. The health system comprises Carthage (N.Y.) Area Hospital, Ogdensburg, N.Y.-based Claxton-Hepburn Medical Center and Medical Campus, and Watertown, N.Y.-based North Country Orthopaedic Group, according to its website. 

Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health is transitioning certain nonpatient-facing revenue cycle functions to an external partner, resulting in a 10.5% reduction in positions across the department, the health system confirmed in a statement shared with Becker’s. The health system, which has about 133,000 employees across 25 states, declined to provide further details, including how many employees will be affected.

The post The hospitals, health systems cutting jobs in 2026 appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Hospitals and healthcare facilities are rescheduling appointments, stocking up on medical supplies and coordinating with maintenance crews before a brutal winter storm sweeps across two-thirds of the U.S.

The National Weather Service expects a “significant, long-duration winter storm” to travel across the country, starting in the Southwest on Jan. 23 to the Northeast by Jan. 25. 

Heavy snow, “catastrophic ice accumulation” and “bitterly cold temperatures and dangerously cold wind chills” will begin in the Southern Plains as the storm moves northeastward, covering the Mississippi Valley, Southeast and the Northeast. 

Snowfall will exceed 12 inches in some regions, creating hazardous travel conditions. Widespread freezing rain and sleet will likely prompt power outages and infrastructure damage, according to the National Weather Service. 

CVS and Walgreens are reminding patients to refill and pick up prescriptions as soon as possible. Walgreens also said patients with temperature-sensitive medications, such as insulin, should review storage instructions in the event of a power outage. 

Several hospitals and health systems told local news outlets they are preparing accommodations for staff, including housing and food, and setting up command centers to ensure continuity of care during dayslong power outages. 

Also in preparation for power outages, Tennova Healthcare in Knoxville, Tenn., told CBS affiliate WVLT it has secured mobile backup generators with plans to keep its hospitals and emergency departments open during the storm. 

With subfreezing temperatures and ice accumulation in Fort Worth, Texas, the city’s government has brined all roadways leading to hospitals. 

In North Carolina, health system leaders told ABC 11 their hospitals will remain open but added that operations at outpatient clinics could be limited. Employees at Durham, N.C.-based Duke University Health System have contacted some infusion and dialysis patients to reschedule appointments. 

UVA Health in Charlottesville, Va., is also rescheduling outpatient clinic appointments and nonurgent procedures. The four-hospital system is also working to discharge inpatients ahead of the storm to create more capacity, according to WVIR, an affiliate of NBC and The CW. 

In Maryland, where snow could reach between 5 and 18 inches, Annapolis-based Luminis Health is considering rescheduling elective surgeries and delaying opening outpatient centers, according to The Baltimore Banner.

The post US hospitals brace for severe winter storm appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Bainbridge, Ga.-based Memorial Hospital and Manor hopes to leverage the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to make technology improvements, the Post-Searchlight reported.

The organization, which includes an 80-bed hospital and long-term and personal care facilities, is eligible for the $219 million that Georgia received as part of the initiative. The health system is targeting robotic and cybersecurity updates.

“Robotics is super expensive, and it’s in very limited places throughout the southeast part of Georgia,” Memorial Hospital and Manor CEO LaDon Toole told the news outlet. “If we were able to get robotics, that’d be wonderful, but it’s a very big price tag — over $2 million to have robotics in this hospital. But you’re not gonna find a surgeon in the future if you don’t invest in technology because they’ll go to other places.” 

The hospital was hit with a ransomware attack in 2024, after which it partnered with the Georgia Cyber Innovation and Training Center on a pilot program to identify its cybersecurity weaknesses, according to the Jan. 22 story. But the organization could stand to add more servers and further boost its cyber defenses.

The post Georgia hospital plans tech upgrades with rural health funding appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.

Goshen (Ind.) Hospital made a bold commitment in November: implementing a maximum 1-to-4 nurse-to-patient staffing ratio across all inpatient units.

The move reflects a strategic shift to reinvest funds traditionally spent on overtime and incentive pay into sustainable nurse staffing — a decision aimed at strengthening retention, improving care, and ultimately reducing costs, according to Julie Crossley, MSN, RN, the hospital’s chief nursing officer. The 1-to-4 ratio serves as an upper limit, not a blanket assignment, she said in an interview with Becker’s. Many units, such as critical care and step-down, frequently operate with fewer patients per nurse based on acuity.

Just a few months into the change, Goshen is already seeing signs that the investment is paying off. Some veteran nurses who had been weighing retirement say they now plan to stay longer, and early indicators point to improved patient care and stronger staff engagement.

Becker’s recently spoke with Ms. Crossley about what prompted the hospital to act now, how leaders determined the 1-to-4 threshold, and what early outcomes suggest about the sustainability of the model.

Question: What made now the right time for this decision, and what internal or external signals prompted action?

Julie Crossley: We identified an opportunity to redirect funds previously spent on overtime and incentive pay; to invest in staffing through improved nurse-to-patient ratios. This strategy will help us create a sustainable and supportive professional practice environment. The return on this investment is through improved patient outcomes and lower turnover costs. Attracting and retaining nursing talent is fundamental to achieve organizational priorities.

Q: How did you determine that a 1:4 ratio was the optimal threshold for both patient safety and nurse sustainability at Goshen? Were there specific clinical outcomes or workforce indicators that influenced this choice?

JC: Research demonstrates the strongest predictor of patient safety and highest quality of care, is safe nurse-to-patient ratios. And the reality is, that the work nurses are tasked with today is incredibly challenging. Over the last 27 years, I have watched the growing demands placed on nurses leading to record numbers of burnout in the profession.

Seasoned nurses are leaving at rates that are faster than the schools of nursing can prepare new grads. Addressing manageable workloads improves nurse well-being and strengthens our workforce, which will lead us to that highest quality of care. We have always had great staffing as a Magnet organization. This workforce strategy is a bold commitment to have the best staffing in our region. We expect this to not only attract but also retain nursing talent. Through data analysis and benchmarking, we determined one to four patient ratios was the commitment level necessary. And based on the inquiries and phone calls I have received from across the state, the reaction suggests one to four was the right decision.

Q: What was the most significant barrier you and your leadership team faced in putting this into practice? How did you work through it?

JC: Our analysis and planning determined that this was the appropriate strategy for Goshen Health. If you want different outcomes, different approaches are necessary. The barrier we face is filling the handful of open positions to have the necessary workforce to achieve one to four or less everyday. Through our successful recruiting, I expect the barrier to be addressed soon. 

Q: Many hospitals voice concern that strict staffing ratios can be financially unsustainable or misaligned with flexible, team-based models of care. What is your response to those who say staffing ratios are too rigid for today’s care delivery landscape?

JC: Our analysis confirmed that this strategy was really one that was cost effective. It’s redirecting funds that we have historically been spending on incentive pay, traveler costs, overtime — all associated with the workforce. By doing this and strengthening our staffing ratios, we’re going to be more cost effective in the long run. What healthcare organization right now is not looking to be cost effective?

We expect a healthier work environment, improvements in quality of patient care, patient experience and nurse well-being. A strong workforce positively impacts the outcomes a healthcare organization is trying to achieve. Investing differently will lead Goshen to achieving and sustaining those outcomes. I am excited to see some of the early signs, validating this was the right strategy for us.

I understand the comments about rigidity with staffing ratios. I believe healthcare organizations face challenges and must determine their individual approach with the resources they have. For Goshen, the analysis was very clear. 

Q: What early signs or feedback have you received since the shift — from nurses, patients, or other care team members?

JC: At the end of the day, when nurses care for fewer patients, patients have better care. Staffing is about giving that individualized care that patients deserve, and creating this environment where nurses can thrive. I can tell you that we’ve already seen some pretty positive outcomes since we’ve made this move. Naturally, when you increase the number of nurses, you improve outcomes. To name a few, I’ve walked these halls, and some of the seasoned nurses were telling me leading up to this decision that they were not sure that they could continue with the workload as it is today. Following this announcement, those seasoned nurses shared with me that they were considering retirement, and now they plan to stay longer. That is significant, especially when you look at the experience complexity gap that exists within healthcare today. Retaining seasoned nurses is huge.

Initially, we have experienced some other positive changes. Adherence to bedside reporting has improved, leading to a better patient experience. We have noted fewer call lights in the hospital environment, and observe more patients being walked in the halls. When you think about nurse sensitive indicators like falls and HAPIs, changes in progressive mobility have positive effects on quality of care and length of stay. We have seen improved communication and engagement in safety huddles and colleagues are leaving their shifts on time, decreasing overtime and improving work-life balance. These changes are improving our outcomes on all levels, organizationally, for the patient and the nursing colleagues. 

Q: Earning Magnet with Distinction reflects excellence across many domains. Of all the elements that had to be “done well” for Goshen Hospital to achieve that honor, what’s one area you’d point to as exceptionally strong or defining for Goshen’s nursing culture?

JC: I believe we were the fifth organization to have received that level of distinction. Our culture is built on the foundation of empowering our colleagues through a program which we call ‘The Uncommon Leader.’ The underpinnings of that recognize that colleagues who are closest to the work can identify opportunities for improvement — improvement in many of our pillars.

At Goshen, the uncommon leader culture provides the foundation for our strong professional governance structure in nursing. Colleagues are empowered to shape the decisions that truly influence their clinical practice. Nurses own their professional practice, and have the opportunity to drive improvements around quality, satisfaction and work environment. 

The post Why one hospital set a 1:4 cap on nurse-to-patient ratios appeared first on Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis.