Bill Overview
Title: State Offices of Rural Health Program Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This act reauthorizes through FY2027 grants awarded to state offices of rural health for improving health care in rural areas.
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: People residing in rural areas
Estimated Size: 57000000
- The bill is focused on reauthorizing grants for state offices of rural health, which directly impacts healthcare infrastructure in rural areas.
- Rural areas can have disproportionately older populations, meaning this could affect a significant number of elderly individuals.
- Healthcare professionals in rural areas may also be directly impacted as funds could influence their working conditions and resources available to them.
- Improved healthcare in rural areas can have downstream effects on the general health and quality of life of individuals residing there.
Reasoning
- The policy is targeted at rural areas, aiming to improve healthcare infrastructure via state grants. It primarily affects residents of rural regions and healthcare workers there.
- Given the budget constraints and target population size, not every individual in rural areas will experience a drastic change immediately.
- There is a direct positive impact likely on healthcare workers due to improved work conditions and resources, which can have cascading benefits to patients as well.
- People with chronic conditions or elderly populations might experience more substantial changes in their wellbeing due to better healthcare access.
- Policymakers and implementers must carefully distribute resources to avoid inequality in improvements across various rural regions.
Simulated Interviews
retired (rural Kansas)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings more doctors to our area. We often have to travel far for specialists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
nurse (rural Mississippi)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's often a shortage of supplies, and funding could really make our lives easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
teacher (rural Montana)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We could definitely use some better healthcare facilities around here for my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
farmer (rural West Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in local healthcare would be fantastic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
student (rural Oregon)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think it'll impact me much, at least not in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
general practitioner (rural Alabama)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding could make a big difference in patient care quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
homesteader (rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved healthcare access would really help with managing my arthritis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
supermarket manager (rural Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better healthcare might ease my mind about future health issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
factory worker (rural North Carolina)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More healthcare resources would mean we won't have to travel as much for emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
retired librarian (rural Vermont)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this change brings some peace of mind for healthcare, it's quite stressful now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $85000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program primarily addresses rural healthcare disparities, which are significant due to geographic and demographic factors.
- Ensuring effective disbursement and utilization of funds by state offices is crucial to maximize impact.
- Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms could help assess the program's effectiveness and refine future funding allocation.