The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Media. The editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.
By: JAY VANIER
Kansas is competing with all 49 other states for a share of nearly $50 billion in federal rural health funding, money that will shape hospital survival and healthcare access through 2030.
Kansas submitted its 60-page application, but here’s what Kansans weren’t told:
By failing to convene a special session, the Legislature forfeited its ability to guide how Kansas negotiates this massive federal deal.
The special session of the Kansas legislature which failed to materialize was in part about ensuring the Legislature had oversight before the Governor entered a five-year agreement with CMS that will determine:
• Which hospitals get priority
• Which regions are funded
• What performance standards Kansas must meet
• How money flows for the rest of the decade
Without the Legislature in session, all negotiations now occur without checks, balances, or rural input.
Kansas Risks Losing Out
Experts estimate Kansas could receive around $500 million in base funding, if our plan is accepted. But the remaining $25 billion is competitive, and CMS favors states that show:
• Unified governance
• Legislative oversight
• Strong rural planning
• Clear accountability
Because Kansas couldn’t unify on a procedural vote, our application is less competitive. A special session could have added oversight, protected rural regions, aligned budgets, and demonstrated the unity CMS rewards.
As a resident of Salina, I see how deeply rural communities rely on Salina Regional Health Center, which serves patients all the way to the Colorado border. If Kansas receives less funding or weaker terms, rural Kansans, not policymakers, will feel the consequences through longer drives, fewer services, and more strain on local hospitals.
KDHE, KRHIA, and the KU Health System Care Collaborative worked hard under pressure to submit Kansas’ application. But they should not have been the only voices shaping a five-year federal agreement.
Kansas should have entered negotiations with:
• A united Legislature
• Rural representation
• Statutory safeguards
• Clear, shared priorities
Instead, the state goes into federal negotiations divided and at a disadvantage.
Rural Kansans understand what hospital closures and thin staffing mean for their communities. Decisions made in Topeka without rural involvement carry real consequences for families along and west of I-135.
When lawmakers return in January, they must restore oversight, strengthen transparency, and ensure Kansas is prepared to compete for the full amount of federal rural health funding.
Rural health is too important for unilateral decisions. Kansas needs bipartisan leadership, and unity when the stakes are this high.
You can send us your opinions/letters to the editor, along with your name, city and or county location to [email protected]