The aftermath of floods, hurricanes and other disasters can be hardest on older rural Americans – here's how families and neighbors can help
If a disaster causes injuries, getting health care can take longer in rural areas. Many rural hospitals have closed, leaving patients traveling longer distances for care.
At the same time, rural areas have higher percentages of older adults, a group that is more likely to have chronic health problems that make experiencing natural disasters especially dangerous. Medical treatments, such as dialysis, can be disrupted when power goes out or clinics are damaged, and injuries are more likely around property damaged by flooding or powerful winds.
As a sociologist who studies rural issues and directs the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder, I believe that understanding the risks is essential for ensuring healthier lives for older adults. I see many different ways rural communities are helping reduce their vulnerability in disasters.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20% of the country's rural population is age 65 and over, compared with only 16% of urban residents. That's about 10 million older adults living in rural areas.
There are three primary reasons rural America has been aging faster than the rest of the country: Young people have been leaving for college and job opportunities, meaning fewer residents are starting new families. Many older rural residents are choosing to 'age in place' where they have strong social ties. And some rural areas are gaining older adults who choose to retire there.
An aging population means rural areas tend to have a larger percentage of residents with chronic disease, such as dementia, heart disease, respiratory illness and diabetes.
According to research from the National Council on Aging, nearly 95% of adults age 60 and older have at least one chronic condition, while more than 78% have two or more. Rural areas also have higher rates of death from chronic diseases, particularly heart disease.
At the same time, health care access in rural areas is rapidly declining.
Nearly 200 rural hospitals have closed or stopped providing in-patient care since 2005. Over 700 more — one-third of the nation's remaining rural hospitals — were considered to be at risk of closing even before the cuts to Medicaid that the president signed in July 2025.
Hospital closures have left rural residents traveling about 20 miles farther for common in-patient health care services than they did two decades ago, and even farther for specialist care.
Those miles might seem trivial, but in emergencies when roads are damaged or flooded, they can mean losing access to care and treatment.
After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 44% of patients on dialysis missed at least one treatment session, and almost 17% missed three or more.
When Hurricanes Matthew and Florence hit rural Robeson County, North Carolina, in 2016 and 2018, some patients who relied on insulin to manage their blood sugar levels went without insulin for weeks. The county had high rates of poverty and poor health already, and the healthy foods people needed to manage the disease were also hard to find after the storm.
Insulin is important for treating diabetes – a chronic disease estimated to affect nearly one-third of adults age 65 and older. But a sufficient supply can be harder to maintain when a disaster knocks out power, because insulin should be kept cool, and medical facilities and drugstores may be harder for patients to reach.
Rural residents also often live farther from community centers, schools or other facilities that can serve as cooling centers during heat waves or evacuation centers in times of crisis.
Cognitive decline also affects older adults' ability to manage disasters.
Over 11% of Americans age 65 and older – more than 7 million people – have Alzheimer's disease or related dementia, and the prevalence is higher in rural areas' older populations compared with urban areas.
Caregivers for family members living with dementia may struggle to find time to prepare for disasters. And when disaster strikes, they face unique challenges. Disasters disrupt routines, which can cause agitation for people with Alzheimer's, and patients may resist evacuation.
Living through a disaster can also worsen brain health over the long run. Older adults who lived through the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami were found to have greater cognitive decline over the following decade, especially those who lost their homes or jobs, or whose health care routines were disrupted.
One thing that many rural communities have that helps is a strong social fabric. Those social connections can help reduce older adults' vulnerability when disasters strike.
Following severe flooding in Colorado in 2013, social connections helped older adults navigate the maze of paperwork required for disaster aid, and some even provided personal loans.
Friends, family and neighbors in rural areas often check in on seniors, particularly those living alone. They can help them develop disaster response plans to ensure older residents have access to medications and medical treatment, and that they have an evacuation plan.
Rural communities and local groups can also help build up older adults' mental and physical health before and after storms by developing educational, social and exercise programs. Better health and social connections can improve resilience, including older adults' ability to respond to alerts and recover after disasters.
Ensuring that everyone in the community has that kind of support is important in rural areas and cities alike as storm and flood risks worsen, particularly for older adults.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Lori Hunter, University of Colorado Boulder
Read more:
3 ways the Trump administration could reinvest in rural America's future
5 tips for hurricane disaster planning with aging parents starting now, before the storms
Hurricane Ian: Older adults have many reasons for not evacuating – here's why it's important to check on aging neighbors
Lori Hunter receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Chicago's safety net hospitals face potential service cuts, layoffs after signing of ‘big, beautiful' tax bill
Christine Mertzelos is trying to avoid having her leg amputated. Twice a week, a hospital van carries her from her home in Wrigleyville to the wound clinic at Humboldt Park Health, where a diabetic ulcer on her ankle is cleaned, treated and dressed. At one point, the ulcer wrapped nearly all the way around her lower leg - a situation that can lead to amputation if not controlled. The ulcer, however, has shrunk significantly. "This place has been a lifesaver for me," said Mertzelos, 61. "Without this clinic I don't know what I would do." She and others, however, are worried they may have to find out in coming years. The recent signing of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" has thrown into question the future of services at safety net hospitals like Humboldt Park Health that care for large numbers of people on Medicaid. The new law will slash an estimated $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next 10 years to help pay for tax cuts and enhanced border and national security, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Humboldt Park Health will likely see an additional $5 million to $7 million in losses annually once the changes go into effect, said CEO Jose Sanchez. The hospital typically has an operating margin of about $1 million annually. "I came in this morning and met with senior leaders and said, 'We've got to begin to think about how do we position ourselves to face the potential cuts we'll have,'" Sanchez said earlier this week. About 75% to 80% of Humboldt Park Health's patients are on Medicaid, and the hospital employs about 1,000 people, he said. "When you absorb the magnitude of those cuts, that means now you are beginning to make a decision of what services you are not going to provide," Sanchez said. "When you eliminate services, you eliminate people as well." As a state, Illinois stands to lose about $48 billion in federal funding for Medicaid over 10 years, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. More than 330,000 Illinois residents - or nearly 11% of those now on Medicaid - are at risk of losing their health care coverage over the decade, according to Manatt Health, which provides legal and consulting services in health care. New work requirements for certain adults on Medicaid don't go into effect until late December 2026, and major changes to provider taxes - a mechanism states use to help fund their Medicaid programs - won't take effect until fiscal year 2028. But hospitals aren't waiting to start making plans. "Undoubtedly the hospitals can't wait until the policies are fully implemented," said Dr. Ben Sommers, a professor of health policy and economics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "They need to start planning now." Patient Maria Fuentes worries about what will happen if Humboldt Park Health has to cut its offerings. Fuentes has been going to the hospital, which was previously called Norwegian American Hospital, for decades, and gave birth to all four of her kids there. "It's my hospital," said Fuentes, 52, of Dunning, as she visited on a recent day for a checkup. Sinai Chicago will also face difficult decisions in coming years as the law's provisions take effect. Sinai, which includes Mount Sinai Hospital on the West Side and Holy Cross Hospital on the South Side, has been running in the red, and about 70% of its patients are on Medicaid, said CEO Dr. Ngozi Ezike. It's too early to say exactly how much money Sinai will lose as a result of the new law, but "going forward there will be services that will have to be adjusted," Ezike said. "There are a lot of things that will have to be looked at, including layoffs, everything that we don't want to do, those are all things that have to be on the table," Ezike said. Cook County Health also expects to take a hit, including a loss of about $88 million a year once the work requirements go into effect, with an estimated 10% of its Medicaid patients potentially losing coverage, said CEO Dr. Erik Mikaitis. Many people are expected to lose Medicaid not because they don't qualify, but because of increased paperwork-related challenges. Cook County Health isn't planning on any layoffs or service changes for now, as it works through a projected budget gap for 2026, Mikaitis said. But in coming years, "the more that things happen, the more likely there may be a time we'll have to make difficult decisions," Mikaitis said. Mostly, he worries about how the new law will affect patients who may lose their health coverage. "As people lose coverage they stop engaging in preventative care, and instead of seeing patients in the office to manage blood pressure and diabetes, we're going to see them in the emergency room to manage strokes and heart attacks," Mikaitis said. Lurie Children's Hospital also sees potential trouble ahead. About half of Lurie Children's Hospital's patients are on Medicaid. Though those patients are children and won't be subject to work requirements, hospital leaders worry about how other cuts to federal Medicaid dollars for Illinois might affect its offerings. The hospital is already limited by the gap between what Medicaid reimburses it for services versus what that care actually costs to provide, said Lurie CEO Dr. Tom Shanley. The question, he said, is, "Are we going to be able to continue the degree of the services we have today as we move forward?" As Mertzelos finished her treatment at Humboldt Park Health on a recent day, she wondered aloud what would happen to people like her if the hospital had to cut its offerings. "It literally scares me to hear something like services might be cut because I don't know what I would do," Mertzelos said. Dr. Ann Marie Kulekowskis, who is medical director of the hospital's wound clinic, overheard her. "I don't know what we would all do," the doctor replied. _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Wall Street Journal
9 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Democrats' School Choice Dilemma
One of the first rules of partisan politics is to promote issues that unify your own coalition while dividing the other party's. That's why the Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are a gift to Democrats. Over the past 15 years, 40 states opted for Medicaid expansion, including 20 that Trump won in 2024; lots of Republican governors proved unwilling to turn down an offer that had Uncle Sam paying 90% of the costs. Congressional Republicans have reversed much of ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion and thereby handed Democrats an election issue. With much less notice, the act created a school-choice program that poses a headache for elected Democrats. It provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for individual taxpayers who donate up to $1,700 annually to 'scholarship granting organizations,' which give money to students to cover private-school tuition and other education expenses.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Hospitals across nation brace for Medicaid cuts under ‘big, beautiful' law
Hospitals are bracing for the impact from the Medicaid cuts in President Trump's sweeping spending and tax cut law. While most of the cuts won't happen immediately, rural facilities in particular say they likely will have to make difficult financial decisions about which services they can afford to keep and which may need to be cut. Hospitals loudly raised alarms about the legislation, but their warnings went unheeded, and now they say they will bear the brunt of the changes. The new law cuts about $1 trillion from Medicaid, primarily through stringent work requirements as well as reductions to how states can fund their Medicaid programs through provider taxes and state directed payments. Rural hospitals rely heavily on Medicaid funding because many of the patients they care for are low income. 'Restrictions on state directed payments and provider taxes cut off critical financial lifelines for hospitals,' Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals said in a statement. 'State directed payments are a critical source of support for hospitals, particularly in rural areas, and provider taxes help reduce the gap between Medicaid and other payers, ensuring that physicians can take Medicaid patients and hospitals can be adequately staffed. Cutting these lifelines is not sustainable, and it will harm patients.' More than 300 rural hospitals in the U.S. are at risk of closing down because of the bill, according to research conducted by the University of North Carolina's Sheps Center for Health Services Research and released last month by Democratic lawmakers. Rural hospitals already operate on thin margins. The law's Medicaid cuts will lead to more uninsured patients, meaning rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients, according to the report. In turn, they will face deeper financial strain. Medicaid-dependent services — like labor and delivery units, mental health care, and emergency rooms — are some of the least profitable, yet most essential, services that hospitals provide. But experts said those will likely be cut as hospitals try to stay afloat. In rural communities, Medicaid covers nearly half of all births and one-fifth of inpatient discharges, according to health research group KFF. Republicans pushed back the start date for the provider tax reductions until 2028, and they won't be fully phased in until 2031. The bill was only signed into law on July 4, so hospitals said it's too early for them to know specifics on which services they'll have to cut back on. But the discussions are underway because hospitals need to start planning. 'If they see a very negative outlook in terms of Medicaid revenue reductions, increases in uncompensated care costs, I think that will tip the scales towards cutting services, cutting staff, not hiring, not expanding,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Mark Nantz, president and chief executive officer of Valley Health System, oversees a network that includes six hospitals in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and West Virginia, ranging from a 495-bed regional facility in Winchester to a 36-bed facility in Front Royal, about 70 miles outside of Washington. Nantz said Medicaid expansion and provider taxes have allowed the system to break even when taking care of Medicaid patients. Previously, they were losing about 25 cents on every dollar. Once the cuts are fully phased in, Nantz said Valley Health will lose about $50 million a year in revenue for Medicaid patients. The most likely casualty will be new construction and expansion plans, but he said it's too early to know more. 'We're not in a situation where we need to knee-jerk because we're a pretty stable healthcare system, but it's definitely going to change the way we look at expanding and the types of services that we offer in our six hospitals,' Nantz said. Valley Health was able to expand the services it offers because it was not losing money on Medicaid, but that may not be able to continue. While hospitals may not close, some types of specialty care may be moved from rural facilities and centralized at the regional facility. 'We've got, really, two and a half to three years to make those kinds of decisions and prepare for what we will do. So we're not threatening to cut jobs or hospitals or service locations or any of that right now,' Nantz said, 'but we have to look at whether or not we can continue' offering the same types of services. Republicans concerned about the impact of the provider tax reduction on rural hospitals inserted a $50 billion relief fund into the law. The law calls for the money to be distributed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) over five years. The federal government will distribute half of the program's $50 billion allotment equally among all states with an approved application over the next five years. But experts said the money isn't nearly enough to make up for the impact of the cuts. According to a KFF analysis, federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is estimated to decline by $155 billion over a decade. The states and hospitals that will be hit the hardest will benefit the least, Park said. He noted the law gives the Trump administration a lot of discretion on how they divide up the funds, so there's potential for favoritism. Every state has until the end of 2025 at the latest to apply for funds by submitting a 'detailed rural health transformation plan' that addresses the program's aims, according to the legislation. But if CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz doesn't agree with how states are using their funds, the law says he then 'may withhold payments to, or reduce payments to, or recover previous payments from, the State.' 'It's a fig leaf,' Park said. 'The fund is temporary. These cuts are permanent.'
