HHS may change definition of ‘frontier’
January 09, 2013 | 05:28 PM
To the debate at the Agriculture Department over how to define “rural,” add a debate at Health and Human Services over how to define “frontier” as a determinant in rural health care funding, National Journal reported today.
HHS still defines “frontier” as a county that has six or fewer people per square mile, but is considering a definition that would put a greater emphasis on proximity to a major metropolitan area, instead ofthe population density of a county,
Frontier counties have easier access to some grants and greater Medicare reimbursement opportunities, and there is apprehension that some rural counties could lose the designation.
Montana Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have told HHS’s Office of Health and Rural Policy that the new definition could have “major impacts” on programs that rely on the way that rural and frontier lands have been designated.
HHS still defines “frontier” as a county that has six or fewer people per square mile, but is considering a definition that would put a greater emphasis on proximity to a major metropolitan area, instead ofthe population density of a county,
Frontier counties have easier access to some grants and greater Medicare reimbursement opportunities, and there is apprehension that some rural counties could lose the designation.
Montana Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have told HHS’s Office of Health and Rural Policy that the new definition could have “major impacts” on programs that rely on the way that rural and frontier lands have been designated.
