Overview
From 1987–2019, U.S. hospital establishments with at least 50 employees employed more people in fewer, larger sites. County, regional, and rural evidence shows uneven local presence, especially in the South. The series separates workforce growth from access and examines conditional telehealth and Medicaid trade-offs without treating them as causal findings.
Learning outcomes
- From 1987–2019, included U.S. hospital employment rose more than 40% while the series ended with fewer establishments and about 75% higher average employment per establishment.
- County shares shifted toward one or no included hospitals, so workforce growth did not preserve local plurality everywhere.
- The South and rural counties faced greater exposure to no-hospital conditions and last-hospital closures, but county shares are not resident-level access measures.
- Telehealth and Medicaid may widen access or support viability under some conditions, yet may also pressure local hospitals; these remain conditional policy scenarios.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
How could the U.S. hospital industry employ more people while having fewer establishments?
From 1987–2019, employment in establishments with at least 50 employees rose while their count declined, so more workers were attached to fewer, larger sites; the ratio does not identify one cause.
Did fewer U.S. hospital establishments necessarily reduce access to care?
No; fewer included establishments show changed local presence, but county shares do not measure travel, service availability, neighboring capacity, or patient-level access.
Why is the South central to the U.S. hospital growth story?
The South combined a 57.9% employment increase with about 400 fewer establishments and a higher 2009–2019 no-hospital county share than the rest of the country.
What makes a rural last-hospital closure different from an ordinary closure?
It moves a county from one included hospital to none, potentially increasing travel, dependence on neighboring facilities, and loss of a local economic anchor; effects vary by place.
How should telehealth and Medicaid policy be judged for rural hospitals?
Judge them by virtual access, physical viability, payment flows, employment, and resilience together; the paper presents their effects as conditional scenarios, not historical findings.