Maternal and Child Health

Rural America is becoming a place where giving birth safely is no longer possible. Over 35% of U.S. counties qualify as maternity care deserts, defined as areas without a single hospital offering obstetric services, without a birth center, and without any obstetrician, gynecologist, or certified nurse midwife. These 1,104 counties contain 2.3 million women of reproductive age and produce approximately 150,000 births annually. Nearly two-thirds of maternity care deserts are rural. The closure cascade accelerated over the past decade: more than 400 maternity services shuttered between 2006 and 2020, with the pace quickening as rural hospitals collapsed.

The consequences appear in mortality statistics that place the United States last among high-income nations. Maternal mortality rates in the most rural counties are 60% higher than in large metropolitan areas. The rate reached 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2021, representing an 89% increase since 2018. Black women die at 2.6 times the rate of white women regardless of education or income. Rural residence compounds these disparities through distance, delay, and absence of care.

RHTP applications universally acknowledge this crisis. States propose maternal health initiatives spanning telehealth prenatal care, midwifery expansion, doula programs, community health worker deployment, and perinatal regionalization. The question is whether any of these interventions can meaningfully address a crisis caused by the financial unsustainability of low-volume obstetric services. Rural hospitals closed maternity units because delivering 50 to 100 babies annually cannot support the staffing, equipment, and liability costs required. Grant funding can purchase equipment and train workers. Grant funding cannot change the arithmetic that made obstetric closures financially inevitable.

The evidence on rural maternal health interventions offers both promise and limitation. Midwifery-led care demonstrates strong outcomes for low-risk pregnancies. Doula support reduces cesarean rates and improves birth experiences. Community-based perinatal workers connect pregnant women to resources and care. But each intervention assumes some level of healthcare infrastructure exists. Telehealth prenatal care requires a facility for in-person delivery. Midwifery expansion requires practice authority and hospital relationships. Doula programs require someone to catch the baby when labor progresses. The hardest question for rural maternal health is not which interventions work but whether any amount of intervention can substitute for missing hospitals, absent physicians, and closed obstetric units.

The Rural Context

#

The maternity care desert map reveals a geography of abandonment. Fifty-six percent of rural counties lack any hospital obstetric services. The closures cluster across the Great Plains, the Deep South, Appalachia, and the interior West. States like Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska contain dozens of counties where the nearest delivering hospital lies 60, 80, or 100 miles away.

OB-GYN distribution

The workforce maldistribution driving maternity deserts is severe. Rural counties average 5 obstetrician-gynecologists per 100,000 population compared to 15 per 100,000 in urban areas. Nearly 40% of U.S. counties lack a single OB-GYN or certified nurse midwife. While midwives attend only 10% of U.S. births nationally, they provide care in one-third of rural hospitals that retain obstetric services. In communities that have any maternity care at all, midwives often represent the primary or sole obstetric provider.

The closure cascade

OB unit closure does not occur in isolation. When a rural hospital discontinues obstetric services, it typically predicts broader facility decline. Obstetric closure signals that the hospital cannot sustain specialized service lines requiring 24/7 staffing, call coverage, and capital investment. Within years, emergency services often degrade, specialists stop visiting, and the facility itself may close. From 2011 to 2023, 293 rural hospitals stopped providing obstetric services, representing 24% of rural obstetric units eliminated in just over a decade.

CNM scope of practice variation

State practice environments determine whether certified nurse midwives can address workforce gaps. States with full practice authority enable CNMs to practice to the full extent of their training without mandatory physician supervision or collaboration agreements. States requiring collaboration or supervision restrict CNM practice in areas without supervising physicians. The irony is cruel: the states where physician absence creates the greatest need for independent midwifery practice are often the states where restrictive scope prevents midwives from filling gaps.

Financial unsustainability

The economics of rural obstetrics create a structural problem no grant can solve. Medicaid pays for more than 40% of U.S. births and covers nearly half of births in maternity care deserts. Medicaid obstetric reimbursement averages half the rate of commercial insurance. Rural hospitals depending on Medicaid-dominant payer mixes cannot cover the costs of maintaining delivery capacity: round-the-clock nursing, anesthesia availability, blood bank requirements, emergency cesarean capability, and malpractice insurance premiums that reflect obstetric exposure.

A rural hospital delivering 75 babies annually at Medicaid rates may generate $500,000 in obstetric revenue while incurring $800,000 in direct and indirect obstetric costs. The mathematics explain the closures without requiring explanations of hospital mismanagement or rural economic decline. The business model fails even when everything else succeeds.

Evidence Review

#

Evidence Rating Table

#

Perinatal Regionalization

#

The strongest evidence in maternal health supports risk-appropriate care through regionalization systems. High-risk pregnancies and deliveries concentrated at facilities with appropriate capability produce better outcomes than equivalent cases at lower-level facilities. This evidence forms the basis for the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists levels of maternal care framework designating facilities from basic (Level I) through comprehensive (Level IV).

Regionalization works for trauma, stroke, and cardiac care. It works for high-risk obstetrics. The challenge in rural areas is that regionalization means travel. Moving high-risk deliveries to Level III and IV facilities improves outcomes for those patients while potentially destabilizing lower-level rural facilities that lose volume and revenue. The policy question becomes whether to concentrate resources at regional centers accepting that rural facilities may close, or to distribute resources maintaining rural access accepting that outcomes may suffer.

A 2024 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that residing in a maternity care desert is significantly associated with higher rates of maternal and pregnancy-related mortality independent of socioeconomic factors. Counties without practitioners or facilities showed elevated mortality compared to counties with full maternity care access. The association persisted after controlling for demographics, poverty, and insurance status, suggesting that access itself drives outcomes.

Midwifery-Led Care

#

The evidence supporting midwifery-led care is extensive and consistent. A 2016 Cochrane systematic review of 15 trials involving over 17,000 women found that midwife-led continuity models reduce preterm birth, reduce fetal loss, and increase satisfaction compared to physician-led or fragmented care models. Women receiving midwife-led care experienced fewer interventions including regional anesthesia, episiotomy, and instrumental birth with no differences in cesarean rates or adverse outcomes.

States where midwives are well integrated into healthcare systems demonstrate better maternal health outcomes than states with restrictive midwifery practice environments. Midwives disproportionately serve populations at risk of poor outcomes. Despite attending only 10% of U.S. births, midwives provide care for higher proportions of Medicaid patients, women of color, adolescents, and immigrants than the physician workforce.

A 2023 analysis found that CNM full practice authority increased use of existing midwifery capacity without changes in obstetric outcomes, maternal mortality, or neonatal mortality. States that remove supervision requirements enable their existing midwife workforce to practice more efficiently, expanding access without requiring additional training pipeline investments.

The rural evidence limitation is important. Most midwifery research occurs in integrated systems with hospital backup, collaborative relationships, and transfer capacity. Rural midwifery practice faces challenges when the nearest hospital with obstetric capability is 50 miles away. The evidence supporting midwifery applies most clearly to contexts with functional referral systems, precisely the systems rural areas lack.

Birth Center Care

#

Freestanding birth centers provide evidence-based care for low-risk pregnancies with outcomes comparable to or better than hospital birth for appropriately selected patients. The American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry tracked 88,574 courses of care across 82 sites between 2012 and 2020. Quality outcomes exceeded national benchmarks in both rural and urban settings. The cesarean rate among birth center patients was 6% compared to national averages exceeding 30%. The 93% spontaneous vaginal birth rate far exceeds hospital rates.

Approximately 30% of birth centers operate in rural areas and small towns. The number of birth centers doubled over the past decade to 384 nationally, yet they account for only 0.5% of U.S. births (roughly 20,000 annually). Regulatory barriers limit expansion. Certificate of need requirements, facility building codes designed for hospitals, proximity requirements to hospitals, and mandatory transfer agreements with reluctant physician partners create obstacles particularly burdensome for rural areas lacking the hospital infrastructure these requirements assume.

Birth center care requires appropriate patient selection. The model serves low-risk patients: term gestation, singleton vertex presentation, no prior cesarean, no preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, no complications requiring specialized intervention. Transfer rates run 12-15% during labor, with 30% of first-time mothers transferring compared to 4% of mothers with prior births. The 98% of transfers are non-emergent, involving labor augmentation or epidural requests rather than emergencies.

For communities that have lost hospital obstetric services, birth centers could potentially provide care for the majority of low-risk pregnancies while developing transfer agreements with distant hospitals for complications and high-risk patients. This model requires regulatory flexibility that most states have not provided. California recently replaced proximity requirements with transfer agreement requirements. Massachusetts exempted birth centers from outpatient surgical center building codes. Most states retain barriers that prevent birth centers from serving as partial solutions for maternity deserts.

Doula Support

#

Doula care improves birth outcomes through continuous emotional, physical, and informational support during pregnancy, labor, and postpartum. A 2017 Cochrane review of 26 randomized controlled trials involving over 15,000 women found that continuous labor support reduces cesarean births by 22%, decreases instrumental vaginal deliveries, shortens labor duration, and increases satisfaction. Effects are strongest for women who are low-income, socially disadvantaged, or face cultural and language barriers.

Medicaid coverage for doula services expanded from zero states to 13 states plus the District of Columbia by 2025, with additional states pursuing implementation. Reimbursement rates vary dramatically: Rhode Island pays $1,200 total (seven visits plus labor/delivery), Nevada pays up to $1,650 with a rural incentive, and most states pay less than the $750-$1,500 that doulas typically receive through private payment.

The evidence on doulas for addressing maternity care deserts is mixed. Doulas cannot substitute for clinical care. They provide support, advocacy, and navigation but cannot deliver babies, manage complications, or perform interventions. In communities with functioning maternity services, doulas improve outcomes within those services. In communities without maternity services, doulas accompany patients to distant facilities, potentially improving their experience but not addressing the access gap itself.

A 2024 analysis in the American Journal of Public Health found that doula care among Medicaid enrollees was associated with reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer preterm births, and improved postpartum care adherence. Stratified analyses showed particular benefit for reducing cesarean rates in Black women, suggesting doula care may help address racial disparities. The cost-effectiveness modeling estimates $58.4 million in savings and 3,288 preterm births averted if doula-supported deliveries scaled across the Medicaid population.

Rural doula deployment faces infrastructure challenges. Travel distances in rural areas increase doula overhead costs without corresponding reimbursement. Building a rural doula workforce requires training programs, certification pathways, and employment models that may not exist in small communities. The navigation role that makes doulas valuable assumes resources exist to navigate toward.

Telehealth Prenatal Care

#

Telehealth represents the fastest-growing component of maternal health RHTP applications. States propose virtual prenatal visits, remote blood pressure monitoring, glucose tracking for gestational diabetes, and specialist consultation through video. The pandemic accelerated telehealth adoption, and CMS flexibilities enabled reimbursement parity that made virtual prenatal care financially viable.

The evidence on telehealth for prenatal care remains limited and variable. Systematic reviews find that telehealth can substitute for some in-person prenatal visits without adverse outcomes for low-risk pregnancies, but the evidence base is thin. Remote monitoring can detect preeclampsia warning signs through home blood pressure tracking, but studies demonstrating mortality reduction from remote monitoring are lacking.

The critical limitation is that telehealth cannot deliver babies. Telehealth prenatal care still requires a delivery facility. If the nearest hospital with obstetric services is 80 miles away, telehealth prenatal care means the patient receives virtual monitoring while still traveling 80 miles for delivery. Telehealth extends specialist consultation reach, potentially enabling rural primary care providers to manage more pregnancies locally with remote OB support. But the infrastructure for in-person delivery must exist somewhere.

Perinatal Community Health Workers

#

Community health worker programs targeting pregnant women show evidence of effectiveness for specific outcomes. The Arizona Health Start program demonstrated reduced rates of low birth weight among minority women through CHW home visiting. Promotora programs in Texas border communities improved prenatal care utilization and health behaviors among Spanish-speaking pregnant women.

Maternal health CHW programs benefit from defined intervention periods. Pregnancy provides a discrete window (approximately 280 days) with measurable outcomes (birth weight, gestational age, prenatal visits completed). This structure enables cleaner program evaluation than chronic disease interventions with indefinite timelines.

Rural deployment faces the same challenges documented in Article 4.D. Travel distances increase CHW overhead costs. Sparse community resources limit what CHWs can connect patients toward. Supervision infrastructure requires clinical oversight that may not exist in communities with provider shortages. The maternal health evidence comes primarily from urban and border community settings, not frontier counties where RHTP expects deployment.

Service Model Options

#

The following table summarizes service models for rural maternal health, their requirements, evidence base, and fit for different rural contexts:

Full obstetric services remain the gold standard but are financially unsustainable at low volumes. RHTP cannot change this. Grant funding might upgrade equipment or subsidize temporary staffing, but the structural economics remain unchanged.

Low-risk only models concentrate resources on the 85% of pregnancies that do not require surgical intervention while developing protocols for timely transfer of high-risk and complicated cases. This model requires identifying a receiving facility, negotiating transfer agreements, ensuring transport availability (including air transport for emergencies), and accepting that some patients will deliver en route.

Birth centers offer a licensing and regulatory pathway separate from hospitals, potentially enabling communities to establish maternity services without hospital infrastructure. The model serves low-risk patients and requires strong transfer relationships. States must modify regulatory frameworks to enable birth center establishment in underserved areas.

Prenatal only models represent the de facto situation in many maternity deserts. Women receive prenatal care locally (sometimes through telehealth) and travel to distant hospitals for delivery. This model imposes significant burden on pregnant women and families while accepting that local delivery capacity cannot be sustained.

State Program Examples

#

New Mexico: Midwifery Integration

#

New Mexico provides the strongest model of midwifery integration in the United States. CNMs have full practice authority and can practice without physician supervision or collaboration agreements. The state licenses certified professional midwives (CPMs) for out-of-hospital birth. Midwifery-led birth centers serve rural communities. Medicaid reimburses midwives at parity with physicians for equivalent services.

The New Mexico RHTP application proposes regional specialty and maternal care networks with telehealth connecting rural sites to maternal-fetal medicine specialists in Albuquerque. The initiative targets the eight counties without surgical delivery facilities and the twelve counties without any inpatient obstetric services.

Maine: Maternity Care Network

#

Maine’s maternity care network coordinates services across a state where rural geography and population decline have concentrated obstetric services in fewer facilities. The model emphasizes prenatal care distribution through primary care practices with midwifery and physician providers, risk stratification to match patients with appropriate delivery facilities, and telemedicine consultation extending specialist support to rural providers.

California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative

#

The California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC) provides a quality improvement infrastructure spanning delivering hospitals statewide. The model emphasizes standardized protocols, data collection, benchmarking, and improvement cycles addressing specific outcomes including maternal hemorrhage, severe hypertension, and cesarean reduction. CPQCC demonstrates that quality improvement infrastructure can extend across diverse facilities, but the model requires facilities to exist. It cannot address the access crisis in communities without delivering hospitals.

Texas Maternity Care Deserts Response

#

Texas contains more maternity care desert counties than any other state. The RHTP application proposes community health worker deployment through the established promotora workforce, telehealth maternal health consultation, and workforce recruitment targeting OB-GYNs and CNMs for rural practice. The state also proposes support for rural birthing centers through its Healthcare Resiliency Program grants, though regulatory barriers to birth center establishment remain unaddressed in the application.

RHTP Application Assessment

#

Maternal health initiatives appear in every state RHTP application, reflecting universal recognition of the crisis. Application approaches cluster into several categories:

Telehealth emphasis characterizes most applications. States propose virtual prenatal visits, remote monitoring equipment, and specialist consultation networks. These investments extend reach but do not create delivery capacity. Telehealth helps patients in communities with some maternity services. It provides limited benefit in communities with no services at all.

Workforce investment targets OB-GYN and CNM recruitment through loan repayment, residency pipeline programs, and scope of practice modernization. These investments are necessary but slow. Physician pipeline investments will not produce practitioners within RHTP timelines. Midwifery expansion is faster but depends on practice environment reform that many states have not undertaken.

CHW and doula programs appear across applications proposing community-based perinatal support workers. The evidence supports these investments for improving outcomes within functioning systems. The evidence does not support CHWs or doulas as substitutes for clinical delivery capacity.

Birth center development appears in a minority of applications. States proposing birth center expansion typically acknowledge regulatory barriers without necessarily addressing them. Grant funding can support birth center development, but regulatory frameworks determine whether birth centers can legally operate.

Perinatal network coordination appears in applications from states with existing quality collaborative infrastructure. These investments strengthen systems that exist rather than creating capacity where none exists.

Missing from most applications is honest acknowledgment that RHTP cannot solve the structural economics driving obstetric closures. States propose investments that improve care for communities with services while doing little for communities without services. The maternity desert crisis stems from financial unsustainability that grant funding cannot address without ongoing subsidy exceeding anything RHTP provides.

Implementation Reality

#

Liability Insurance Costs

#

Obstetric malpractice insurance premiums create barriers independent of facility and staffing costs. OB-GYN premiums range from $50,000 to over $200,000 annually depending on state and practice type, among the highest specialty premiums in medicine. Rural practitioners with low delivery volumes spread these costs across fewer patients, worsening the per-delivery economics. CNMs face lower but still significant premiums that may exceed what small practices can absorb.

Call Coverage Requirements

#

Maintaining obstetric services requires 24/7 availability. A delivering hospital must have nursing, anesthesia capability (for cesarean), and obstetric provider coverage at all times. Small rural hospitals cannot sustain continuous coverage without either employing multiple full-time OB providers (economically impossible at low volumes) or relying on family physicians providing OB coverage (an endangered practice pattern). The call burden drives provider burnout and departure even when recruitment succeeds initially.

Transfer Protocols

#

Communities without delivery capacity depend on transfer to facilities that do have it. Transfer time determines outcomes for obstetric emergencies including placental abruption, cord prolapse, uterine rupture, and postpartum hemorrhage. The golden hour concept familiar from trauma applies to many obstetric emergencies. Communities more than 60 minutes from delivering hospitals face inherent outcome disadvantage regardless of prenatal care quality.

Air transport partially addresses distance but introduces weather dependency, cost, and availability constraints. Ground transport through EMS works for planned transfers but may be inadequate for emergencies in remote areas with limited ambulance coverage.

Community Preferences

#

Pregnant women generally prefer to deliver close to home with family support available. The option to remain in one’s community through labor and delivery carries significant quality-of-life value that health policy often ignores. Policies forcing travel for delivery impose burdens beyond the clinical, including separation from support systems, lodging costs, childcare challenges for existing children, and lost work time.

Community preferences sometimes conflict with safety optimization. A family may prefer a local facility with limited capability over a distant facility with comprehensive services. Balancing patient autonomy, community connection, and outcome optimization creates tension that evidence alone cannot resolve.

The 2030 Question

#

Does RHTP Reverse or Accept Consolidation?

#

The fundamental policy question underlying rural maternal health is whether the goal is reversing the consolidation trend (reopening closed units, establishing new delivery capacity) or adapting to consolidation (optimizing care within a system of concentrated delivery capacity and distributed prenatal services). RHTP applications rarely address this choice directly, instead proposing investments that could support either direction without committing to one.

Reversing consolidation requires ongoing operational subsidy beyond what RHTP provides. Grant funding can purchase equipment and provide startup support, but the financial dynamics that caused closures remain unchanged. Without permanent reimbursement reform, any facility reopened with RHTP support faces the same unsustainable economics that closed facilities previously.

Adapting to consolidation requires investment in transport, telehealth, care coordination, and community support that enables patients to access distant delivery facilities safely. This approach accepts that local delivery capacity will not return while trying to minimize the harm from its absence.

Most RHTP applications implicitly choose adaptation while using language suggesting reversal. States propose “maternal health transformation” and “eliminating maternity deserts” while actually funding telehealth and workforce investments that improve care within consolidated systems rather than creating new delivery capacity.

Midwifery Sustainability

#

Midwifery expansion offers one pathway toward sustainable rural obstetric capacity, but sustainability depends on practice environment and payment adequacy. CNMs who cannot practice independently cannot fill gaps in communities without physicians. Midwives who cannot obtain hospital privileges cannot provide backup for birth center patients who need transfer. Medicaid programs paying midwives at rates below physicians for equivalent services do not create sustainable practice economics.

States that modernize midwifery practice authority, ensure hospital credentialing access, and establish Medicaid payment parity may create conditions for midwifery-led rural maternal care. States that retain restrictive scope, enable hospital exclusion of midwives, and maintain discriminatory payment will not see midwifery fill access gaps regardless of training investments.

Perinatal CHW and Doula Durability

#

Community health worker and doula programs face the same sustainability questions documented in Article 4.D. Grant-funded positions disappear when grants end. States building sustainable CHW and doula programs need Medicaid reimbursement pathways (State Plan Amendments or 1115 waiver authority), employer infrastructure (FQHCs, health departments, or community organizations), and sustainable payment rates that cover actual service costs including rural travel.

The emerging evidence on Medicaid doula coverage suggests reimbursement rates below $1,500 produce workforce attrition and program instability. States paying $600-$900 total for doula services, as several early implementers attempted, will not build durable doula programs.

Travel Burden as Permanent Feature

#

Absent structural reform exceeding anything RHTP contemplates, travel burden for delivery will remain a permanent feature of rural life in maternity desert communities. The policy question becomes how to minimize harm: supporting lodging near delivering facilities for women approaching term, ensuring transport availability for labor onset, coordinating prenatal care that maximizes local services while ensuring appropriate delivery referral.

This is not transformation. It is accommodation of system failure. RHTP applications should acknowledge this reality rather than promising desert elimination they cannot deliver.

Conclusion

#

The rural maternal health crisis presents RHTP with its starkest confrontation between transformation aspirations and structural constraints. Maternity care deserts exist because low-volume obstetrics is financially unsustainable. Rural hospitals closed maternity units after years of operating losses. Grant funding cannot change the arithmetic that made closures inevitable.

CAA 2026: Modest Additions to the Maternal Health Policy Landscape

#

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, includes two provisions directly relevant to rural maternal and child health. Neither reverses the economics of obstetric closure. Both are concrete and should be incorporated into RHTP maternal health planning.

Maternity care cost reporting requirements with implementation grants. CAA 2026 created new mandatory maternity care cost reporting requirements for rural hospitals providing obstetric services. Compliance requires data collection and reporting infrastructure. CMS made available $10 million in implementation grants to help rural hospitals build this reporting capacity. States with RHTP investments in rural maternal health should assess whether RHTP-funded hospitals qualify for implementation grant support and coordinate applications to avoid duplicating infrastructure investment.

The underlying purpose of cost reporting is to create a data foundation for maternity care payment reform. Mandatory cost data from rural obstetric services will, over time, provide evidence for the reimbursement adequacy debate that currently relies on anecdote and aggregate statistics. This is a long-run investment in policy infrastructure rather than an immediate operational benefit. Rural hospitals that participate and document costs accurately contribute to the evidence base that may eventually support the payment reform that sustains rural obstetrics.

Streamlined out-of-state pediatric provider enrollment under Medicaid and CHIP. CAA 2026 created a three-year streamlined enrollment pathway for pediatric providers practicing across state lines under Medicaid and CHIP. The provision addresses a barrier that affects rural maternal and newborn care in border regions: pediatricians and neonatologists providing telehealth consultations or occasional in-person transport support to rural facilities in adjacent states faced enrollment delays that disrupted care continuity. The three-year streamlined pathway reduces this administrative barrier.

For RHTP maternal health strategies that include regional telehealth consultations with pediatric specialists at academic medical centers, this provision removes an enrollment friction point. Rural facilities building neonatal telehealth consultation arrangements with out-of-state children’s hospitals should assess whether providers involved need to enroll under the streamlined pathway.

Neither provision addresses the central problem. Cost reporting does not restore obstetric units that closed. Streamlined enrollment does not create pediatric specialists where none exist. But within RHTP’s maternal and child health investment framework, these provisions provide practical implementation support for data infrastructure and cross-border specialist access that state applications should incorporate.

For state RHTP directors: See 3A for the complete policy environment and 9K for rural children and families population analysis.

The evidence supports several interventions that can improve maternal health outcomes within existing systems:

Midwifery expansion demonstrably improves outcomes for low-risk pregnancies while extending workforce capacity. States that modernize practice authority, ensure payment parity, and enable hospital credentialing can leverage midwifery to sustain rural obstetric access. States that retain restrictive environments will see continued workforce concentration in urban areas.

Birth center development offers potential for communities where hospital obstetric services cannot be sustained but demand exists for local delivery options. Regulatory reform enabling birth center establishment without hospital proximity, surgical center building codes, and mandatory physician involvement would allow birth centers to serve the majority of pregnancies that do not require surgical capability.

Doula support improves outcomes within functioning systems, particularly for populations experiencing disparities. Medicaid coverage expansion with sustainable reimbursement can establish doula programs that persist beyond grant periods.

Telehealth extends reach but does not create capacity. Virtual prenatal care and specialist consultation improve care quality for patients who have access to delivery services. They do not help patients who lack access.

Perinatal CHW programs connect pregnant women to resources and support, but effectiveness depends on resources existing. CHWs cannot navigate patients toward services that do not exist.

What RHTP cannot do is reverse the economic dynamics driving obstetric consolidation. States promising to eliminate maternity care deserts through grant-funded investments are overstating achievable outcomes. New delivery capacity requires permanent operational subsidy, reimbursement reform, or practice model changes that RHTP does not enable.

The honest assessment is that rural maternal health will remain a crisis beyond 2030. RHTP investments can improve outcomes for the patients who have access to services. They can extend service reach through telehealth and workforce expansion. They can support families navigating the burden of traveling far for delivery. They cannot restore delivery capacity to communities where the economics do not support it. The appropriate aspiration is harm reduction, not transformation, achieved through evidence-informed investment and honest acknowledgment of what grant funding can and cannot accomplish.