This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
On Thursday morning, more than a hundred health policy wonks filled an auditorium on the campus of Montana State University. They were there to try to understand how Montana’s Rural Health Transformation Program — the deluge of federal funding that could amount to more than $1 billion over five years — will actually take shape in just a few short months.
The vibe was somewhat buzzy, as advisory committee stakeholders from Miles City to Pablo talked about their ideas for spending the state’s massive first-year grant of more than $233 million. Many attendees were also plainly bemused about that exact predicament.
Federal health administrators have dictated that states must distribute and start spending the 2026 grant by September. By August, the state must file a report showing how the money is actually making progress toward specific goals. To add even more pressure to that timeline, state health officials Thursday said that they won’t begin accepting applications for trickle-down grant opportunities until March.
In the plainest of terms, that gives Montana’s state health department, rural hospitals, medical associations and other groups about six months to turn $233 million into action. How well the state meets its goals in the first year will also impact how much federal funding Montana receives in 2027 and the years after.
So, some attendees asked, how in the world is this even possible?
“The targets and the metrics, I believe, especially trying to do them by August, seem really, for the most part, unrealistic to me,” said Jim Swan, a grant writer and policy consultant, during public comment.
The state health department has used a dizzying array of numbers, acronyms, metrics and bullet points to explain how it plans to put the federal health funding to best use. But, as the meeting showed, achieving those goals will mostly depend on how effectively health care providers scattered across Montana can turn those ideas into reality.
“Many of you are wondering, when will the dollars start to flow? When will the money start to move?” state health department director Charlie Brereton said.
Brereton explained that most of the funds will leave the state’s coffers through typical procurement methods, including opening up a competitive bidding process for grant awards, contracts or other joint agreements with state agencies.
While many stakeholders wait for those application opportunities to open in March, an even more existential financial question hung over Thursday’s proceedings.
“What happens to all of this in five years? What is the sustainability of all of these things when there is no more money left?” said Atty Moriarty, a Missoula pediatrician and head of Montana’s chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Because we all know there’s nothing worse than a bolus of money coming into a town and then disappearing.”
Brereton acknowledged the legitimacy of the question. The state is working hard to avoid creating funding “cliffs,” he said, where a program is set up to topple once funding dries up.
“Generally speaking, our plan is centered on one-time only investments that get provider organizations, communities and others to the place that they need to be in order to continue services into the future,” Brereton said.
LATEST STORIES
How Montana’s federal campaigns are funded
Montana’s federal candidates have arrived at the final stage of the general election largely fueled by individual contributions. National political action committee donations and contributions from congressional leadership committees also play a major role. Here’s a summary of the financial picture for each major candidate who raised at least $90,000 in individual contributions leading up to the Nov. 3 election, including where the bulk of their itemized donors reside.
First Nations celebrate Albertans’ decision to remain a part of Canada
The Blackfoot Confederacy, a coalition of tribes in Montana and Alberta, celebrated Albertans’ decision this week to remain a province within Canada. The “no” vote represents a long-sought victory for First Nations in Alberta, who brought a legal challenge and launched a public information campaign to thwart the secession. Alberta’s independence movement dates back to the Great Depression, though it gained popularity and legitimacy after a handful of events in recent years, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the election of Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Crow Legislature rejects bill to expand enrollment
After nearly two hours of impassioned debate, the Crow Tribe’s Legislature on Wednesday voted down a bill that would dramatically change who counts as a tribal member. The bill, brought by Chairman Frank White Clay, would have revised the tribe’s “blood quantum” standard, effectively making more people eligible for tribal citizenship. Supporters argued that the change was needed to ensure the continued existence of the tribe. Opponents expressed concern over straining federal funding.
