Missouri lawmakers are right to treat the collapse of rural healthcare as an urgent crisis. Nearly half of the state’s remaining rural hospitals are at risk of closure, and many communities already know what it means to lose emergency rooms, labor and delivery services and timely stroke care. In this environment, legislation allowing MU Health Care greater flexibility to partner with struggling hospitals deserves careful, fact-based evaluation, not dismissal based on theoretical concerns about competition.
Critics argue that granting antitrust immunity within a defined region will reduce competition without adding sufficient oversight. House Bill 3170, however, must be evaluated within the realities of rural healthcare, MU Health Care’s structure and the challenges facing Missouri communities today.
MU Health Care is not a private, for-profit system pursuing regional dominance. It is one of only two tier 1 safety-net systems in Missouri and a public academic health system within the University of Missouri System, governed by a board of curators appointed by the governor with advice and consent of the Senate. MU Health Care serves Missourians through its mission to save and improve lives through exemplary education, research and patient care. Much of the research cited by critics focuses on private systems operating under different incentives and less public accountability.
Geography also matters. The 25-county region outlined in the legislation is not an expansive footprint. It is where MU Health Care already serves patients, with approximately 85% of inpatient admissions coming from those counties today. All seven MU Health Care hospitals are already located within this region, and more than a dozen other acute care hospital operators serve the same communities. Of Missouri’s 6.2 million residents, only about 800,000 live in this region. At its core, HB 3170 is not about expanding market power. It is about providing MU Health Care certainty to consider opportunities to preserve access to care within communities it already serves.
The bill also addresses a gap in existing antitrust frameworks. Federal antitrust law is designed to preserve competition, not access to care. Those goals are not always aligned. Regulators may approve transactions that preserve theoretical competition while services erode or disappear altogether. For rural communities, the result is the same: fewer services, longer travel times and poorer health outcomes.
Recent history in Central Missouri illustrates this risk. Several hospitals that closed over the past decade were acquired by private equity investors. Services declined and facilities ultimately closed, leaving communities without care. Competition remained intact on paper. Access did not.
Critics also argue that hospital mergers inevitably lead to higher prices. But rural healthcare markets operate differently. Commercial insurance is often already highly concentrated, with one or two insurers dominating employer coverage. Independent hospitals often lack negotiating leverage and struggle to secure sustainable reimbursement rates, accelerating financial instability. Partnerships with larger systems can provide the stability needed to preserve services rather than drive price increases.
Some concerns raised about HB 3170 focus on its lack of a Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) structure used in other states. But HB 3170 reflects Missouri’s practical realities. HB 3170 requires no taxpayer funding and provides no financial incentives to MU Health Care. COPAs typically require new oversight bodies or additional administrative layers, which would impose real costs on taxpayers and could delay urgently needed action. These proposals also assume MU Health Care lacks sufficient accountability despite its governance structure and existing state oversight.
There is also growing evidence that consolidation can improve quality and access in rural communities. Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that rural hospitals acquired by larger health systems were more likely to maintain essential services, expand specialty care access and implement quality improvement infrastructure. These partnerships often bring telehealth capabilities, specialist coverage and standardized clinical protocols that small hospitals cannot support independently.
It is equally important to clarify what the legislation does not do. It does not compel hospitals to partner with MU Health Care. It does not block other nonprofit or for-profit systems from acquiring or operating facilities. It does not appropriate taxpayer dollars or eliminate oversight by the General Assembly, governor or board of curators. Nor does it change Missouri’s certificate-of-need laws or other regulatory tools. In short, HB 3170 does not eliminate competition; it removes barriers to participation.
Missouri’s rural health crisis is not theoretical. It is happening now. The choice is not between perfect competition and perfect oversight. It is between timely, mission-driven intervention and continued erosion of access while theoretical safeguards fail to keep doors open.
Legislation that empowers accountable public health systems to act is not a threat to competition. In rural Missouri, it may be one of the only remaining paths to preserving care at all.
Ric Ransom is MU Health Care’s chief executive officer.
At the Becker's 23rd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven ASC + The Future of Spine Conference, taking place June 18–20 in Chicago, spine surgeons, orthopedic leaders and ASC executives will come together to explore minimally invasive techniques, ASC growth strategies and innovations shaping the future of outpatient spine care. Apply for complimentary registration now.
