KCUR57%

Kansas has more rural hospitals at immediate risk of closing than any other state 36%

By Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga0%

6/11/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Post Hoc (False Cause), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 149 hits. Analysis detected 1,138 faulty-reasoning hits from 607 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,164 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.70% of the article peer group.

More rural Kansas hospitals are at risk of immediate closure than in any other state. 
That’s according to a recent report by the non-profit policy organization Centers for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. 
It found that out of the about 100 rural Kansas hospitals analyzed, 69 are at risk of closure and 28 are at immediate risk. 
Kansas comes second to Texas, which has 26 rural hospitals at risk of immediate closure. 
In Missouri, 28 hospitals are at risk of closing and 11 are at immediate risk. 
Nationwide, the report found 294 rural hospitals are immediately at risk of closing. 
Cindy Samuelson is senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association. 
She said one big issue rural hospitals in Kansas are facing is an increase in expenses. 
Inflation has raised costs, including staffing, pharmaceuticals and supplies. 
Hospitals are feeling the impact. 
But she said fixed reimbursement rates mean hospital income is hard to raise. 
“Everybody's been seeing an uptick in expenses, even their personal home expenses,” she said. 
“We can't really just raise or increase our prices to impact that inflation.” 
Additionally, Samuelson said hospitals are struggling with low reimbursement rates from Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance. 
“The number one thing they're struggling with is reimbursement from payers,” she said. 
“Adequate reimbursement would make a huge difference in our healthcare system today.” 
Add in the fact that Kansas has a lot of rural hospitals, and it helps explain the high ranking. 
“So when you look at reports like this and you look at rankings, you’ve got to look at the states that have a lot of rural hospitals,” she said. 
To determine what hospitals are at risk of closing, the report looked at numbers including a hospital’s profit or loss margin, Medicare costs, and payments from Medicaid and private insurance. 
The report said hospital closures can cause great harm to rural communities. 
It said hospitals don’t just provide inpatient services. 
Sometimes, rural hospitals are the main source of primary care, imaging services or laboratory testing for a community. 
When hospitals close, people are forced to leave their community for care, which sometimes means a long drive. 
The report also said that a lack of healthcare can hurt rural economies. 
“Rural hospital closures threaten the nation’s food supply and energy production, because farms, ranches, mines, drilling sites, wind farms, and solar energy facilities are located primarily in rural areas, and they will not be able to attract and retain workers if health care isn’t available in the community,” the report reads. 
While the hospitals are in a difficult spot, it might not be as bad as the report makes it appear. 
Samuelson said while many rural Kansas hospitals are struggling, it’s important to understand that the report did not analyze all of the ways rural hospitals are financed. 
She said many rural communities in Kansas support their hospitals through county and city taxes. 
“Some of these studies don't really take into play all those local dollars that are keeping their hospital open,” she said. 
“So the hospital may be doing okay with that support.” 
Samuelson said that support could go away or change, which is likely why the report did not cite it. 
Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga reports on health care disparities and access for the Kansas News Service. 
You can email her at r.shackelford@kcur.org. 
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio. 
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic12.9%This article: 8.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 4.3%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 2.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 24.5%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 5.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias24.5%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 2.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 8.4%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 5.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 2.1%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 13.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.4%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division2.3%This article: 6.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal6.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.6%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.6%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.5%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy3.5%This article: 5.8%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 8.4%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection8.4%This article: 2.3%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice2.3%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Bek Shackelford-Nwanganga: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

607 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker36%attributed speech389writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 14 words • 100.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 21 words • 100.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageCindy Samuelson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cindy Samuelson

100%flagged-word coverage
218 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+16.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cindy Samuelson: 16.1%16.1%Quote-first Misdirection-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Cindy Samuelson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Cindy Samuelson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Cindy Samuelson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.