The Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council’s (PHC4) new Cancer Surgery Volume Report, released today, provides information about the number of cancer-related surgeries performed at each Pennsylvania hospital and ambulatory surgery center, using data from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025 (state fiscal year 2025).

Reporting volume provides accurate and timely data intended to inform decisions and support effective resource allocation. Barry D. Buckingham, PHC4’s Executive Director, knows there is scientific evidence that connects quality measures and volume. Buckingham said, “Reporting surgical volume helps patients, health care providers, and communities invested in quality care and making informed decisions.” Buckingham went on to describe the new online tool, published in unification with the Cancer Surgery Volume Report, enabling ease of access and understanding of the data reported to broader communities.

This new online resource allows users to select a type of cancer surgery from a drop-down menu and use a map to select facilities reported. Supporting those looking locally or across the Commonwealth, this resource allows one to quickly access the number of surgeries for each facility. A drop-down menu by facility name is also available, which enables users to easily locate facilities performing specific cancer surgery types. This ability to quickly locate facilities, access surgical volume, and define choices serves PHC4’s mission to empower Pennsylvanians by making it easier to access the value of its reporting.

Hospital-specific inpatient volume is shown for 13 types of cancer and facility-specific outpatient volume is shown for ambulatory surgery centers and hospital outpatient departments for five types of cancer.

PHC4 is an independent council formed under Pennsylvania statute (Act 89 of 1986, as amended by Act 15 of 2020) in order to address rapidly growing health care costs. PHC4 continues to produce comparative information about the most efficient and effective health care to individual consumers and group purchasers of health services. In addition, PHC4 produces information used to identify opportunities to contain costs and improve the quality of care delivered.  For more information, visit phc4.org or review the full report here.

These story maps created within ArcGIS illustrate the intersection of ambulance deserts (ADs) and health care deserts (HCDs) across all 41 states included in the original ambulance deserts chartbook. This project builds on the Maine Rural Health Research Center’s work identifying ADs, defined as populated census blocks that are outside of a 25-minute drive time from a ground ambulance station.

In addition to having limited access to ambulance services, rural residents may encounter obstacles in accessing inpatient or primary health care. Researchers address this issue in a series of maps identifying HCDs, defined as populated areas within each state that are outside of a 30-minute access standard to a health care facility. For this study, researchers included health care facilities that are certified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to serve the needs of Medicare and Medicaid populations: short-term acute care hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs). Many of these facilities are either located in low volume rural areas or they are considered safety net clinics.

This data set considers all areas with at least 2,000 housing units or at least 5,000 people to be urban; rural areas are defined as those that do not fit into the urban definition. In addition to highlighting areas that are ADs and HCDs, researchers illustrate the locations of the hospitals, FQHCs, and RHCs, and quantify the number and percentage of people living in ADs and/or HCDs in a table within each of the state maps.

Contact Information:

Yvonne Jonk, PhD
Northeast Rural Health Research Center
Phone: 207.228.8038
yvonne.jonk@maine.edu

Additional Resources of Interest:

• Ambulance Deserts: Geographic Disparities in the Provision of Ambulance Services
• More FORHP-funded research on Emergency medical services (EMS) and trauma
• More information about the Maine Rural Health Research Center
• More information from the Rural Health Information Hub’s topic guide: Rural Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma

Throughout the year, the Department of Health publishes reports and dashboards on a variety of public health topics.

Learn more:

• Read about the Successes the PA-Substance Use Navigation program achieved between September 2024 and August 2025
• Check out the Report of the Quality Assurance Programs 2023-2024

The Flex Monitoring Team (FMT) is pleased to share a new brief, Trends in Inpatient Revenue and Volume Among Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs). This analysis provides an updated look at how CAHs are navigating shifting care patterns in the years following the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

The brief highlights several important findings:

• Outpatient services now comprise more than 80% of total patient revenue for the average CAH, continuing a long‑term shift toward outpatient care.
• Inpatient average daily census (ADC) declined by 5.3% over the study period, with similar trends across rurality, region, ownership, and system affiliation.
• Inpatient daily revenue declined slightly when adjusted for inflation, while outpatient daily revenue increased by 50%.

Results show that growth in outpatient revenue—rather than steep inpatient declines—is driving changes in CAH revenue mix, with implications for sustainability, service availability, and potential REH transitions.

Not having enough food may have had a greater negative effect on mental health in the United States than unemployment or loss of income during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study led by Penn State researchers.

The study, published in PLOS One, examined how loss of income or employment and food sufficiency impacted the mental health of Americans during the pandemic. The researchers found that not having enough food — or food insufficiency — was more strongly linked to poorer mental health than losing income, and both food insufficiency and lower income mattered more than unemployment alone.

The team also found that families that were already food insecure before the pandemic experienced much larger mental health effects than those who became food insecure once the pandemic hit.

Linlin Fan, associate professor of agricultural economics and co-author on the paper, said the results suggest that job loss alone may not be the best signal of who is struggling mentally during a crisis.

“During the pandemic, effects of unemployment on mental health may have been buffered by factors such as unemployment insurance and stimulus payments,” Fan said. “This doesn’t mean that unemployment is harmless, but rather that in a crisis like the pandemic, mental health effects may depend on whether families can still afford food and basic needs, rather than from job status alone.”

During the pandemic, the researchers said, many Americans faced several hardships at once, including job loss, lower income and trouble getting enough food. At the same time, rates of anxiety and depression rose. The team wanted to better understand which of these hardships mattered most for mental health.

Read more.