Michigan subrecipient list, Mississippi Comprehensive State Health Plan contract, North $10M for EMS opportunity
Plus: a look at how we are building out rural geographies into our data product.
In this issue:
Oklahoma posts webinar on Community Paramedicine Vehicles NOFO
Alabama posts a list of rural counties (and a preview of Geographies)
Utah posts rolling Q&A docs for PATH 1.5 and RISE 2.2
North Dakota technical assistance call tomorrow
Michigan posts list of 124 subrecipient awards totalling $65M
Mississippi names contractor for its Comprehensive State Health Plan
Idaho project management decision & two Maternal and Child Health Initiatives
North Carolina out with $10M for EMS
Washington executes sole source contract for proprietary data-driven platform
Oklahoma posts webinar on Community Paramedicine Vehicles NOFO
Alabama posts a list of rural counties (and a preview of Geographies)
I was glad to see Alabama post this new one-page document last night because it highlighted an improvement to our database we’ve been working on— adding a “Geographies”.
When applying for RHTP money, every state had to answer a deceptively simple question: which places count as rural? We’ve been collecting their answers, and (to no one’s surprise) there is no shared methodolog\y— not on the geography, not on the vocabulary, not even on the level at which the question gets asked. Four state maps make the point better than any explanation:
Indiana drew eight regions and assigned each one to a named technical-assistance provider — the Indiana Hospital Association, the Primary Health Care Association, and the Rural Health Association split the state among them. The region is an operational unit there; it has a person attached to it.
Florida also drew regions — Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast — but they’re nothing like Indiana’s. They partition all 67 counties into administrative quadrants, with no provider attached. Same word, different thing.
Colorado skipped regions entirely. It classifies counties into two buckets — 29 Rural and 23 Frontier — and then adds a wrinkle: rural census tracts inside three otherwise-metro counties (Larimer, Mesa, Weld). Part of a county can qualify even when the county as a whole doesn’t.
New Jersey went further down. It doesn’t designate at the county level at all. It designates individual municipalities by population density — so within a single county, Bass River township is rural while the next town over isn’t.
Our system will handle all of these differences and stores geographies in a single, consistent structure. Rather than forcing every state into one rigid table, we separate the stable part (the places themselves, keyed on federal FIPS codes so names can’t collide) from the variable part (how each place is designated under a given program, and how that designation was decided).
Regions sit on top as an optional layer, tagged as either a provider service area or an administrative partition. The result is that Indiana’s provider regions, Florida’s administrative quadrants, Colorado’s Rural/Frontier counties, and New Jersey’s density-based municipalities all live side by side — each state’s definition kept intact, all of them queryable the same way.
Because the geography is data rather than a stack of maps, it connects to everything else we track — open RFPs, vendors, providers, and contacts — at the level the state actually uses. That turns questions that used to take an afternoon of cross-referencing into a single filter: which designated-rural counties have no vendor present, which open procurements target areas that don’t actually qualify, who’s already working a given region. The model absorbs the inconsistency once, so every downstream question gets a clean answer.
Let me know if this resonates and if there are questions you want answered about specific places as they relate to RHTP: danx@civicoperator.com
Utah posts rolling Q&A docs for PATH 1.5 and RISE 2.2
PATH 1.5: Behavioral Health—Primary Care Integration
Questions regarding this RFGA should be addressed to the Utah RHTP team at ruralht@utah.gov, opens in a new tab. All questions and answers will be compiled and posted publicly in a continuously updated Q&A document linked below. Applicants are encouraged to check the document regularly for updates. The final day to submit questions is June 21, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. MT, and the final Q&A document will be updated by June 22, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. MT. Q&A document:
docs.google.com/document/d/1sDbIz0pdUhiuGRNNEjhNIOVZulcECrjNNHgFAAWpxGY/edit?usp=sharing
RISE 2.2: Rural Clinical Preceptor Stipend Program
Questions regarding this application should be addressed to the Office of Primary Care and Rural Health at opcrh@utah.gov. All questions and answers will be compiled and posted publicly in a continuously updated Q&A document: docs.google.com/document/d/1YV8Hp08lPCHp_nGG7FN2ropog2a3ZBWcNFwimRZwGp8/edit?usp=sharing
North Dakota technical assistance call tomorrow
Thank you for your interest in the Rural Health Transformation Program and the Rural Hospital Clinical Equipment funding opportunity #210-333.
North Dakota Health and Human Services will hold a technical assistance conference call for interested individuals to receive an overview and to ask questions about the funding opportunity.
