Healthcare Facilities

Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mark Warner (D-VA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Peter Welch (D-VT), and John Barrasso (R-WY) led a bipartisan group of 60 senators in reintroducing the Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies (CONNECT) for Health Act. The CONNECT for Health Act will expand coverage of telehealth services through Medicare, make COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities permanent, improve health outcomes, and make it easier for patients to connect with their doctors.

The Texas Broadband Development Office (BDO), under the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, developed the Texas Digital Opportunity Plan to complement broadband infrastructure programs already underway in the state, including the Bringing Online Opportunities to Texas (BOOT) program and the state’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Texas has not yet received its federal State Digital Equity Capacity funding and—on March 4, 2025—BDO paused all grants and contracts to implement the Texas Digital Opportunity Plan.

Why is the government risking a return to a healthcare regulatory regime that results in worse outcomes, less access to care and higher costs? The motives are unclear, but that would be the outcome if Congress lets the current regulatory framework for telehealth and hospital-at-home lapse, which it will if not renewed in 2025. The arguments to extend the waivers, as laid out in a letter from more than 350 healthcare organizations, are powerful.  Extensions will:

The Supreme Court held oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, a case challenging the legality of the Universal Service Fund framework.

The Universal Service Fund has done little or nothing for universal service. Mobile phones and the internet have become ubiquitous in rural areas and among those of low income. Most schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities have been hooked up for years (to the dismay of many teachers). This is thanks to the alacrity of today’s high technology, massive private investments, profound improvements in service quality and proficiency, and constantly falling prices.

It was to be one hour of oral arguments about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) Universal Service Fund (USF) program, considering whether Congress delegated too much of its authority when it created the program in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead, U.S. Supreme Court justices spent more than two and a half hours peppering attorneys with questions about the nature of USF, whether the statute fails to set limits on the amount of funding it can collect and whether those fees are, in fact, taxes on the American public that Congress never debated.

This country has long valued ensuring connectivity for all—regardless of income, location, or circumstance. The Universal Service Fund or USF has been an essential part of that promise, providing the funding necessary to connect millions of Americans. Whether through a phone line, broadband connection, or both, access to communications has been critical for economic opportunity and equality. When we invest in connectivity, we invest in people. We invest in their futures.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases Nos.

Lawyers defending the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to manage a longstanding $8.1 billion broadband subsidy expressed cautious optimism ahead of the March 26 Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v.

Community anchor institutions (CAIs)—such as schools, libraries, community health centers, and similar organizations—play a crucial role in offering free or affordable internet access to underserved communities. In many areas, the connectivity options offered by CAIs—whether on-site (via wired or wireless networks) or through remote programs like hotspot lending—are among the few affordable and reliable services available.