{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010727969348659003, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.102803738317757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Arguing for rural health in Medicare: a progressive rhetoric for rural America.

Rural health policy is the laws, regulations, rules, and interpretations that benefit or affect health and health care for rural populations. This paper examines how rural health policy is viewed in the broader field of public policy, discusses the role of advocacy in developing rural health policy, and suggests ways to make that advocacy more effective. This paper critically reviews policy statements and policy positions taken by key opinion leaders and the leading stakeholders in rural health policy to determine how advocacy for rural communities is expressed. It is not clear how the rural health advocacy coalition is viewed by the professional policy world or the public: as an issues network pressing for fair and equal treatment or as an interest group seeking special advantages. This paper also explores the types of claims that rural advocates make in the specific context of Medicare policy to determine to what extent those claims reflect a central theme of fairness and inclusiveness in national policies versus claims that benefit special interests. The paper suggests that the rhetoric of rural advocates can be better structured to advocate for policies on the basis of a progressive sense of fairness.