by Jane Winik Sartwell, Carolina Public Press April 24, 2025
Six months ago, Washington Regional Medical Center in Plymouth declared bankruptcy for the second time in five years. Now, hospital leadership hopes that the facility will emerge from this latest financial hardship by late May.
That’s good news to the 10,713 residents of Washington County who need the hospital to stay in business. It’s the only one around.
The bad news is that it has never been harder to keep a rural hospital afloat, especially one that’s not connected to a larger health system. In adjacent Martin County, Martin General Hospital closed its doors in 2023. Thirteen more counties in the northeastern region of the state don’t have hospitals at all.
Should Washington Regional get through this, it will serve as a rare example of a rural hospital taking control of its shaky finances and preserving essential services for North Carolinians.
The good doctor
When Washington Regional Medical Center filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it owed millions to a long list of creditors.
Dominion Energy is due roughly $300,000. The Washington County Tax Office is asking for over $150,000. Washington Regional also owes money to General Electric as well as a number of vendors, including the company that handles the hospital’s pharmaceutical operations. The full list of creditors includes more than 70 companies and organizations.
Texas-based Affinity Health Partners purchased the Washington County hospital after a catastrophic 2019 bankruptcy that led to liquidation under its previous owners. But by the end of the year, patients were back on the hospital floor.
Washington County, one of the poorest areas in North Carolina, also hosts some of the highest rates of infant mortality and other adverse health conditions, such as obesity and heart disease.
That makes Washington Regional Medical Center, with its 25 beds, a lifeline in an otherwise barren health landscape. It’s why the facility is designated as a “critical access hospital” by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.
When neighboring Martin General Hospital closed, emergency room visitation at Washington Regional increased from 450 patients per month to over 600.
“The importance of the hospital cannot be overstated,” Plymouth Mayor Brian Roth told Carolina Public Press. “Especially since we’ve gotten all the patients who would have gone to Martin General.”
Washington Regional is ‘here to stay’
If Washington Regional did close, residents would have to drive hours to reach the nearest hospital — ECU Health Medical Center in Greenville. The flat, piney swampland on the Albemarle Sound is not easy to navigate, and public transit is pretty much nonexistent.
“We cannot lose the hospital here,” Roth said. “It just cannot happen.”
CEO Frank Avignone promises that it won’t.
“We used bankruptcy as a tool to reorganize our debt,” he explained. “We basically did it for one vendor who was giving us a hard time, and now that that is taken care of, the hospital is doing well. Patient volumes are up. We have a brand new CT scanner so we are increasing cardiac and pulmonary care. We have new doctors on staff. A new OB/GYN on staff. We’re not some fly-by-night community hospital being run by a crook using it as an ATM machine.
“The hospital is here to stay unless it burns to the ground.”
Washington Regional is not currently performing surgeries. Hospitals typically use specialty procedures as a way to generate revenue and offset the high costs of, say, operating an emergency room. The hope is that the hospital will renew surgical procedures at some point, adding a layer of financial security.
Meanwhile, another threat is looming: the $880 million cut to Medicaid currently being discussed by Republicans in Congress.
At Washington Regional Medical Center, 60% of patients are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, making the program a crucial source of funding for the hospital.
If that coverage goes away, the hospital’s finances may be thrown back into peril.
“We treat folks on Medicaid. That’s our population and that’s what we’re designed to do,” Avignone said. “We just have to balance the books. That’s what I’ve been trying to do — and it’s working.”
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This assessment considers the overall tone and context of the content. The article discusses the challenges faced by rural hospitals, particularly Washington Regional Medical Center, and highlights the importance of public health services like Medicaid for vulnerable populations. It presents a sympathetic view of the hospital’s financial struggles, linking them to broader public policy issues (e.g., potential cuts to Medicaid proposed by Republicans). The emphasis on social welfare and the vital role of community health services reflect a center-left perspective focused on the importance of public healthcare systems and support for low-income residents. However, the piece does not overly politicize the issue and maintains an informative, fact-based approach, which prevents it from being categorized as far-left.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
