Transcript Highlights:

• , so it's not a guarantee that if you're eligible for one, you would be eligible for others.
• Eligible, likely eligibility, and pre-fill applications providing both better knowledge and reducing
• for CalFresh. be eligible for CalFresh.
• If you're eligible for CalWORKs, you are more than likely eligible for the Medi-Cal program, and I think
• Of how the eligibility is determined.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is that they might simply not be eligible.
• So it's not a guarantee that if you're eligible for one, that you would be eligible for others.
• them know that they were likely eligible for CalWORKs.
• , eligibility, and the tools that can help reach eligible clients to encourage them to enroll.
• eligible for the Medi-Cal program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an overview of efforts to streamline access to safety net programs and move toward more automatic, person-centered enrollment. CDSS, DHCS, and CalHHS described current cross-enrollment between Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and CalWORKs, including data showing high overlap among programs and a text-message outreach pilot that increased CalWORKs applications and enrollments but reached only a small share of potentially eligible people. Witnesses emphasized barriers such as differing federal eligibility rules, data-sharing limits, privacy concerns, and the need for better technology, consent management, and stakeholder engagement. Members pressed the administration on how to institutionalize these efforts across administrations and asked for concrete budgetary and regulatory steps to support “no wrong door” enrollment and automatic referrals. The committee also reviewed several chair priorities. On the proposed foster care multi-agency office, CDSS said existing coordination structures already address much of the intended work and asked to verify prior fiscal scoring. On the Employment First Office, CalHHS explained that the office’s $1 million budget was eliminated in the 2024-25 budget as part of deficit reductions, while noting that employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities remains an administration priority through existing departmental coordination. For the food insecurity proposal, CDSS said it could provide technical assistance but would need new data-sharing agreements, could not separately calculate a CFAP participation rate with current data, and would likely need until July 1, 2027, plus ongoing staffing, to complete the requested report. The mandated reporter proposal drew support for reform, with CDSS estimating low-millions in one-time training costs and ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands. The subcommittee also discussed a guaranteed income proposal. CalHHS suggested drafting new statutory language and considering a county-administered model rather than a state-run competitive grant process to reduce administrative burden, while members and public commenters urged support for AB 661 and a study of a permanent statewide guaranteed income program. Public testimony also supported automatic enrollment, community-supporting mandated reporting reforms, and cash assistance for fire recovery. In the final items, CSD described how local nonprofit partners helped during the Los Angeles fires with food, housing vouchers, transportation, and emergency energy assistance, and explained that LIHEAP and CSBG remain important but limited tools for disaster response. CSD also said recent federal staffing cuts and possible future federal budget threats could affect LIHEAP and CSBG administration, though no immediate service disruptions had occurred and additional LIHEAP funds were expected to be released soon.

Transcript Highlights:

• are now eligible?
• program like how does that work so like if they were to lose eligibility no so say um lose eligibility
• , that once they go through the eligibility determination process are actually not eligible when it comes
• Our eligibility threshold...
• families will no longer be eligible.

Summary: The Pre-K through 12 Budget Subcommittee met with a quorum and focused on School Readiness, specifically the new provider reimbursement rates and the School Readiness Plus program. The chair gave an overview of how School Readiness is funded and administered, noting that the Legislature now sets county-based reimbursement rates using market and cost data, and that School Readiness Plus was created to help families who would otherwise fall off the subsidy “cliff” at 85% of state median income by extending assistance up to 100% of state median income. Panelists from the Children’s Forum, the Association of Early Learning Coalitions, and the Division of Early Learning described the programs as major workforce and family-support tools that help parents stay employed and help providers recruit and retain qualified staff. Testimony emphasized that higher reimbursement rates increase parental choice, help providers cover rising child care costs, and support better staffing and lower turnover. The panel also said School Readiness Plus is easing the pressure on families to turn down raises or promotions for fear of losing child care assistance, though uptake is still early because the program only began in late 2024 and is only available to current School Readiness families at redetermination. The Division of Early Learning reported about 275 children enrolled in School Readiness Plus as of March 10, with expenditures of about $161,420 through January 2025, and said participation is increasing. Members asked about the federal-state funding split, wait lists, reverted funds, coalition accountability, county-based rate differences, and whether the entrance eligibility threshold should be raised or shifted to state median income. The panel said roughly 70% of School Readiness funding is federal, about 4% has typically reverted in recent years, and the wait list is around 12,000 children, with reasons including income ineligibility, lack of available seats, and funding limits. They argued that raising the entrance threshold would expand access but would require additional funding, and they also discussed the need to reduce workforce barriers such as in-person testing and training requirements. The meeting ended with no formal action beyond the presentation and member discussion, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and you they're not eligible for one, you put them on reserve, they might be eligible for another.
• and you they're not eligible for one, you put them on reserve, they might be eligible for another.
• might be eligible for another. might be eligible for another.
• the eligibility process and criteria? the eligibility process and criteria?
• . eligible. eligible.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee for Health and Family Services met for its first meeting, established quorum, and heard a presentation from Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee and CFO Steve Becktold. The department reviewed its compliance with House Bill 695, which requires legislative approval before certain Medicaid eligibility, service, benefit, or waiver changes, along with fiscal impact reporting to the Legislative Research Commission. They described current waivers, including home and community-based waivers, managed care and transportation waivers, and the 1115 re-entry waiver, and said the community engagement waiver is in public comment and on track for submission to CMS. They also said required reports and other HB 695 tasks, including a pharmacy rebate fund, budget analyses, expenditure reports, and a behavioral health scorecard, are underway or completed as required. The CFO outlined Medicaid’s budget, saying the department has two appropriation units and projecting near-full use of state funds while leaving some federal funds unspent because of matching-rate differences. They reported roughly 211 filled positions and 11 vacancies. Members asked about the vacancy makeup, the behavioral health scorecard, and whether a provider involved in quality metrics could have a conflict if used in the scorecard process; the department said it would follow up. Members also asked about the community engagement waiver and its interaction with federal policy, and the department said CMS guidance is still pending and that it will proceed under HB 695. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on federal Medicaid policy changes under a reconciliation bill, including possible limits on provider taxes, directed payments, cost-sharing, and community engagement requirements. Department officials said the final federal impact is still uncertain because the Senate bill is not finalized, but they have modeled several scenarios and warned that any reduction in federal support or benefits would be harmful, especially for hospitals and rural hospitals. They estimated Medicaid benefits are funded about 80% federal and 20% state overall, with expansion populations closer to 90% federal funding, and said administrative costs would also rise if federal requirements change. Members also asked about work requirements and eligibility. The department said the community engagement waiver would mainly affect the expansion population, which they estimated at about 450,000 people out of roughly 1.5 million total Medicaid enrollees, and that many groups are exempt, including children, the aged, blind, disabled, and people in substance use disorder treatment. Officials said they can provide data on how many enrollees are working or work-ready and explained that their eligibility system is designed to prevent duplication by automatically placing people in the correct category and correcting errors quickly. They also noted a federal proposal to require expansion eligibility reviews every six months, compared with current annual renewals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Eligibility criteria.
• Is this eligible work? Is that in line with what FEMA has outlined as eligible removal?
• If the eligible activity isn't in our FROC system, If the eligible activity isn't in our FROC system,
• If the eligible activity isn't in our FROC system, we know that it's not eligible for reimbursement.
• So the eligible work, but it's not eligible because it's in an environmentally protected area.

Summary: The committee received a program review from the Florida Division of Emergency Management on the 2024 hurricane season and FEMA reimbursement process. Deputy Director Keith Pruitt described the impacts of Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, including major storm surge, flooding, tornadoes, debris removal, power restoration, flood-control deployments, sheltering, and logistics missions. He emphasized that Florida’s approach is “federally funded, state managed, locally executed,” and said the division has already obligated large amounts of public assistance funding and mitigation dollars while continuing to work on remaining missions and reimbursements. A major focus of the discussion was how local governments can better document and vet debris-removal and other disaster costs so they are eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Chair DiCeglie and other senators raised concerns about local planning, commercial debris collection, and whether counties and municipalities that spend money up front will be reimbursed. Pruitt explained that eligibility depends on documentation, scope of work, insurance, and FEMA rules, and that the state’s FROC process is intended to help counties identify eligible work before costs are incurred. He also said commercial debris may be eligible in some cases but is not guaranteed, and that counties should coordinate early with FDEM and FEMA. Senators also asked about possible FEMA reforms, the age of outstanding reimbursement claims, and a proposed state fund to advance money to fiscally constrained counties while they wait for FEMA payments. Pruitt said Florida’s system is a national best practice, but that more county-level training and clearer coordination would help reduce de-obligations and audit problems. He said the reimbursement-advance idea is still being developed, and that the state continues to look at ways to streamline mitigation through programs like Elevate Florida. The committee took no formal action beyond hearing the presentation, and the meeting adjourned after closing comments from senators praising FDEM’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• on a person's basis of eligibility. on a person's basis of eligibility.
• eligible for medical assistance. eligible for medical assistance.
• eligibility issue.
• It is a provider elig eligibility issue.
• regarding eligibility for providers. regarding eligibility for providers.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, beginning in 2028, eligibility.
• eligible for SNAP.
• their eligibility for the program. their eligibility for the program.
• eligibility. 46 states implement BBCE. eligibility. 46 states implement BBCE.
• of these eligibility changes. of these eligibility changes.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The rules aim to align non-MAGI eligibility rules.
• It also increases the frequency of eligibility checks.
• They made ITPs eligible for reentry licenses.
• They meet statutory requirements on eligibility.
• And then ultimately, they're again eligible for full licensure.

Summary: The committee first received an update on the effects of HR1 and related federal Medicaid and marketplace changes from Governor’s Office and Health Care Authority staff. Presenters said the most immediate coverage losses are expected in the individual market beginning in January, with premium increases and an estimated 80,000 people potentially unable to afford coverage. They warned that larger Medicaid impacts will follow over the next year and beyond, including tighter eligibility checks, work requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, limits on state-directed payments and provider taxes, new cost-sharing, and changes affecting certain non-citizen adults. They also said the state plans to seek a waiver or extension for work requirements and will continue to analyze impacts, including on rural providers and Planned Parenthood-related services. Members asked about the effect on nursing homes, rural hospitals, and how the state can help providers and enrollees navigate the new requirements; staff said timelines and a state-specific implementation chart are being developed. The committee then heard a report on the International Medical Graduate Work Group and Washington’s efforts to create pathways for internationally trained physicians. Testimony described the clinical experience license, the clinical evaluation assessment tool, grant funding for IMG support organizations, and a new hardship waiver process enacted this year. National presenters said many states have adopted similar pathways because of physician shortages, but Washington and Tennessee are among the few states that have actually issued licenses so far. They recommended clear guardrails, an employment offer before application, ECFMG certification, supervised practice, and data collection to avoid exploitation and protect patients. Members asked about state-to-state variation, retention of IMGs, and whether Washington should pursue dedicated residency or preceptorship options; presenters said the key next step is moving successful participants from supervised experience to a durable long-term license. The final topic was implementation of Washington’s Apple Health doula benefit and the statewide doula hub and referral system. Senator T’wina Nobles highlighted the state’s $3,500 per-birth Medicaid reimbursement rate for doulas and the importance of the hub for referrals, training, and billing. Health Care Authority staff said the benefit launched January 1, 2025, and covers prenatal intake, labor and delivery, postpartum visits, and telehealth-supported services. They reported 336 state-certified doulas, 134 enrolled in Apple Health, 287 unique clients served, and 641 claims paid so far. Testimony emphasized doulas’ role in improving birth outcomes, reducing unnecessary interventions, and addressing racial disparities in maternal health, while noting that implementation is still early and ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Department of Health remains to continue to perform clinical eligibility functions.
• of Health to conduct a clinical eligibility determination for the child.
• TO PERFORM CLINICAL ELIGIBILITY FUNCTIONS. THIS DID NOT TRANSFER.
• I know Medicaid was working with us and handling the eligibility piece.
•   932 >> Chair: It is my understanding that DCF is responsible for eligibility.

Summary: The Health Facilities Subcommittee met to receive implementation updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration on three bills passed in prior sessions. First, Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer reported on the transfer of the Children’s Medical Services managed care plan from the Department of Health to AHCA under HB 1085. He said the move was administrative only, with no change to enrollment, providers, services, or clinical eligibility functions, and that it was intended to create efficiencies by aligning procurement and shifting staff resources between agencies. Members then questioned AHCA about reports of reductions in private duty nursing and therapy services for medically fragile children, including concerns about appeals, provider credentialing, and whether families were losing services or being transitioned appropriately. AHCA said it was reviewing denials, monitoring the plan, and using contractual remedies while focusing on maintaining access for members. The committee also reviewed implementation of a bill creating permanent Medicaid eligibility for individuals with permanent disabilities. AHCA staff explained that the agency had submitted a federal 1115 waiver request after public comment and stakeholder meetings, but CMS had indicated it did not anticipate approving the requested authority. Members pressed AHCA on why the waiver was submitted later than the bill’s directive date and on whether the delay was avoidable. AHCA said the waiver was complex and required review, drafting, and public input, and noted that DCF already has a specialized unit to help with redeterminations while the agencies work on operational changes. The committee discussed the practical impact on families who struggle with annual eligibility renewals and the need for clearer communication and faster follow-up from the agency. Finally, AHCA presented on the home health aide program for medically fragile children and related Medicaid eligibility changes. The agency described the 2023 law that created a family caregiver provider type and the 2025 changes that increased the hourly rate, expanded hours, reduced training requirements, and removed caregiver earnings from Medicaid eligibility calculations, subject to federal approval. AHCA said it had completed state public comment, submitted the waiver amendment to CMS, and was awaiting federal action. Members raised concerns that some families may have enrolled or begun work before the eligibility fix was in place and may have lost benefits, especially in Broward County. AHCA said it would work with affected families and plans, review outreach through DCF and the health plans, and continue rulemaking, system updates, and provider training. The meeting ended with the chair noting that the committee had received the updates and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:59.040> while some may no longer be eligible while some may no longer be eligible while
• <00:20:59.440> So retroactive Medicaid eligibility. So retroactive Medicaid eligibility.
• In Minnesota, those eligibility categories are eligible for MinnesotaCare largely, and so what we're
• <00:24:45.120> for legal non-citizens are eligible for legal non-citizens are eligible for
• older will not be eligible for Medicaid. older will not be eligible for Medicaid.

Bills: HR1

Keywords: January 6 insurrection, pardon, law enforcement, violent crimes, public safety, justice system, political accountability, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• HELENE AND MILTON COMBINED, THERE ARE 52 COUNTIES ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR NONCOGNITIVE SHELTER AND THIS
• SO OF THE ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS WE HAVE FOR PASS-THROUGH THERE IS A BALANCE OF $5 BILLION.
• WE HELP MAKE SURE THOSE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE ARE GETTING WHAT THEY NEED.
• WORK, IS THAT IN LINE WITH WHAT FEMA HAS OUTLINED ELIGIBLE REMOVAL?
• IF THE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY ISN'T IN OUR FROC SYSTEM WE KNOW IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT SO THAT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's my job to teach new eligibility workers how to determine eligibility and how to use Access to
• Now we're scrolling through the eligibility results.
• These are all different eligibility tests that the client has to pass in order to be eligible.
• Now we're scrolling through the eligibility results.
• These are all different eligibility tests that the client has to pass in order to be eligible.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• or they are eligible.
• eligibility.
• But people who would be eligible for Home Safe will no longer be eligible.
• But people who would be eligible for Home Safe will no longer be eligible.
• No one can live being treated like you're eligible, you're not eligible.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The hearing opened with Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office remarks on the May Revision, which both described efforts to reduce large out-year operating deficits through a mix of revenue increases, spending reductions, and reserve use. Finance said the May Revision more than halves projected deficits in later years, while LAO stressed that revenues are at unprecedented levels yet the state still faces a significant structural deficit and is drawing down reserves; LAO urged maintaining at least the administration’s level of budget solutions and adding to reserves rather than new ongoing commitments. The chair echoed concern about cuts to vulnerable populations and noted the tension between service reductions and requests for additional administrative positions. The committee then heard a series of California Health and Human Services and HCAI proposals, including additional legal support for CalHHS to respond to federal HR1 changes; a net-zero transfer of positions for a centralized eligibility/data-sharing platform; 988 crisis line implementation funding and continued work with the Trevor Project to train crisis centers to better serve LGBTQ youth; EMS data system maintenance funding; HCAI implementation of AB 1312 hospital charity care screening; SB 660 data exchange framework funding; CalRx biosimilar insulin reappropriation; and a diaper access initiative that would provide free diapers to newborns in participating hospitals and support a future direct-to-consumer purchasing option. Members questioned the diaper program’s universal design, the use of a Public Contract Code exemption, and the selection of Baby2Baby, with the chair expressing concern about optics and the lack of an income threshold. The committee also discussed distressed hospital funding, with HCAI requesting up to $50 million for another round of grants to hospitals in immediate financial distress. HCAI said it receives annual and quarterly financial reports but the data lag limits real-time monitoring, and the LAO recommended stronger program parameters and turnaround plans. Members argued the repeated need for distressed hospital aid reflects a structural problem, not a short-term gap, and raised broader concerns about hospital reimbursement and patient flow. Other items included reverting $19.6 million in unused opioid settlement funds from HCAI to DHCS for General Fund offset, and a Rural Health Transformation Program request to increase HCAI spending authority to cover the full federal award. Later, DMHC presented funding requests to implement PBM licensing and financial review requirements under AB 116, modernize the managed care complaint system, and build an electronic claims settlement data system under AB 3275. The final major discussion focused on the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which opposed the May Revision’s proposed reduction of its Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and a $6.7 million cut to community advocacy grants. The Commission argued these programs are core to Proposition 1’s goals of statewide innovation and community accountability, while Finance said the proposal is consistent with Proposition 1’s maximum funding levels and reflects a broader effort to prioritize direct services and use unspent prior-year funds; members pressed for more information and questioned whether the cuts would undermine the new behavioral health framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have eligible students who are eligible for these programs, but they're also asked to be required
• What are the strategies employing to get the last 19% of eligibility? Yeah.
• As with Medi-Cal, HR1 introduced various eligibility restrictions to CalFresh.
• Now only three counties in California have been deemed eligible.
• And then the second is what we can do to ensure that those who could be eligible or should be eligible

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they eligible for that at all?
• So they're not eligible for those. Is that correct?
• If they were eligible before, they're still eligible.
• For this one particular eligibility criteria.
• So there's eligibility criteria.

Summary: The committee approved the November 3 minutes and then received an extensive presentation from Arkansas education and workforce officials on how the LEARNS and ACCESS Acts are affecting career and technical education, concurrent enrollment, and postsecondary readiness. Officials said the state’s goal is for students to leave high school employed, enrolled, or enlisted, and reported increases in K-12 CTE enrollment from about 161,000 to 171,000 students and concurrent CTE enrollment from about 12,000 to 16,000. They also described the new success-ready pathways, merit and distinction designations, and how those measures tie into school accountability and graduation outcomes. The discussion then turned to scholarships and grants. Officials explained that ACCESS expanded concurrent credit support, increased funding per credit hour, and broadened eligibility for the Arkansas Academic Challenge and Governor’s Scholar programs by adding diploma-of-merit and diploma-of-distinction pathways. They said the Governor’s Distinguished Scholarship itself did not change, but the non-distinguished Governor’s Scholar award now includes diploma of distinction as an additional eligibility route. Members raised concerns about how these requirements apply to private school and homeschool students, and officials said the intent is to ensure those students can qualify if they meet the same standards, though some implementation details are still being worked out. Questions also focused on whether students who explore multiple pathways could be penalized in school letter grades; officials said the system allows multiple ways to earn credit, including AP, IB, concurrent credit, technical certificates, and apprenticeships. Officials also reviewed workforce scholarships and short-term training funding. They said the state is developing policy for the Workforce Challenge and related professional skills training to set an 80-hour minimum and tiered funding, and they discussed the new federal Workforce Pell rules, which they said are very narrow and will likely apply to only a small number of Arkansas programs unless providers repackage training into stackable, credit-bearing pathways. Members asked for lists of eliminated programs, apprenticeships, and data on scholarship recipients, and staff said they could provide those. The committee also heard from Cody Waites on a $35.8 million U.S. Department of Labor cooperative agreement for the American Manufacturing Apprenticeship Incentive Fund, which Arkansas will administer nationally. He said the grant will support advanced manufacturing apprenticeships, use a pay-for-performance model, and be distributed to sponsors after apprentices are employed for 90 days, with applications opening January 28 and the state expecting to keep administrative costs under 8-9%.

Transcript Highlights:

• not eligible for CalFresh.
• My questions have to do with eligibility for Medi-Cal and CalFresh.
• each month and the heightened burden of proving eligibility.
• Which unfortunately was also baked into the state budget eligibility changes.
• So we need automation around student change eligibility.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:58.400> to is at 50 51% they should be eligible to is at 50 51% they should be eligible
• Um, eligibility for that first piece.
• > eligibility<00:20:07.120> every reertify that initial eligibility every reertify that initial
• strike on line 110 strike eligibility strike on line 110 strike eligibility shall<00:21:19.679><
• Thank you. eligibility at 50% simply because we eligibility at 50% simply because we don't<00:28:36.399

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• eligibility eligible for a mandatory eligibility group<00:15:32.800> who<00:15:33.360> um<
• In Minnesota, those eligibility categories are eligible for MinnesotaCare largely.
• In Minnesota, those eligibility categories are eligible for MinnesotaCare largely.
• In Minnesota, those eligibility categories are eligible for MinnesotaCare largely.
• In Minnesota, those eligibility categories are eligible for MinnesotaCare largely.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Department of Human Services briefed the committee on how the federal HR1 law will affect Minnesota Medicaid and related programs. Budget Director Elise Bailey said the 900-page bill makes sweeping changes that will reduce coverage, increase administrative complexity for counties and tribal governments, raise uncompensated care for providers, and reduce federal funding. She reviewed current Medicaid spending and enrollment, emphasizing that the largest impacts will fall on the adult expansion group (adults ages 21-64 without children), which currently receives a 90% federal match. Bailey walked through several major provisions: work and community engagement requirements for the adult expansion group beginning January 1, 2027; six-month renewals for that same group; shorter retroactive coverage periods; new cost-sharing requirements for expansion enrollees above 100% of poverty; narrower Medicaid eligibility for certain lawful noncitizens; limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments; a reduced federal match for emergency medical assistance; and tighter federal rules on payment error penalties. She said many provisions require state law changes and additional federal guidance, and she cited research from Georgia suggesting work requirements increased administrative burden and caused coverage losses without increasing employment. The department estimated fiscal effects including reduced Medicaid spending in some areas but higher state costs in others, such as MinnesotaCare, emergency medical assistance, administrative systems, and provider uncompensated care. Bailey said the immigration-status changes would shift some people from Medical Assistance to MinnesotaCare, and that provider-tax and state-directed-payment changes could reduce future funding to hospitals and other providers. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the presentation was informational and the department indicated it would return with proposed state-law language as needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We call those people dual eligibles.
• <00:13:53.199> groups uh on the optional eligibility groups uh on the optional eligibility
• <00:15:30.399> group call out significant eligibility group call out significant eligibility
• <00:28:31.880> for 138 after 138 you're not eligible for 138 after 138 you're not eligible
• <02:23:19.040> for um elig people who are not eligible for um elig people who are not eligible

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next one is CalWORKs Child Care Eligibility.
• Of the 470,000, about 110,000 will lose eligibility entirely.
• We do want to acknowledge that this proposal impacts IHSS eligibility as a function of Medi-Cal eligibility
• , which also determines eligibility for IHSS.
• It lowered APS eligibility from age 65 to age 60.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.