Fecha: Jueves, 10de septiembre de 2026​​ 

Hora: 10 a.m. – 14:00.​​ 

Tipo de reunión: Híbrido​​ 

Members Present: 13​​ 

Public Attendees: 63​​ 

DHCS Staff Presenters: Michelle Baass, Director; Jessica Camacho-Hall, Reentry Services Oversight Section Chief, Office of Strategic Partnerships; Brian Hansen, Health Program Specialist II, Health Care Delivery Systems; Cheyenne Custer, Health Program Specialist I, Population Health Management; Paula Wilhelm, Deputy Director, Behavioral Health; Jamie Romas, Assistant Deputy Director, Office of Communications; Isabel Flores, Stakeholder and Community Engagement Analyst, Office of Communications​​ 

Información adicional: Por favor, consulte la presentación de PowerPoint empleada durante la reunión para obtener más contexto y detalles.​​ 

Asistencia de los miembros:​​ 

• Nancy Países Bajos; Presente; En persona​​ 
• Michael Weiss, M.D.; Not Present​​ 
• Ellen Beck, M.D.; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Elizabeth Stanley Salazar; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Diana Vega; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Jeff Ribordy, MD, MPH, FAAP; Not Present​​ 
• Karen Lauterbach; Presente; En persona​​ 
• Kenneth Hempstead, M.D.; En persona​​ 
• William Arroyo, M.D.; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Ron DiLuigi; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Lesley Latham, D.D.S., MS; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Alison Beier; Presente; Virtual​​ 
• Jovan Salama Jacobs, Ed.D; Presente; En persona​​ 
• Kelly Motadel, M.D.; Presente; En persona​​ 
• Jan A. Schumann; Presente; Virtual​​ 

Agenda:​​ 

Hora​​	Contenido​​
10:00 – 10:10​​	Bienvenidos, comentarios iniciales, pase de lista y agenda​​
10:10 – 10:55​​	Actualización sobre centros juveniles y centros correccionales juveniles implicados en la justicia (JI)​​
10:55 – 11:45​​	Behavioral Health Transformation: Goals and Strategies to Support Children, Youth, and Families​​
11:45 – 12:25​​	Programde Embajadores de Cobertura​​
12:25 – 12:55​​	Break​​
12:55 – 1:45​​	Actualización del director​​
1:45 – 1:55​​	Comentario público​​
1:55 – 2:00​​	Comentarios finales y suspensión de la sesión​​

Bienvenida y presentaciones​​ 

Tipo de acción: Acción​​ 

• Recommendation: Review and approve the June 11, 2026, meeting minutes.​​ 
• Presentador: Nancy Netherland, presidenta, dio la bienvenida a los participantes de la reunión y leyó la carga legislativa para el panel asesor.​​ 

Materials/Attachments:​​  MCHAP Meeting Minutes – June 11, 2026​​ 

Action: Approve the minutes from June 11, 2026​​ 

• Aye: 9 (Netherland, Hempstead, Lauterbach, Jacobs, Motadel, Schumann, Beck, Salazar, Beier)​​ 
• Didn’t Vote: 4 (Arroyo, DiLuigi, Latham, Vega)​​ 
• Members Absent: 2 (Weiss, Ribordy)​​ 
• Abstenciones: 0​​ 

Resultado de la moción: Aprobado​​ 

Actualización sobre centros juveniles y centros correccionales juveniles implicados en la justicia (JI)​​ 

Tipo de acción: Información​​ 

Presenter: Jessica Camacho-Hall, Reentry Services Oversight Section Chief, Office of Strategic Partnerships; Brian Hansen, Health Program Specialist II, Health Care Delivery Systems; Cheyenne Custer, Health Program Specialist I, Population Health Management​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• DHCS gave an update on services for JI youth, including steady growth in Enhanced Care Management (ECM) use since services for this group began in January 2024. DHCS explained how the federal Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 affects incarcerated youth. Its required screening and case management services have been folded into the JI Reentry Initiative, and DHCS is still evaluating the optional coverage for youth before sentencing.  DHCS shared first-year results from the Initiative and where pre-release services are now available across state prisons and county facilities. It also noted that all remaining county facilities were required to go live by October 1, 2026, with a conditional go-live option available. DHCS also discussed seeking renewal of its 1115 waiver and drafting a benefits guide for correctional facilities.​​ 
• A member thanks DHCS for the presentation and praised the pre- and post-release work and asked whether incarcerated youth, who are removed from their family’s Medi-Cal case, are assessed for reentry into that case. The member noted that families can lose benefits when the youth helped them qualify, and that youth sometimes get stuck in the incarcerated aid code after release, which limits their access to services. DHCS said it had given local facilities a framework for developing their own models and did not have details on local practices. DHCS offered to send the question to a DHCS eligibility expert. DHCS added that correctional facilities must work with county social services departments on Medi-Cal applications. Post-release Medi-Cal activation is now an emergency action that must be completed within one business day, and managed care plan enrollment now happens on the day of release. Before release, in-facility care managers do a warm handoff to an ECM provider so ECM services can start right away. When asked if ECM providers would specialize in youth and reentry, DHCS said that is a goal, but not a requirement. DHCS noted that the program could involve up to 400,000 releases per year, possibly about 200,000 participants, and that ECM capacity is still being built.​​ 
• A member said shared data showed a 37% year-over-year increase, but did not show what percent of the eligible population was being reached. The member asked for a rough estimate of current uptake among eligible youth compared with the goal of reaching close to 100%. DHCS said it did not have available youth-specific numbers . They explained that the estimate of up to 450,000 releases per year includes state prisons and adult jails, and that youth detention releases are a very small fraction of that total, likely in the thousands. DHCS said the number of JI youth currently receiving ECM services is small compared with other ECM populations of focus. It noted that referrals do not have to come from correctional facilities, but that facilities have a built-in referral process once they launch the program; however, most youth detention facilities have not yet done so.​​ 
• A member thanked DHCS for their work, said they wished coverage lasted longer than three months, and expressed appreciation in honor of a former patient who died of an overdose after being unable to access Medi-Cal. On continuity of care, the member stressed the importance of having a trusted person before and after release. DHCS said this is supported through the warm handoff to ECM providers and through optional, reimbursable community health worker (CHW) services. On mental health follow-up, the member described a young man with a serious mental illness who was told by Molina Healthcare that he would need to wait 18 months to see a psychiatrist. The member asked for follow-up care so that continuity of managed care and mental health services is real. DHCS said the program includes a behavioral health link required by state law. Through that link, mental health and substance use disorder needs are assessed before release, post-release appointments are scheduled with the county behavioral health agency, and warm handoffs are arranged for complex cases. When there is little time before release, the focus is on starting medication for addiction treatment (MAT) and providing medications upon release. DHCS said it will closely monitor how quickly post-release appointments are scheduled, and that MAT and behavioral health linkages are its two most important strategies for preventing negative outcomes. The member also suggested that case managers partner with the educational system to help youth continue classes they started while incarcerated. DHCS said they would take the suggestion back to the team. Finally, the member asked about DHCS’ choice regarding Section 5122 and whether it limited flexibility and was the reason full Medi-Cal is not provided earlier. DHCS said its 1115 waiver was developed over years and hundreds of stakeholder meetings, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) passed late in that process. DHCS also said Section 5122 applies only before disposition and ends once youth are sentenced, which complicates the model. DHCS said it is pleased with the 1115 waiver model so far and will keep reviewing other options, but its priority is having all state prisons, jails, and youth detention facilities implement that model with high fidelity.​​ 
• A member asked how long coverage lasts after release. The member noted that benefits appeared to last a minimum of 30 days and was concerned that individuals could lose services suddenly once that period ended. DHCS said individuals would not lose coverage. Eligible individuals are enrolled in Medi-Cal before release, and after release their regular aid code is turned on. They then have full access to all Medi-Cal-covered services for as long as they remain eligible. DHCS said most youth enroll in Medi-Cal managed care, though some, possibly foster youth, go into the fee-for-service delivery system. DHCS explained that “at least a month” applies only to ECM delivered on a fee-for-service basis before managed care plan enrollment. Individuals enrolled in managed care can receive ECM for at least a year and longer if needed. The member asked whether individuals could keep the same providers. DHCS said that is the intent. It tries to link everyone with an ECM provider that contracts with the managed care plan they will enroll in within their county. DHCS acknowledged this may not work in every case, but expects it to work in the majority of cases. DHCS added that pre-release warm handoffs with county behavioral health providers are intended to be with providers in the county where the individual will be released. The member then asked DHCS to consider holding a family’s benefits (e.g.,  for six months) when a youth is incarcerated since losing benefits could affect other children in the household. DHCS noted it is not the eligibility expert. They said the understanding is that Medi-Cal eligibility is now suspended rather than terminated during incarceration, for both youth and adults, which is a change from a couple of years ago. Medi-Cal cannot pay for services during incarceration, but the suspension should not affect the family’s eligibility. The member called this a major improvement, noting that families often did not realize they had lost benefits until they tried to access services.​​ 
• A member said the program is beneficial for incarcerated youth and noted that the number of incarcerated youth in California has dropped significantly over the past couple of years. The member said a large share of incarcerated youth, up to 35-40% in some areas, are eligible for special education services through an individualized education program (IEP), which can include mental health and counseling services. The member noted that county offices of education are responsible for educating incarcerated youth and provide many related services. The member asked how DHCS is communicating with them so youth receive continuous support without providers overlapping. The member also asked how warm handoffs work when youth return to school since many medical and wraparound services are now offered in schools and more schools are becoming community schools. Finally, the member asked how DHCS is coordinating with probation officers to avoid duplication of services and to ensure services are delivered. DHCS said it did not have much information on the education side, but would take the comment back to the team. DHCS said it has worked closely with the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), the statewide probation association, because probation runs youth detention facilities and handles supervision after release. DHCS said this collaboration focuses on communication, coordination, and avoiding duplicate services. DHCS added that coordination is limited by protections on health information. Youth detention facilities are health care providers so they can share health information with managed care plans and county behavioral health agencies. Probation and parole are treated differently after release. DHCS said it is looking for ways to coordinate within the law on such issues as where youth will live and which services are tied to their release requirements.​​ 

Behavioral Health Transformation: Goals and Strategies to Support Children, Youth, and Families​​ 

Tipo de acción: Información​​ 

Presenter: Paula Wilhelm, Deputy Director, Behavioral Health​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• DHCS gave an overview of the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), which was enacted through Proposition 1 in March 2024. The overview covered the BHSA’s funding structure, eligibility criteria, and priority populations for children and youth. DHCS discussed its statewide behavioral health goals and the performance measures it will use for transparency, planning, and accountability.  The presentation also covered the requirement that at least 51% of early intervention funds serve children and youth, and the Coordinated Specialty Care for First Episode Psychosis program. It also covered the move of Full Service Partnership programs to the BHSA, with High-Fidelity Wraparound as the designated level of care for children and youth. DHCS added High-Fidelity Wraparound to Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health beginning on July 1, 2026.​​ 
• A member thanked DHCS for this much-needed work and raised four areas. First, the member again described a young man with significant mental health conditions who was told by Molina Healthcare that he could not keep his private provider and would need to wait 18 months to see a psychiatrist. The member asked how this initiative would help managed care plans provide services sooner. DHCS said this should not happen. It explained that timely access standards apply to both managed care plans and county specialty services, and members can use the grievance process or the ombudsman when those standards are not met. DHCS noted that it recently issued its first financial penalties to counties and that managed care plans can also be penalized. It added that the BHSA measure set includes access measures that could inform enforcement over the next three to five years. Second, the member said continuity of care between county carveout programs, such as early psychosis programs, and routine mental health services has been a problem for more than 20 years. DHCS said required evidence-based practices, such as coordinated specialty care delivered with fidelity, include care plans and transition management so individuals do not fall through the cracks. Third, the member asked about anti-stigma strategies and noted past success working with community health workers and peers. DHCS said counties have some prevention funding for anti-stigma campaigns, and that it would follow up on whether the California Department of Public Health plan addresses stigma. Fourth, the member asked about reaching young people living on the street before housing is available. DHCS said street outreach and street medicine can be funded through the BHSA, often through Full Service Partnership programs. DHCS added that new Full Service Partnership requirements emphasize field-based, low-barrier ways to start substance use disorder treatment.​​ 
• A member was concerned about giving counties responsibility for services. The member noted that rural counties, such as El Dorado and Humboldt, may have fewer providers than counties like San Diego and San Francisco, and asked whether rural counties could contract with other counties. DHCS acknowledged that rural areas face unique challenges and greater workforce needs. It said statewide BHSA workforce funding, administered by the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), can be invested with geographic equity in mind. DHCS added that the Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment (BH-CONNECT) initiative includes a significant workforce development effort. DHCS also said its Centers of Excellence are developing strategies and flexibility for delivering evidence-based practices in rural areas, where teams and caseloads may look different, while staying as close as possible to a uniform standard of care. DHCS said it welcomed feedback from counties and providers. The member asked whether people could seek care in neighboring counties. DHCS said rural counties often work with providers in neighboring counties when services are unavailable locally, and that these counties are building on existing Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and Full Service Partnership programs. DHCS noted that Proposition 1 also included a bond for behavioral health facilities through the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP). It said the full $4 billion was awarded with the regional needs of small rural counties in mind. Finally, the member, who lives in Contra Costa County, said services one block away in Alameda County would better meet their children’s needs, but Medi-Cal will not cover them because the member does not live there. The member asked why services are not uniform across counties. DHCS said Medi-Cal enforces minimum statewide standards for service availability and timeliness, including financial penalties, when needed. DHCS added that BHSA measures will provide new data, viewable statewide and by county and broken down by age and other characteristics, to help identify gaps between counties and improve access statewide.​​ 
• A member praised the presentation and noted that the BHSA is rooted in a 2004 law and that research has advanced since then. The member highlighted the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, which the member described as a 10-year longitudinal study of youth ages 9 to 17, co-led by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The member asked whether DHCS leadership was familiar with its findings, which overlap with DHCS’ behavioral health work. The member also asked whether the selected outcome measures address social drivers of health, such as poverty, housing, food insecurity, and education. The member stressed that these factors together shape children’s outcomes and that no single agency is responsible. DHCS said it was not familiar with the study, but was interested in learning more. DHCS agreed on social drivers and said the Quality and Equity Advisory Committee had discussed them at length. It explained that this is why the measures are split into goal measures, which track broad outcomes that no single entity controls, and intervention measures, which focus on areas DHCS can enforce with its health plans and providers.​​ 
• A member thanked DHCS and said presumptive eligibility is a major shift because children with known risk factors, such as former foster youth, no longer need a diagnosis before they can get care. The member, who has a child in wraparound services in a rural community, said staffing shortages have limited services, such as family support and Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS). The member asked how families can share what is and isn’t working with DHCS without going through the grievance process. The member also asked when data on the 51 measures will be available and how the measures capture member voices and experiences. The member suggested that assessments include caregivers alongside children since children usually come to services with a family member. DHCS said baseline data for the measures, mostly from state fiscal year 2024–25, is published in the Behavioral Health Transformation (BHT) performance measures report. In the coming weeks or months, DHCS will launch the Behavioral Health County Public Profile, an annually updated dashboard that brings together county behavioral health information and makes it easier to compare counties. On wraparound feedback, DHCS said its behavioral health team would welcome a meeting with families. It also said it would explore how the UC Davis Center of Excellence that supports high fidelity wraparound could regularly include family feedback, with the California Department of Social Services (DSS) involved. The member said people with lived experience are valuable longitudinal data sources across systems and would like to help define success. DHCS said it has worked with DSS over the past year so that both departments use the same UC Davis team and one set of statewide standards for high fidelity wraparound, and that community feedback would help both departments.​​ 
• A member said that in smaller counties, it is difficult to put these advances into practice. Behavioral health systems, especially for substance use disorder treatment, have been built over 20 to 25 years on older county-based structures, including grants and realignment. This has resulted in 58 separate, siloed prepaid inpatient health plans. The member asked DHCS to look at ways to add flexibility, including for care across county lines. The member said provider contracts are overly complex and must be signed with each plan separately. As a result, a provider working in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties needs two contracts. The member said this creates barriers for consumers and discourages providers from joining networks, and suggested learning from how managed care plans handle this. The member also asked about the results of the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS) regional model in rural counties, including whether it improved efficiency and allowed people to receive services across county lines. DHCS confirmed that a DMC-ODS regional model exists, where seven counties worked with Partnership HealthPlan of California to administer DMC-ODS through a shared network. DHCS said it would look closely at lessons learned from that model and others and consider how to help counties make care delivery more efficient and clearer for participating providers.​​ 

Programde Embajadores de Cobertura​​ 

Tipo de acción: Información​​ 

Presenter: Jamie Romas, Assistant Deputy Director, Office of Communications; Isabel Flores, Stakeholder and Community Engagement Analyst, Office of Communications​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• DHCS presented the Coverage Ambassadors Program, which relies on trusted community messengers to help people find, understand, and keep their Medi-Cal coverage. DHCS explained that the program launched in 2022 to help members through the return of Medi-Cal renewals and has grown to more than 7,500 Ambassadors statewide. DHCS supports them through webinars, outreach materials, email updates, and one-on-one meetings. DHCS shared Ambassador feedback and an example of the program’s impact in the community. It also invited MCHAP members to get involved by becoming Ambassadors, sharing materials, and taking part in webinars.​​ 
• A member said they recently attended a Coverage Ambassadors train-the-trainer session and found it excellent. The member works with Family Voices of California and said the organization is excited to partner with DHCS to reach families of children through Family Resource Centers, Family Empowerment Centers, and other existing state networks, including in education. The member praised the training materials and said families like them. The member asked for more family- and child-facing materials. Noting a decline in children’s Medi-Cal enrollment, the member suggested that the Ambassadors program could use its messaging to encourage families with children to keep their coverage. The member added they would share the program’s success and its partnerships with advocates with the Maternal and Child Health team at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) the following week. DHCS thanked the member and said it would keep the feedback in mind as it develops future webinars.​​ 
• A member said supportive housing sites for families are overwhelmed by Medi-Cal questions and have asked for presentations. The member asked whether the Coverage Ambassadors materials include slides so messaging stays consistent and organizations don’t have to create their own. DHCS said each webinar has a slide deck. The member said there is a lot of anxiety and misinformation, including growing questions about public charge, and asked whether DHCS has or plans to create materials on the topic. DHCS said public charge is part of its H.R. 1 outreach efforts. A vendor is developing a public charge website, brochure, and additional resources, which are expected to be available in mid-September. DHCS said there will not be a webinar on public charge, but the materials will be shared widely, including with Ambassadors. DHCS noted that people want information from an official government source. It explained that the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) is leading this work because public charge affects multiple departments. CalHHS is updating its earlier public charge guide, which will reference Medi-Cal and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and link to DSS legal support resources. The member repeated that families want official-looking materials because they are concerned about misinformation. DHCS said all future materials will share the same branding and be approved by the participating agencies so people recognize them as a trusted source.​​ 
• A member recommended an attorney with the Legal Aid Society in San Diego as an excellent presenter on public charge, noting that his talks delivered at local free clinics are very easy to understand. The member also asked whether Coverage Ambassadors play an ongoing advocacy role after helping someone enroll. For example, the member asked whether Ambassadors can serve as a trusted contact when someone receives a confusing letter or faces barriers, such as long waits for mental health services, or whether their role ends after the initial connection. DHCS said this depends on the individual Ambassador since the program is a loose umbrella of community members, including navigators, promotoras, and staff from community-based organizations. DHCS said it cannot guarantee that every Ambassador maintains those relationships, but many do follow up and help people find answers to their questions. The member suggested that DHCS encourage ongoing support without requiring it, provide examples of what that support could look like, and share who Ambassadors can contact when someone needs help. DHCS said it was a great idea.​​ 
• A member agreed with others that the Ambassadors’ messaging is critical to California communities and hoped DHCS would give them the support they need. The member was glad to hear that public charge materials are being developed and asked whether DHCS is working with influencers across the state. DHCS said that as part of its larger H.R. 1 paid media outreach campaign, Coverage Ambassadors will serve as on-the-ground, one-on-one outreach. The campaign will also include radio, digital, and print media. DHCS said the digital outreach will likely include influencers who can share information on such platforms as TikTok and Instagram, and that campaign details are being finalized. The member strongly encouraged DHCS to work with influencers because of their reach and how widely community members use digital media.​​ 

Actualización del director​​ 

Tipo de acción: Información​​ 

Presentador:​​  Michelle Baass, directora​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• DHCS gave an overview of the 2026-27 Budget Act and DHCS’ major budget issues. These include the renewed Managed Care Organization (MCO) Tax, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, and how federal H.R. 1 affects Medi-Cal eligibility and costs, including the work and community engagement requirements and six-month redeterminations. DHCS also covered extra funding for county administration and behavioral health programs, changes to ECM and Community Supports, the Medi-Cal asset limit, and proposed premiums for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status (UIS). They also covered delays to certain 2025 Budget Act actions and one-time funding items. DHCS also explained that, under new federal guidance, Medi-Cal members with UIS will move from managed care to fee-for-service on January 1, 2027. DHCS explained that this changes how members get care, not whether they stay covered, and outlined how it will support members, plans, and providers through the transition.​​ 
• A member asked whether DHCS is tracking visits to the “What Medi-Cal Members Need to Know” webpage to see how well it is being used, and whether efforts are being made to raise awareness if usage is low. DHCS said it can pull that data and explained that it has shared the page on social media and in fact sheets and plans to promote it through upcoming paid media activities. The member noted that this is a confusing time even for professionals, let alone members. DHCS welcomed ideas for getting information out, noting that at a recent First 5 meeting, no one had heard of the Coverage Ambassadors program. The member also asked what DHCS is doing to train or encourage primary care and specialty practices that do not currently accept fee-for-service to do so since patients who see those providers will need to transition to them. DHCS said one of its member FAQs encourages members to ask their providers whether they participate in fee-for-service. DHCS is also analyzing how many managed care providers are enrolled in and billing fee-for-service, by specialty and geography, to target provider outreach. DHCS said it expects to share some of this data at a later date.​​ 
• A member suggested that DHCS share its upcoming webinar with the California Medical Association (CMA) and ask CMA to include a link in its newsletter. The member said this would be an easy way to reach providers, even if CMA didn’t host the webinar itself. DHCS agreed.​​ 
• A member thanked DHCS for its efforts to restore care for people who are losing coverage and to reduce the impact of those losses. The member suggested sharing information about the changes and available resources through statewide and regional free clinic organizations, legal aid societies, and free legal clinics since many people go to these places for help. The member also asked whether Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), which have negotiated rates for patient care, would now be paid fee-for-service rates. DHCS said all providers, including clinics, will be paid the fee-for-service rate. DHCS explained that FQHCs are unique because they also receive a Prospective Payment System (PPS) wrap payment. The wrap will stay in place at least for the first six months and will not change unless the proposal to eliminate PPS for individuals with UIS takes effect on July 1, 2027.​​ 

Comentario público​​ 

Tipo de acción: Comentarios públicos​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• Doug Major, California Children’s Vision Coalition, said he was glad to see DHCS’ work on JI youth. Drawing on his years with the Youth Authority, he said about 40–50% of youth in the justice system have a traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can be diagnosed and treated. He noted that Colorado and other states have adopted this approach and that California is behind. He said the public health data dashboard has been down for more than a year and asked MCHAP to restore it because public health data is essential for advocacy. He said children’s vision care is invisible in the system and noted that Assembly Bill (AB) 2756, which is on the Governor’s desk, would start to address this. He asked for basic children’s vision guidelines and data so that quality improvement committees in local managed care plans can find and fill gaps in care.​​ 
• Sarah Bradshaw, California School Boards Association, thanked DHCS and MCHAP members for their hard work during difficult times and said their efforts help students.​​ 

Final Comments and Next Steps​​ 

Tipo de acción: Información​​ 

Presenter: Nancy Netherland, Chair​​ 

Temas de discusión:​​ 

• A member asked that a future meeting review realistic wait times across the state for specialty services. Examples included specialty mental health services, such as psychiatry and therapy, and orthopedic procedures. The member said that while the new statewide programs are meant to help people get the care they need, looking at current wait times would show how the system is working for members.​​ 
• A member said DHCS should monitor as much information as possible about the fee-for-service network that will serve the transitioning UIS population. The member said this information will be critical for advising the state Legislature on how to address the issue going forward.​​ 
• A member agreed with the previous member’s comment about the major change in how care will be provided for the UIS population. The member was hopeful that things could change in a couple of years, but said the next couple of years will bring major transitions and possible access to care issues. The member said continued monitoring would be very valuable.​​ 
• A member said MCHAP should closely monitor specific populations within its scope, especially children in California Children’s Services (CCS). The member said there is real concern about whether children with complex care needs will be able to find fee-for-service providers within a reasonable distance. The member also asked for data showing how the UIS change affects children and youth specifically, and asked whether about half of the 2 million people are children. DHCS said about 250,000 of the 2 million are children and said it has identified 15,000 to 20,000 high-risk individuals in the broader population and has these data for children, though it did not have that number available. DHCS said that, for transparency, it is holding a special Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting and an ad hoc CCS Advisory Group meeting to review the details. DHCS noted it had a short timeline for this work and wants to keep discussing its approach as it refines its data.​​ 
• A member said it was reassuring that only about 250,000 of the 2 million are children, noting that many children born in California have a different immigration status than their parents. The member also asked that a future meeting cover recent declines in children’s Medi-Cal enrollment by race, ethnicity, and county and how DHCS is responding. DHCS said that because the H.R. 1 changes have not taken effect yet, most of the past year’s decline is due to the end of public health emergency federal flexibilities, which means families must now complete their eligibility renewals. The member asked DHCS to discuss the link between caregiver and child enrollment, and how to communicate with families during these changes so children keep their coverage. The member also suggested sharing DHCS information through American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians newsletters since all physicians do not belong to CMA.​​ 
• Nancy agradeció a los miembros por asistir a la reunión.​​ 
• The next meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2026.​​ 
• MCHAP seguirá siendo una reunión híbrida hasta nuevo aviso.​​ 

Levantamiento de la reunión​​ 

Name of person who adjourned the meeting: Nancy Netherland​​ 

Time Adjourned: 2 p.m.​​