SNAP Benefits Temporarily Saved by Judges

Just as SNAP benefits were about to be suspended a bench ruling in Rhode Island & Boston ordered USDA to use their $5B in SNAP contingency funds to continue providing food benefits despite the government shutdown. Arizona was a plaintiff in the Boston district lawsuit.

This is a temporary fix as the $5B is expected to only last about 3 weeks (assuming the USDA complies with the order – and they may not).

SNAP helps more than 855,000 Arizonans afford food each month. The average household benefit is about $359 per month, or about $150 per person. See last week’s member update for more details about the public health importance of SNAP: Hunger Is a Public Health Issue: SNAP Food Assistance Cutoff Imminent

Attorney General Mayes Sues Trump Administration for Illegally Suspending SNAP Benefits | Attorney General’s Office

Find Food Bank Assistance Locations – Double Up Arizona

Discover the AZPHA Career Center: Your Public Health Job Hub

Are you working in public health or looking to start a career in this vital field? The Arizona Public Health Association has a tool for our members — the AZPHA Career Center — designed to connect public health practitioners with employers, and to help both groups find exactly what they need.

Job Seekers

  • You can browse hundreds of live job ads in public health. According to recent stats, the site currently supports 291 live job postings.
  • You can upload your resume, making it easier for potential employers to find you. Right now, there are 82 live resumes on the site.
  • There are also career-development resources: tools to help you sharpen your résumé, improve your job search strategies and stand out in your field.

Employers

  • The AZPHA Career Center isn’t just for job seekers — 101 employers are already registered and ready to post opportunities and connect with talent.
  • You can post job openings tailored for public-health roles, filter candidates by skills and experience, and build your organization’s presence in the Arizona public health community.

With the AZPHA Career Center you get a dedicated place focused on your field — not just a general job board. That specialization helps speed up the match-making and tailoring of opportunities.

Getting Started

  • If you’re a job seeker: Create your profile, upload your résumé, explore current listings and set alerts so you don’t miss the right role.
  • If you’re an employer: Set up your organizational profile, post your job openings, and search the database of résumés to find your next great hire.
  • Explore the built-in tools for résumé tips, job search coaching and career advancement — all designed for public health jobs.

Visit the AZPHA Career Center to get started!

Help Develop Arizona’s Community Health Worker Training Program!

ASU is helping build healthier communities across Arizona through its new Community Health Worker Training Program, offered by the ASU College of Health Solutions.

Community Health Worker Training Program – ASU CareerCatalyst

With support from a $3 million grant from the HRSA – ASU’s goal is to train and support Community Health Workers who serve people in underserved and rural areas across our state.

The program will give students both online learning and real-world experience through on-the-job training, apprenticeships, or internships with community partners.

New learners—those who are not yet CHWs—can receive a $7,500 stipend during the training. Those who go on to complete a 2,000-hour apprenticeship can earn an additional $7,500 as they gain firsthand experience helping others.

This program is launching at an exciting time for Arizona’s CHW workforce. As of April 1, 2023, Arizona Medicaid (AHCCCS) began paying for CHW services, meaning Community Health Workers can now be paid for the important work they do helping patients connect to care, manage chronic diseases, and stay healthy.

Community Health Worker Medicaid Reimbursement Begins April 1 – AZ Public Health Association

Now, ASU and the Arizona Partnership for Immunizations – who is collaborating with ASU on the project – wants to hear directly from CHWs about how best to support conversations around vaccines and immunizations.

Many CHWs already talk with clients about vaccines, but misinformation can make those talks difficult. ASU & TAPI want to listen and learn—what’s working, what help is needed, and what tools would make these conversations easier.

To do this, they’re hosting two listening sessions—one in English and one in Spanish—where CHWs can share their experiences and ideas. The goal is to create a simple, easy-to-use toolkit that helps CHWs give accurate, caring information when questions about vaccines come up.

Your voice matters! Register for one of the listening sessions here:

Meeting Registration – 10/30 14:00 – 15:00 – Zoom

Meeting Registration (Espanol) 11/3 10:00 – 11:00  – Zoom

Meeting Registration 11/7 12:00 – 13:00 – Zoom

What’s the IMD Exclusion? Why is the Exclusion a Barrier to Housing People with a Serious Mental Illness?

By Rachel Streiff & Will Humble

Have you ever wondered why most US states have so many homeless individuals with severe mental illnesses? Perhaps you have noticed a stark contrast to other disabled populations, such as those with developmental, physical or elderly disabilities. While services may not be perfect for these other vulnerable populations, they’re still, generally, housed.

AHCCCS’ last report showed more than 6,000 Arizonans formally designated with a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) on a waiting list for housing. Yet, the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) for both the Elderly and Physically Disabled (EPD) and Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) populations report relatively few on their housing waitlists; generally less than couple hundred such individuals are “in between” placements.

Arizona’s Medicaid system has a unique entitlement program that covers SMI treatment, offering a range of short-term services including inpatient hospitals and Behavioral Health Residential Facilities (BHRF’s).

Yet there are scant few housing options once they are discharged. More fortunate individuals may go home to a family caregiver, or to the scarce network of SMI supported housing units. Those less fortunate find themselves on streets, in shelters, in carceral settings, or worse: the morgue. I have extensively reported on the deadly combination of SMI, homelessness, and the Arizona heat.

The enormous housing gap uniquely affecting the SMI population is a direct result of the “IMD exclusion.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it but aren’t sure what it is and what it’s doing.

What’s the IMD Exclusion?

Medicaid was set up in 1965 under the Social Security Act. It included a provision called the Institution for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion which banned federal funds from being used for treatment in psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds. The goal was to stop federal funding of state asylums which had few care standards, no oversight, and were notorious for indefinitely warehousing people with disabilities, including SMI.

This kicked off a movement known as “Deinstitutionalization.” States were de-incentivized to institutionalize people and were expected to create mental health systems that provided treatment in their communities.

Over time, advances in medicine and law made institutionalization far less likely. Psychiatric and medical inpatient admissions criteria were set up, as well as legal criteria needed to justify involuntary treatment. Medications like antipsychotics became increasingly more effective.

Despite these advances, certain conditions like Schizophrenia still had a subset of individuals that needed a higher level of care to keep stability and safety. Eventually, the IMD exclusion caused major unintended consequences for this chronic SMI population – not just by restricting access to hospitals, but also by cutting off pathways to permanent housing for many people with SMI.

Both ALTCS populations (EPD and DDD) have not faced chronic homelessness in the same way. This is because, almost since its start, Medicaid provided funding for Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs) serving individuals with intellectual disabilities. Then in 1981, Congress added the Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver.

This allowed state Medicaid programs to cover long-term care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) outside of institutional settings, in homes and group homes.

These same Long-Term Support Services were extended to the EPD population, since their conditions were defined as physical or medical rather than “mental diseases.” This allowed skilled nursing facilities — and later HCBS programs — to use federal Medicaid dollars for residential care.

These “ exceptions” to the IMD exclusion made Medicaid housing coverage possible for certain disabled populations: if you are eligible for a Medicaid-funded institution, Medicaid can pay for you to live in a home or group home instead. By contrast, a comparable waiver was never created for the SMI population.

The IMD exclusion serves to double-down on Congress’s stance that individuals living with mental illness ought not to receive the long-term care benefits provided to the IDD and EPD populations.

Instead of being reintegrated into supported community residential settings, people with SMI were often deinstitutionalized into homelessness, jails, and prisons — a process known as trans institutionalization.

The IMD exclusion, meant to prevent warehousing in large, locked hospitals, evolved into a blanket ban on Medicaid’s participation in almost ALL housing for adults with SMI—even small, unlocked, community-based group homes with fewer than 16 beds.

Without federal help, state budgets must cover the SMI housing gap, and most states fall short. Although the Olmstead decision mandated that states provide disabled people with appropriate community-based settings, it does not override Medicaid’s funding restrictions.

From a parity standpoint, the IMD exclusion effectively institutionalized diagnostic discrimination: people with physical or developmental disabilities receive full Medicaid-funded residential options, while those with psychiatric disabilities do not. It’s not a historical accident — it’s a structural inequity written into the architecture of Medicaid itself.

Deinstitutionalization was necessary, but many — including myself — believe the IMD exclusion now does more harm than good. Many people with SMI are denied the longer-term residential supports essential for stabilization, recovery, and crisis prevention.

How the Exclusion Limits Critical Housing Needs

Arizona’s public health community has long recognized the interlocking challenges of homelessness, incarceration, and behavioral health. I saw it firsthand when I was the Director at ADHS when we did the behavioral health part of Medicaid (which has been since moved to AHCCCS).

What Gets Measured Gets Done: Tackling Housing & Incarceration Challenges for Persons with Serious Mental Illness – AZ Public Health Association

When states can’t access federal Medicaid funds for residential care, it undercuts efforts to build continuum-of-care models that could reduce emergency department use, criminal justice involvement, and community instability.

Here are the downstream effects of the IMD exclusion:

  • Many states, including Arizona, short-change permanent supportive SMI housing because federal matching funds can’t be used.
  • People with SMI are often discharged too soon into unstable settings because there is no financially practical residential alternative. Homelessness can result – which of course is lethal here in Arizona.
  • Crisis systems build up pressure: psychiatric screening centers face crowded conditions and long hold times associated with a large backlog waiting for a hospital bed. Sometimes, 72-hour involuntary hold orders expire, releasing potentially unstable and even dangerous individuals without necessary treatment.
  • Some end up in jails or prisons because they weren’t given long-term support for recovery. Treatment Advocacy Center estimates individuals with SMI in Arizona are 32 times more likely to be incarcerated than to be placed in a state hospital bed.
  • Many SMI individuals rotate in and out of psychiatric hospitals by stringing together Medicaid-funded 15-day stays, with no long-term viable treatment options. This is often the only avenue to access federal funds for treatment.
  • Creative innovations involving Section 1115 waivers offer short-term treatment options, not long-term housing solutions. Waivers are complex to secure and renew, requiring CMS and now legislative approvals.
  • Even the 2014 Arnold vs. Sarn lawsuit agreement promising permanent supported housing for the SMI population did not require adequate state funding.

Two key proposals in the current Congress reflect different reform paths:

  • Michelle Alyssa Go Act (H.R. 5462) — instead of full repeal, this bill would raise the bed threshold for eligible inpatient psychiatric facilities (from 16 beds up to 36) so that more institutions could qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. While this is a positive step toward increasing access to institutional care, this does little to help the SMI permanent housing crisis.
  • Increasing Behavioral Health Treatment Act (H.R. 4022) — this is closer to a full repeal. It would lift the IMD exclusion for states that commit to expanding outpatient services, crisis stabilization, and stronger community-based systems. In effect, it would allow states to integrate inpatient, residential, and outpatient support under Medicaid with guardrails.

Another path?: Congress could create a new Medicaid benefit category—say, Community Residential Treatment Facilities — for people with a SMI. This could carve out funding for small, recovery-oriented residential programs that aren’t hospitals; like the waivers and HCBS options currently available for DDD and ALTCS populations.

These would have tight conditions (e.g. maximum bed count, oversight reviews, and choice standards) to protect the deinstitutionalization goal while embedding housing supports into Medicaid for people with SMI. This would preserve the IMD exclusion for large institutions but allow Medicaid coverage for small, community SMI programs.

Today, AHCCCS is implementing a limited 1115 Demonstration Waiver program called Housing and Health Opportunities (“H2O”), which allows Medicaid to pay for up to 6 months of housing services for certain qualifying SMI members. This can help SMI members transition into Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) with services also funded by AHCCCS. 

Unfortunately, this program still doesn’t provide sustainable funding for appropriate residential care needed by many individuals living with SMI. While the H2O program does allow some SMI housing flexibility, Arizona (and many states) will still face severe limitations as long as the IMD exclusion is still in place.

Note: AHCCCS’ H2O program just celebrated the 1-year anniversary since its launch. The program provides Transitional Housing Assistance; Housing Transition and Move-In Support; Home Accessibility Modifications; and Pre-Tenancy and Tenancy Sustaining Services.

AHCCCS Tackling Housing Instability with Their New ‘H2O’ Program – AZ Public Health Association

Call to Action

The IMD Exclusion is doing more harm than good. It’s undermining  integrated care, behavioral health equity and recovery for people with serious mental illness because it effectively prevents using federal matching Medicaid funds for permanent supported community housing for persons with a Serious Mental Illness (an exclusion that for example doesn’t exist for persons with developmental disabilities).

For Arizona to build a more humane, effective behavioral health system, reforming or repealing this exclusion is no longer optional — it’s urgent in my opinion.

Below is a helpful table that summarizes what housing options can be paid for using federal Medicaid dollars.

Population IMDs (>16 beds) Small Group Homes (<16 beds) Room & Board Coverage (<16 beds) Who Bears Responsibility for Housing Gap
Serious Mental Illness (SMI) Excluded under IMD rule; Medicaid cannot fund services or room/board for ages 21–64 Not IMDs; Medicaid can fund services, but not housing Excluded: Medicaid covers services only; room/board not reimbursable State subsidies (limited), SSI/SSDI, or homelessness fill the gap
Developmental Disabilities (ICF/IID, HCBS) Not defined as IMDs; ICF/IID carved out in statute Small homes licensed as ICF/IID or HCBS waiver homes Bundled daily rates integrate habilitation/ residential supports; SSI applied to room/board Shared: SSI covers housing, Medicaid funds habilitation, reducing state burden
Dementia / Elderly (Assisted Living / Nursing Facilities) Nursing facilities covered: Medicaid pays room, board, and care Assisted living under HCBS waivers; services covered, room/board excluded Resident SSI/SSDI pays for housing; Medicaid covers care services Less state-only burden than SMI; Medicaid and SSI fill most of the gap

ICF/IID = Intermediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities; HCBS = Home and Community-Based Services; SSI = Supplemental Security Income; SSDI = Social Security Disability Insurance. Table Courtesy of Arizona Mad Moms

Hunger Is a Public Health Issue: SNAP Food Assistance Cutoff Imminent

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits are about to be cut off due to the shutdown of the federal government leaving thousands of Arizona families without the resources they rely on to buy groceries. There is no set date, but it’ll likely be in early November.

And hunger doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s one of the strongest social determinants of health.

  • Kids facing food insecurity struggle to focus and learn.
  • Adults are more likely to experience chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease.
  • Seniors often must choose between buying groceries or filling prescriptions.

In previous federal government shutdowns, the USDA used their contingency funds to keep benefits going. This time USDA says they’re unwilling to use that fund to keep benefits going (SNAP has about $6B in a contingency fund, enough to cover about 3 additional weeks).

USDA won’t shuffle funds to extend SNAP during shutdown, in about-face from earlier plan | Arizona Mirror

Arizona’s food banks are already serving over 770,000 people each month, and that number will climb a lot when SNAP benefits stop in a couple weeks.

WIC appears to be in slightly better shape. ADHS (who administers WIC) says they have enough federal funds to cover benefits through mid-November.

Editorial Note: Residents of red states tend to earn less money on a per capita basis, have higher poverty rates, and rely more on federal programs like SNAP.  These states also get more money back from the federal government than they send in taxes because more families there need help making ends meet.

That means a disproportionate number of folks who live in these “red states” depend on SNAP and other programs just to keep food on the table. So, it’s kind of puzzling, why would the majority in Congress push for cuts or allow a shutdown that stops these benefits and punish their own constituents (and especially their supporters)?

It sure makes you scratch your head.

Celebrating Excellence in Public Health: AzPHA’s 2025 Awards Gala

Last Thursday we hosted our annual Public Health Awards at the vibrant 435 Collective in downtown Phoenix. The event was a resounding success, drawing over 90 members and guests who gathered to honor the exceptional individuals and organizations advancing public health across Arizona.

Those of you that do similar events for your organizations should consider the facility for your events – the service and facility were terrific and it was affordable.

A huge thank you goes to Dr. DeShawn Taylor, AzPHA’s Board Vice President, whose dedication and tireless efforts were instrumental in bringing this event to life. Her leadership ensured a seamless and memorable evening for all attendees.

We also thank our board members who attended in full force, demonstrating their unwavering support for the association and its mission.

The night was a testament to the remarkable work being done in public health, with each awardee exemplifying excellence and commitment to improving the well-being of Arizonans. The 2025 award recipients are:

  • Policy Maker of the Year: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes
  • Senator Andy Nichols Honor Award: Karen Woodhouse (ADE, Eyes on Learning)
  • Pete Wertheim Public Health Leadership Award: Barbara Lang (Cochise County Health & Social Services) and Jeanne Nizigiyimana (Valleywise Health Center for Refugee and Global Health)
  • Alida Montiel Indigenous Health & Advocacy Award: Frances Villescaz (Gila River Health Care, AIHEC)
  • Rising Public Health Champion Award: Jeffrey Hanna (Zeihan ProHealth)
  • Public Health Research Award: Dr. Megan Jehn (Arizona State University, SORT) and Dr. Kristen Pogreba Brown (University of Arizona, SAFER)

These honorees were celebrated for their innovative approaches, dedication, and significant contributions to public health. Their work continues to inspire and drive positive change in communities throughout Arizona.

The evening was not only a celebration of achievements but also a reminder of the collective effort required to advance public health. As we reflect on this successful event, we look forward to continuing our mission to improve the health and well-being of all Arizonans.

Newly Formed Governors Public Health Alliance Aims to Protect Science-Based Health Policies: Arizona Should Join

This week, 15 governors from across the country came together to form the Governors Public Health Alliance  — a new partnership focused on keeping public health decisions based on facts, data, and science.

The Alliance was created in direct response to the lack of clear, evidence-based and scientifically sound leadership, guidance and decisions coming out of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services these days.

The Alliance has four initial main goals:

  • Public health guidance – Governors and health experts will align policies, like vaccine recommendations, across member states so people and providers get clear and consistent evidence-based information.
  • Health threat detection – Member states will share information quickly about new diseases or health risks, bypassing CDC.
  • Emergency preparedness – States will work together to plan for and respond to public health emergencies.
  • Global health liaison – Connect with international health organizations to stay informed about worldwide health issues.

The group includes both Democratic and Republican governors, as well as a team of public health experts who will advise their work. Their mission statement says they want to make sure public health decisions are “driven by data, facts, and the health of the American people” — not politics, as is largely the case right now with the HHS agencies.

Arizona isn’t a founding member but there’s still time to join, and we urge Governor Hobbs to do so.

You can learn more about the Alliance soon at www.govsforhealth.org

Supreme Court Spotlight Decision: Braidwood v Becerra (aka Kennedy v Braidwood)

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (the Supreme Court’s resolution of Braidwood v. Becerra), the Court held 6-3 that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are “inferior officers” whose appointment by the HHS Secretary is consistent with the Appointments Clause.

As a result, the ACA’s requirement that private health plans (and Medicaid expansion plans) cover Task Force–recommended preventive services without cost sharing survived the challenge, essentially upholding the current system linking health insurance coverage to the Task Force recommendations.

The plaintiffs (Braidwood) wanted to eliminate all of the Task Force recommendations developed since 2010 (when the ACA was signed). 

Note: The Task Force recommendations that were in place when President Obama signed the ACA remain hard wired and can’t be eliminated by new Task Force recommendations.

A and B Recommendations | United States Preventive Services Taskforce

The post ACA implementation recommendations that Braidwood wanted to get rid of include:

  • Colorectal cancer screenings for adults ages 45–49
  • Depression screenings for adolescents
  • HIV prevention medications, including PrEP

This outcome is an important short-term victory for preventive health, ensuring that millions of Americans continue to have access to evidence-based care that saves lives and reduces long-term health costs.

I say short-term because the Court also said Kennedy has the authority to remove USPSTF members at will. As he did with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Kennedy is likely to replace Task Force members with his friends in the alt-science community. That new task force could nix the recommendations made by the TF since 2010..

See the ruling: Kennedy v Braidwood

For now, these protections stand, and health plans still need to cover US Preventative Health Services Task Force category A & B recommendations –  but Kennedy can fire the task force at will and replace them with whoever he sees fit (without senate confirmation) and could direct them to target and eliminate the recommendations that have been put in place since 2010 – gradually (or even quickly) eroding access to critical preventive services.

Read more from ASTHO’s Public Health Litigation Round-Up and AzPHA’s background post here.

Related: U.S. Supreme Court Could Roll Back, Freeze or Eliminate Preventive Health Coverage – Oral Arguments Tomorrow (4/21/25) – AZ Public Health Association

New Threat to Public Health: Preventive Care on the Chopping Block – AZ Public Health Association