Help Spread the Word: New AHCCCS Tool Helps Members Prepare for Medicaid Work Requirements

AHCCCS has rolled out a useful new website to help Medicaid members figure out whether the new federal work and community engagement requirements are likely to apply to them when the requirements begin next year.

The site is Keep My AHCCCShttps://keepmyahcccs.com/

One of the best features is under the “Learn Whether Medicaid Work Requirements Apply to Me” tab. Members answer a series of simple checkbox questions about their circumstances, and the tool provides an assessment at the end telling them whether the new requirements are likely to apply.

Medicaid changes could affect more than 400,000 Arizonans

I ran through it several times pretending to be people in different circumstances. It’s easy to use and does a pretty good job explaining who is likely to be subject to the requirements and who may qualify for an exemption.

For people who will need to meet the requirements, the site also includes information about ways to comply—including links to opportunities to volunteer, which can count toward the community engagement requirement.

Here’s where our public health, healthcare and nonprofit networks can help spread the word. Many AHCCCS members probably won’t know this tool exists unless someone tells them about it.

The site also emphasizes something that applies to every AHCCCS member: make sure AHCCCS has your current address, phone number and email address so you don’t miss important notices.

Members can update their information through Health-e-Arizona Plus: https://www.healthearizonaplus.gov/

They can also:

If your organization serves AHCCCS members, please pass these links through your networks. A little advance preparation could prevent a lot of confusion and potentially prevent people from unnecessarily losing coverage.

State Attorney’s General Cram Public Health Protections Down Meta’s Throat

For years, much of public health’s response to the well-documented mental health harm caused by social media among kids has been to tell parents to watch their kids more closely and tell them to spend less time on their phones.

What we really needed were policy and regulatory changes aimed at the products themselves… especially the algorithms Meta and Tick Tock use to keep kids scrolling to sell more ads and make more money.

A recent study of more than 32,000 adolescents found that about one-third had encountered self-harm content online during the previous month. Among kids who saw it, the most common way it reached them was through algorithmic recommendations—not because they went looking for it.

Another recent study examining actual Instagram and TikTok feeds found that engagement-driven algorithms can create feedback loops, repeatedly serving young people content based on what captures their attention or reflects their emotional state.

That’s why the new multistate settlement with Meta last week has the potential to be an important public health intervention.

And make no mistake: the changes Meta agreed to weren’t voluntary. They were crammed down Zuckerberg’s by state attorneys general and their staff.

The settlement agreement includes Arizona and revolves around the things Meta has done within Facebook and Instagram (mostly Instagram) by intentionally using addictive features and knowingly exposing kids to serious mental health harm…  and lying to the public about the safety of its products.

Of course, Meta admits no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement (eyeroll), but they did sign off on some potentially positive public health interventions.

For users under 18, Meta agreed to a default two-hour combined daily limit on Facebook and Instagram, some interruptions during prolonged use, blocking most use from midnight to 6 a.m., fewer notifications overnight & during school hours, hidden ‘like’ and reaction counts, restrictions on cosmetic-procedure filters (not sure what that is), a way to verify age for users and some basic (undefined) protections from harmful content.

That’s good public health policy.

But Don’t Celebrate too Much

Thankfully the settlement sets up an independent auditor with access to relevant raw data, internal documents, communications, systems and personnel. If the auditor finds material weaknesses, Meta is supposed to develop and implement a corrective-action plan.

Without enforcement from the auditor all these interventions become suggestions to Meta – not actual requirements.

The attorney’s general can also go back to court if Meta violates it (assuming the court approves the agreement). Sadly, but not surprisingly, Meta’s lawyers built in some loopholes.

Parents (or clever kids who know how to simulate their parents) can avoid some of the algorithm changes which won’t be picked up by auditors. Some of the restrictions I have above have exceptions.

The big loophole is that Meta can replace certain safety tools with alternatives it “reasonably” expects to work at least as well. And, if a design replacement later performs worse, that alone doesn’t automatically put Meta in breach of the agreement.

There also isn’t a simple automatic fine every time Meta gets caught out of compliance. Enforcement depends on auditors finding problems, attorneys general pursuing them and courts acting.

So don’t expect Meta to suddenly care about mental health. Expect it to test the boundaries of the agreement and get away with whatever they can that makes them money.

But… the settlement gets a core public health principle right:

Change the environment. Change the defaults. Measure whether it works and most importantly, make sure there is a talented and independent auditor examining Meta’s compliance with the agreement.

Upstream Public Health Policy: Pima County’s Eviction Prevention Program

There’s an old public health principle: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. OK… maybe that’s not exactly a public health mantra, but you know what I mean.

Pima County has been proactively putting that principle to work for five years with its Emergency Eviction Legal Services program (EELS), and the results are promising.

More recently, the County has expanded that prevention approach through a much broader initiative called One Pima.

The two efforts are related, but they’re not the same thing. EELS is designed to prevent and respond to evictions.

One Pima is a broader public safety and homelessness-prevention initiative that includes housing aid along with addiction services, jail reentry work and cleanup of public spaces.

Let’s start with EELS.

Intervening When an Eviction Is Filed

Emergency Eviction Legal Services started in 2021 after the Board of Supervisors directed federal COVID relief money to help tenants facing eviction. But what began as an emergency response has evolved into a pretty effective prevention system.

When an eviction case is filed in Pima County Justice Court (which by the way in Arizona can happen if the tenant is just 5 days late on rent), the County gets with the tenant and lets them know how they can get help.

Their EELS team then connects them with a trained navigator.

The navigator can explain the process and decide whether the tenant qualifies for free legal help. They often also connect tenants with rent assistance, help with rehousing and plug them into employment services through the County’s One-Stop system.

Before EELS, less than 1% of tenants in Pima County eviction cases were represented by an attorney (meanwhile landlords almost always have access to a lawyer).

By FY2022–23, EELS had served 6,000 households since its launch. That year alone, navigators helped 2,953 households, 809 received free legal services and 287 received full representation. About half of those fully represented tenants had a good outcome — dismissal, settlement or judgment for the tenant.

In FY2022–23, EELS provided rental help to 1,748 landlords who agreed to pause the eviction process, preventing those evictions from moving forward.

For families who couldn’t avoid eviction, the County provided emergency bridge housing with case management, housing counseling, food, health care and other services.

In FY2025–26, EELS provided legal services to 432 households, hastened rent help for 651 households, and bridge housing and case management for 107 households.

Represented tenants achieved a favorable court result 54% of the time, while 94% of households leaving bridge housing went to a positive housing destination.

One Pima: Taking the Prevention Idea Broader

Separate from EELS — but based on much the same idea of intervening before problems become more expensive and harder to solve, Pima County launched the One Pima Initiative in November 2025.

County touts eight months of housing, public safety effort

One Pima is a two-year public health and safety initiative focused more broadly on housing instability, homelessness, addiction, jail reentry and public spaces. Housing prevention is a big part of it.

Through One Pima and the County’s broader housing work, more than 3,300 households received housing-stability and homelessness-prevention services in FY2025–26.

The County also completed 486 units of gap-funded affordable housing and is launching a Homeless Prevention Hub, backed by a two-year, $2M Garcia Family Foundation grant, which will give residents a single-entry point for rent assistance, utility help and other housing services.

So while EELS catches people when an eviction case lands in court, One Pima goes upstream to find and solve housing instability before somebody gets to that point in the first place.

Rather than waiting until somebody is sleeping on the street and then asking how we’re going to fix homelessness, Pima County is building systems that intervene earlier — when the rent is overdue, when the eviction notice arrives, or increasingly, before the housing crisis reaches either point.

That’s good public policy and good public health.

Kudos to the Pima County Board of Supervisors, Community & Workforce Development staff, the Justice Court, Constables and the community partners who have built and sustained this work.

P.S. A broader – more universal intervention would be to completely overhaul and modernize the antiquated Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Passed in 1972 – and hardly revised since – it tilts heavily toward landlords fueling easy evictions, homelessness, and heat deaths.

More in this blog: Evictions, Homelessness & Heat Related Deaths: Is Arizona’s Antiquated Landlord & Tenant Act Part of Our Problem? – AZ Public Health Association

More information

Pima County Emergency Eviction Legal Services (EELS)

EELS Year 1 Report — FY2021–22

EELS Year 2 Report — FY2022–23

One Pima Initiative FY2025–26 Year-End Summary

Arizona’s 2026 Legislative Session: A PublicHealth Perspective Friday, August 28, 2026

View the Webinar

AI Webinar Summary

Will led a comprehensive review of the 2026 legislative session from a public health perspective, covering both passed bills and vetoed measures that would have harmed public health.

The session included several significant public health wins, including improved licensing and oversight of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities through bills 2176, 1162, and 2195, as well as new requirements for county jails to screen for mental health needs at intake through bill 2673.

The governor successfully vetoed numerous bills that would have negatively impacted public health, including measures that would have prohibited vaccine incentives for providers, restricted business vaccine requirements, and required hospitals to ask about immigration status.

The budget included important funding wins of $21 million for eligibility staffing at Access and DES to prepare for HR1 implementation, along with $13 million to modernize the Healthy Arizona Plus computer system.

Will also reviewed upcoming ballot propositions, noting that only nine measures would appear on the ballot after several were removed by courts, and discussed AZPHA’s positions against Propositions 144 (securing elections) and 319 (banning photo enforcement cameras).

2026 Legislative Session Public Health

Will presented a summary of the 2026 legislative session from a public health perspective, highlighting both positive developments and areas of concern. Key public health wins included new licensing structures for skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, improved notice requirements and informal dispute resolution processes, better collaboration between AHCCCS and ADHS, and enhanced access to personnel records. Will also discussed a compromise bill allowing cameras in assisted living facilities with resident and family consent, noting that while watered down from previous versions, it represented progress in addressing family concerns about facility oversight.

Long-Term Care Monitoring Requirements

Will explained that a new bill requiring long-term care facilities to disclose whether they allow video monitoring in residents’ rooms will take effect in a few weeks, though he noted this is only a partial step forward and AARP has been pushing for more comprehensive monitoring requirements for years.

The discussion then shifted to a new bill (2673) requiring county jails to screen for mental health needs at intake, though Will expressed concern about the weak enforcement provisions in the bill. The conversation ended with Will mentioning that Maricopa County jail has experienced deaths from drug overdoses and suicide, though the specific numbers were not provided.

Mental Health Court Bills Discussion

Will discussed two bills related to mental health court-ordered treatment and judicial review, explaining that House Bill 2923 aims to streamline the process for families seeking court-ordered treatment while balancing treatment needs with civil liberties. Will noted that current processes are cumbersome and may require additional legal action to address compliance issues in Maricopa County.

Sharon Barnes from Arizona Mad Bombs clarified that Senate Bill 1113 allows for process serving of individuals in hospitals and facilities without involving police, which helps avoid trauma from law enforcement interactions and reduces costs.

Police Presence and Housing Reforms

Sharon and Will discussed the challenges of police presence in facilities serving populations with trauma from past law enforcement interactions. Will agreed to update a slide with more depth on this topic based on Sharon’s input.

Will also explained a small victory in public health housing, highlighting changes to Arizona’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act that make it easier for tenants to document payment of eviction judgments and potentially seal records, though he noted this is just a step toward needed reforms to balance landlord-tenant rights.

Legislative Updates and Veto Status

Will presented updates on recently passed and vetoed bills, including a new requirement for state agency chief medical officers to maintain active MD or DO licenses, and a victory for breast cancer screening cost-sharing prohibition in commercial health plans.

He emphasized the importance of stakeholders providing feedback to the governor’s office regarding why certain bills should be vetoed, as this helps justify the vetoes of problematic legislation. Will also highlighted that the governor successfully vetoed a bill that would have prohibited health plans from offering financial incentives to providers for high vaccine participation rates.

Budget and Vetoed Bills Update

Will discussed several vetoed bills, including one that would have stopped businesses from requiring masks or vaccinations, which the governor vetoed. He highlighted key budget wins, including $21 million allocated for eligibility staffing at Access and DES to handle new Medicaid requirements from HR1, and $13 million for modernizing the Healthy Arizona Plus computer system.

Will also reviewed upcoming ballot propositions, noting that only nine measures would appear on the ballot after some were removed by courts, and explained that AZPHA opposed Prop 144 (which would restrict mail-in voting) and Prop 319 (which would ban photo enforcement cameras).

What Does It Take to Run the FDA: Is Overton Up to the Task?

The president has nominated Dr. Heidi Overton to be the next Commissioner of the FDA. She’ll be up for Senate confirmation at some point in the next few months presumably. Is she up to the task?

A good place to start is: What is the job, and how prepared to do a good job is she?

FDA is basically a regulatory agency. It oversees most foods moving in interstate commerce (including imports); prescription and over-the-counter drugs; vaccines; medical devices; tobacco products; cosmetics; and animal drugs and feed.

And it’s huge. FDA’s budget is $7B ($3.4B in appropriations and $3.6B in industry user fees. They have (or I should say had before DOGE) 18,200 FTEs, but after Kennedy implemented DOGE cuts, they only have 16,000 employees now.

So, the commissioner oversees roughly 16,000 employees, laboratories, inspectors and regulatory operations around food, drugs and animal products around the country and overseas.

FDA can’t wing the way it regulates foods and drugs. Their authority comes from statutes enacted by Congress (mostly the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its amendments). Over decades FDA has adopted detailed regulations to guide their regulatory actions in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

When FDA makes regulatory decisions or changes regulations, they’re supposed to follow federal administrative procedures (including notice-and-comment rulemaking) and they have to stay within their statutory and administrative boundaries. They have discretion, but they also have strict boundaries.

When people are adversely impacted by FDA decisions think FDA got it wrong, they’re not shy about suing FDA. Judges examine whether the agency stayed within its statutory authority, followed required procedures, applied their regulations properly and adequately explained its decision.

FDA decisions therefore have to survive not only scientific scrutiny but often judicial review because they’re a regulatory agency.

So… the FDA commissioner needs more than scientific credentials. The job requires leadership, administrative experience, discipline, and regulatory competence.

Oddly enough, Congress says nothing about the qualifications the FDA commissioner is supposed to have. 21 U.S.C. §393 says the commissioner is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There’s no required degree, scientific background, regulatory experience or management experience. That’s inadequate.

Arizona actually does somewhat better. ARS §36-102 requires the ADHS director to have administrative experience with progressively increasing responsibilities; an educational background preparing the director for the position’s administrative responsibilities; and health-related experience ensuring familiarity with health problems.

Those qualifications aren’t perfect, but at least they recognize the need for subject-matter knowledge and administrative experience.

Congress does spell out the FDA commissioner’s duties. The law says the commissioner provides “overall direction,” establishes and implements policies for FDA management and operations, and coordinates and oversees its administrative entities.

So how does Overton stack up?

Her medical and scientific background is good. She earned an M.D. from the University of New Mexico, trained in surgery at Johns Hopkins, earned a Ph.D. in Clinical Investigation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is board-certified in Public Health and General Preventive Medicine. Her peer-reviewed research includes work on opioid prescribing and improving physician practice using data.

She also has some policy experience. She served as a White House Fellow, became Chief Policy Officer at the America First Policy Institute and now serves as Deputy Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

She also served as a voting member of the University of New Mexico Board of Regents. The American College of Preventive Medicine notes that her specialty includes training in epidemiology, biostatistics and health-systems management.

The weak part of her résumé is large-scale operational management and a lack of regulatory experience. I can’t find any evidence that she has run a major agency, managed large numbers of employees or ran a complex regulatory organization.

There’s also a separate question about scientific independence. In a 2023 interview, Overton called for “conservative-based” scientific journals and alternative research infrastructure. She has also advocated restrictions on mifepristone from an explicitly anti-abortion policy perspective.

Overton appears to be scientifically qualified and has some policy experience. But (and this is really important for a huge regulatory agency) she really doesn’t have any executive and no regulatory experience.

There’s also a risk that her political viewpoints could override whatever past professional commitments she’s had to evidence-based decision making.

And for a regulatory agency as big and as important as the FDA… that’s a big question-mark. If she is rogue in the end, at least we still have checks and balances in the constitution and a fairly independent federal judiciary as a backstop.

Editorial Note: One reason I’m comforted a bit by the prospect of the public health damage an administrator Overton could do is the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the 40-year-old Chevron deference doctrine.

Under Chevron, when a statute passed by Congress was in question, courts generally deferred to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law.

The Loper Bright case changed that. The Supreme Court held that under the Administrative Procedure Act, judges are supposed to independently assess what federal statutes mean rather than deferring to an agency’s interpretation.

I wasn’t enthusiastic about that ruling when it came out because it shifted authority away from subject-matter experts in federal agencies and toward judges.

But… there’s another side to it. If an ideologically driven FDA commissioner pursues an ideological agenda and makes inappropriate regulatory decisions federal courts now have way more authority to overturn federal agency decisions

Yet Another Giant APS Electricity Rate Hike & Return on Equity Boost? Really? 

Arizona Public Service (APS), the state’s largest (monopoly) electric utility, is asking the Arizona Corporation Commission (the five-member body that oversees monopoly utility rates) for a whopping 14% rate increase this year.

If you’re one of APS’s more than 1.4 million customers, you deserve to know a few things about their request that aren’t getting enough attention.

APS is a monopoly utility. If you live in its service territory, you don’t have any choice of which utility to get your power from—it’s the only one allowed to operate there.

The company knows this about its customers, which makes it especially important for the elected members of the Commission to scrutinize APS’ rate increase requests to make sure they’re really necessary. In recent years, they haven’t been doing that.

Let’s dig into some details. The Commission already rubber stamped an 8% rate increase that took effect in 2024. Now APS already wants another 14% rate increase?

And it’s not just rate increases that the Corporation Commission has been generous to APS with.

APS is already allowed a generous 9.55% return on equity — the return regulators allow the company to earn for its shareholders on the equity in its utility system.

Now APS wants the Commission to bump that up to 10.7%, on top of the 14% rate increase!

There’s compelling evidence that nothing close to a 14% increase is necessary to provide reliable service. Pinnacle West, APS’ parent company, had more than $616 million in net income in 2025.

CEO Ted Geisler received about $8.1 million in compensation that year. Former CEO Jeff Guldner received about $2.8 million. All that ultimately comes out of customers’ pockets.

Thankfully, Attorney General Kris Mayes has our back. She filed expert testimony showing that APS could maintain reliable service and a strong credit rating with an increase of about 3%—a far cry from the 14% we’re now told is needed.

The timing matters too. The Corporation Commission expects to decide this case by the end of December—after the November election but before newly elected Commissioners take office. In other words, the current Commission will decide whether APS gets its latest increase.

APS wants more than just higher rates and a higher return for shareholders. They’ve also been walking back their earlier clean-energy commitments.

In 2020, APS committed to providing 100% clean, carbon-free electricity by 2050.

It also set interim goals for 2030 and said it would end coal-fired generation by 2031. That would have set APS on a path to providing cleaner, more affordable energy for decades to come.

APS has since walked back those commitments and joined other Arizona utilities in backing a major new methane gas pipeline project to bring gas from West Texas to Arizona. When utilities make long-term investments in fossil fuel pipelines, supply contracts and power plants, they lock customers into those costs—and the resulting air pollution—for years to come.

The Corporation Commission is expected to vote on the request after the November 3 general election. Take time before then to tell the commissioners you’re not a piggy bank for companies that are already comfortably profitable.

You can find their contact information at www.azcc.gov.

And remember to research your vote for the Corporation Commission carefully this fall.

Your family budget is on the ballot!

See also in the Yuma Sun at: Guest Column: Yet another giant APS electricity rate hike? Really? | Humble Opinion | yumasun.com

Arizona’s First H.R. 1 Medicaid Cuts Arrive October 1 Refugees, Asylees & other legally present people are 1st in line for cuts

Beginning October 1, the first of the healthcare (Medicaid) cuts from H.R. 1 kick in – throwing thousands of legally present refugees and asylees off of Medicaid coverage.

Refugees, people granted asylum and several other humanitarian groups who’ve long been eligible will no longer qualify because federal Medicaid funding is being taken from these legally present immigrants.

The federal rules also knock off people in several other humanitarian immigration categories that previously counted as qualified noncitizens.

Folks that will still qualify are certain Cuban and Haitian entrants, people from Compact of Free Association countries (e.g. Marshall Islands) and lawful permanent residents (called LPRs or green-card holders).

The people who will get kicked off AHCCCS aren’t undocumented immigrants sneaking into Medicaid. They’re people the federal government (under federal law) legally admitted and allowed to remain in the US because they fled persecution, violence, trafficking or other dangerous things.

Here’s What That Means in Real Life

Imagine a woman named Samira.

She’s 42. In South Sudan she was a nurse. She fled after she and her family were threatened, leaving behind her profession, her home and almost everything familiar to her. She eventually made her way to the US, where the federal government reviewed her case and granted her asylum because she had a legitimate fear of persecution if she returned home.

Today, she lives in Arizona.

Her nursing credentials didn’t transfer easily, so she works as a nursing assistant, caring for seniors who need help bathing, dressing, eating and getting through their day. She works. She pays taxes. She’s building a life here. And she is here legally, with the permission and protection of the US government and under federal law.

Refugee Services | Valleywise Health

Samira also has Type 1 diabetes. AHCCCS pays for the insulin, testing supplies and regular medical care that allow her to manage her disease and keep showing up for work. With treatment, diabetes is something she lives with. Without treatment, it can become life-threatening very quickly.

On September 30, Samira is eligible for AHCCCS coverage.

On October 1, she’s not. She’s still the same person with the same income. She still has the same job. She is still caring for Arizona patients. She still has diabetes. She’s still legally living in the US under asylum granted by our own government.

But she’ll no longer qualify for full Medicaid coverage solely because she is an asylee, because of H.R. 1 (it’s not AHCCCS’ fault).

Unless Samira has since become a green-card holder or falls into one of the narrow immigration categories Congress preserved, she’s left with only Federal Emergency Services.

Federal Emergency Services can help pay when Samira is sick enough to have a true medical emergency. It doesn’t replace the insulin, routine doctor visits, laboratory testing and ongoing care designed to prevent that emergency from happening in the first place.

The AHCCCS Letters Are Going Out

AHCCCS has already sent advance notices to about 22,263 people who are likely affected by the H.R. 1 cuts. Another 12,000 people receiving SSI cash benefits will need to go through a separate review.

Members are beginning to receive Requests for Information asking them to provide documents so AHCCCS can figure out whether they still qualify.

See the initial AHCCCS letter

There are going to be two ways people lose AHCCCS coverage because of H.R. 1. The first is a real loss of eligibility.

Samira could turn in every document AHCCCS asks for and still lose her full coverage because she simply doesn’t fit the new rules Congress wrote.

The second is paperwork.

Suppose Samira had already gotten her green card. In that case she might still qualify. But AHCCCS needs to know that.

What happens if the letter goes to an old address? What if she doesn’t understand what AHCCCS is asking for? What if she can’t find the immigration document quickly enough? What if she sends something in but it isn’t exactly what the AHCCCS eligibility worker needs?

She could lose coverage even though she’s actually still eligible. Many will.

Get Used to Those Two Problems

These same two ways of losing Medicaid are going to become a much bigger issue next year.

Beginning in 2027, H.R. 1 puts new work and community-engagement requirements on many Arizona adults covered through Medicaid expansion. It also requires many of them to prove their eligibility twice a year instead of once.

AHCCCS now estimates about 380,000 Arizonans will be subject to the new work requirements after exemptions are considered.

Again, people will lose coverage in two different ways. Some won’t meet the new rules and will lose eligibility.

Others actually will meet the rules but could lose their AHCCCS because they didn’t or couldn’t successfully complete the paperwork needed to prove it.

UPDATED: Where Does Arizona’s Medicaid Work Requirement Planning Stand? A Summary – AZ Public Health Association

That second group matters.

Hospitals, community health centers and other providers will end up absorbing more uncompensated care, but not for routine kinds of care that people need and deserve. Just emergency care.

Remember who we’re talking about.

Refugees are people who fled persecution. People granted asylum went through a legal process and convinced a judge using US law rules that they needed our protection.

Trafficking victims have survived exploitation. Humanitarian parole is granted because the federal government found an urgent humanitarian reason to let somebody enter the country.

These are some of the most vulnerable people living among us.

They’re legally presnet. They qualified for Medicaid legally. They enrolled in AHCCCS legally. Many have doctors, medications and ongoing treatment just like everybody else.

Now Congress has decided to take that health coverage away from them. Arizona didn’t make that choice. AHCCCS didn’t make that choice.

Congress did.

Samira came to this country because we told her she could be safe here. She built a life, found a job caring for others and did everything we asked of her.

Beginning October 1, we’ll still benefit from the care she gives to others while taking away the health coverage that helps keep her well enough to provide it.

Who have we become?

AZ Grant Opportunities – Compiled by the Vitalyst Health Foundation

NEW Due August 20th: Rural AZ Navigator Program

Due August 21st: Technical Assistance: Operational & Fiscal Performance

Due August 21st: Rural Health Innovative Care Pilot Program

Due August 21st: Arizona Department of Health Services Lung Health Screening

Due August 26th: Continuum of Care Competition and Youth Homeless Demonstration Program grants NOFO

Due August 28th: Behavioral Health & SUD Expansion

Due August 28th: Adopt Shared Services Consortiums

Due August 29th: National Science Foundation Grants for Undergraduates

NEW Due August 31st: Food Systems Grant

Due September 1st: Grants to Indian Tribal Governments Program

Due September 1st: The Bolger Foundation Grants (Favors Capital Grants)

Due September 1st: Nationwide Foundation Grants (Metro Valley)

Due September 15th: Journey for Good Foundation Grants

NEW Due September 24th: Connecting Champions for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging in the Health Professions

NEW Due September 29th: ADEQ Recycling Grant

Due October 11th: Whole Foods Market Store Giving

Due October 31st: Dudley T. Dougherty Foundation Grants

Due October 31st: TJX Grant

NEW Due December (Opens October): Route 66 Historic Revitalization Grant

Ongoing: Nathan Cummings Foundation (Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice)

Ongoing: Just Futures Initiative

Ongoing: Susan & Michael Dell Foundation Grants

Ongoing: SC Johnson Grants and Product Donations

Ongoing: Affirm Cares Grants
Ongoing: The Impact Fund Legal Case Grants

Ongoing Until September: GM Corporate Giving Grants

Ongoing: Arizona Housing Fund 

Leadership Development Opportunities

August 20th (Virtual): Attract, Engage, Retain: Building a Stronger Board

NEW Application Due August 21st: BLK RVR Artist Collective

August 25th (Peoria): Housing for All: Tackling Housing as Workforce & Economic Infrastructure

NEW August 27th (Virtual): Digital Security Workshop 2.0

September 8th (Virtual): AI Essentials for Non-Profits

September 9th (Virtual): AI In-Depth for Non-Profits

NEW September 10th (Virtual): Foundation or Federal? Choosing the Right Funding Strategy in an Uncertain Funding Environment

NEW September 10th (Virtual): All About Brand conference

September 10th (Phoenix): Beyond the Org Chart: Power + Practice in Management

NEW September 17th (Mesa): Grant Professionals Association Conference

September 29th (Virtual): Public Charities Can Lobby

November 17th (Phoenix): AZ Maternal and Child Health Workforce and Policy Summit

Ongoing: Your Part-Time Controller Resources

Various Opportunities: Bank of America Workshops

Just What the Doctor Ordered: UA Training Physicians Where We Need Them

The UA College of Medicine along with Phoenix and Gila River Health Care are creating the nation’s first MD medical-school branch located within a sovereign Tribal Nation.  The first DO-degree-granting medical school on tribal land is the “Oklahoma State University College of Osteopathic Medicine on the Cherokee Nation” in Tahlequah, OK. Its first class graduated in 2024.

Next summer (July 2027) 10 students will be admitted to the UA- Phoenix medical school into an accelerated three-year primary-care program. They’ll spend their first 18 months doing foundational medical education (in Phoenix) and then move to Sacaton for the final 18 months of clinical education.

Educate doctors where Arizona needs them most | Opinion

The clinical rotation part is the best. During the 18-month clinical rotation segment students will be part of the Gila River Health Care system, working under faculty supervision with patients across different clinical settings.

There’s also a workforce strategy behind the model.

Physicians are more likely to eventually practice in communities where they train. So instead of trying to recruit doctors to underserved areas after residency, this model builds the pipeline there in the first place.

UA launches medical school branch (and clinical rotations) on tribal land

Gila River Health Care is putting serious resources behind the idea ($25M through 2034), including full tuition scholarships, faculty and educational infrastructure. The partners are also exploring development of primary-care residency programs at Gila River Health Care.

Read the full announcement here

Arizona has struggled for decades to recruit physicians to rural, Tribal and underserved communities.

Embedding clinical medical education directly into those communities strikes me as just what the doctor ordered.