AZ Grant Opportunities – Compiled by Vitalyst Health Foundation

Due April 15th: Spark Good Local Grants

Due April 15th: O’Reilly Auto Parts Foundation (Social Issues)

Due April 16th: Medical Assistance Grants (Maricopa County; Hearing, Vision, Substance Use Disorder, and Heart/Lung)

Due April 17th: Jewish Community Foundation (Prescott)

Due April 17th: Housing Solutions Notice of Funding (ADOH)

Due April 20th: Children’s Mental Health Initiative

Due April 22nd: Value-Added Producer Grants (Federal)

Due April 24th: Custom Web Application Grant

Due April 24th: Cyber Preparedness Grant

NEW Due April 27th: Adult Treatment Court Program (Federal Funding)

NEW Due April 27th: Veterans Treatment Court Program (Federal Funding)

NEW Due April 30th: Mary Kay Ash Foundation Domestic Violence Shelter Grants

Due April 30th: Vilcek Foundation (Arts and Science)

Due April 30th: The James B. & Lois R. Archer Charitable Foundation

NEW Due May 1st: Knowledge Sharing & Awareness Raising Grants (Age Equity, Caregiving, Economic Security, Housing, and Social Connection)

Due May 1st: Surprise Community Outreach Program (Surprise; Direct Services)

Due May 1st: Purpose Prize® from AARP (“live as they age”)

Due May 1st: Sparkplug Foundation (Education, Community Organizing, and Music)

NEW Due May 15th: Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation

NEW Due May 15th: National Housing Innovation Grant Competition

NEW Due May 20th: Disability Inclusion Fund

NEW Due May 20th: AmeriCorps State and National Native Nations Grants

Due May 25th: Information Resource Grants to Reduce Health Disparities and Promote Health for All (Federal)

NEW Due May 29th: Tribal Projects (State; Tribal; Housing)

NEW Due May 31st: Fast Pitch Competition (Women Founders Network)

NEW June 1st: Love Your Block

NEW Due June 11th: Funding for Strategic Collaboration in the Impact Investing Sector

NEW Due June 12th: Wayne F. Placek Grants (LGBTQIA+)

NEW Due June 16th: AI-Ready America

Due July 15th (opens May 1st): 
Spark Good Local Grants

Due July 24th: Custom Web Application Grant

Due July 24th: Cyber Preparedness Grant

Due October 23rd: Custom Web Application Grant

Due October 23rd: Cyber Preparedness Grant

Ongoing: HEARST Foundation (Health)

Ongoing: Amateur Radio (AR) and Digital Communications (DC) Funding

Ongoing: Arizona Housing Fund 

Ongoing: Arizona Together for Impact Fund

 

https://azpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/RHC-Presentation-2024-Ballot-Measures.pptx

AHCCCS 101, Part 4: From Coverage to Care – The Member Experience

In Parts 1 through 3, we walked through how AHCCCS was founded, how it was built, how Arizona gets permission to run it and how the system is supposed to work.

AHCCCS 101 (Part 1): AHCCCS’ Origin Story – Why Arizona Built Medicaid Different

AHCCCS 101 (Part 2): Waivers, State Plan Amendments and Who Decides

AHCCCS 101 (Part 3): Contract Management & Accountability

This final part (Part 4) looks at what it’s like from a member point of view. 

A member’s experience usually starts with an application through Health-e-Arizona Plus (HEAplus), the state’s online portal.

In theory, it’s a single front door for Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other benefits. In practice, it can be hard to use.

Many users describe HEAplus as clunky and outdated (it uses a really old coding language). The screens aren’t always clear. Uploading documents can be confusing. People sometimes get stuck in loops where the system keeps asking for the same information.

Another common problem is identity verification. Some users say they can’t get past that step at all. Part of that process involves federal systems and contractors like Experian working with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But for the person trying to apply, that detail doesn’t really matter. If they can’t verify their identity, they can’t finish the application and they have a much harder time getting coverage.

Once someone is approved, they don’t just “have AHCCCS.” They’re enrolled in a health plan. If they don’t pick one, they’re auto-assigned to one.

AHCCCS uses a formula to spread new members across plans. They say their goal is to balance enrollment and keep access stable. Plans sometimes argue about whether the formula is fair, and the auto assignment of a plan can affect which doctors a member can see.

After enrollment, the member’s experience depends a lot on their health plan.

Each plan (MCO or Managed Care Organization) has its own network of doctors and providers. On paper, plans have to meet network sufficiency standards, meaning there should be enough providers. In real life, it can still be hard to find a doctor who is taking new patients or to get a quick appointment with a specialist, especially in rural places.

When a member needs care, some services are simple to get. Others need prior authorization, which means the plan has to approve the service first. This can help control costs, but it can also slow things down or lead to denials.

For people with more complex needs (like those with disabilities or serious mental illness) the system has higher expectations. Their care often involves many providers and services at the same time. AHCCCS requires plans to coordinate that care but doing it well every time is hard.

As we talked about in Part 3 – it’s not the requirement for an adequate network and care coordination – what really matters is compliance with the requirement. 

If something goes wrong like a denial or a delay, members can file a grievance or an appeal. These tools are important, but they can be hard to use. Many people don’t file them because the process is confusing or takes too much time.

Another challenge is renewal (“redetermination”). Members have to prove from time to time that they still qualify. If they miss a notice or don’t send in paperwork on time, they can lose coverage even if they’re still eligible. 

One common problem is that a letter is stamp mailed to the member asking them to verify their income and other resources (with 10 days to respond). If they moved apartments and didn’t update their new address, they won’t get the letter, so they don’t respond, and can lose their coverage without knowing it until they try to make a doctor’s appointment or go to an ED – so updating contact information is of prime importance for members to do.

All of this stuff connects back to how the system is designed.

Remember from the earlier parts in this series…. AHCCCS pays health plans a fixed amount per member each month. That creates pressure to manage costs. Sometimes that leads to better care and coordination. Other times, it shows up as tighter networks, more approvals, or delays that members feel.

AHCCCS provides essential coverage for millions of Arizonans. But as anybody with a health insurance plan of any kind knows (not just Medicaid members), coverage isn’t the same as access and access isn’t the same as treatment and care coordination.

I hope you found this AHCCCS 101 series informative. 

In Part 1, we covered why Arizona built AHCCCS using managed care. In Part 2, we explained how waivers and State Plan Amendments let the state run and change the program.
In Part 3, we showed how AHCCCS manages its contracts and holds health plans accountable.

This final piece shows the member experience. 

Note: AHCCCS is working on a new Community Engagement Portal that’s supposed to improve the AHCCCS member experience in advance of the looming work and community engagement requirements for the expansion population. They’re having some virtual sessions about their system goals this week for target populations: 

Thursday, April 30 | 1:00 – 2:00 PM

[AHCCCS H.R. 1 Community Engagement Stakeholder – Option 1 (CBOs / Member Assistors)]
Friday, May 1 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM

[AHCCCS H.R. 1 Community Engagement Stakeholder – Option 2 (CBOs / Member Assistors)]

CDC Buries MMWR Documenting the Effectiveness of the COVID Vaccine  Next: An Alpha Test for Incoming CDC Director Schwartz

Acting CDC director Bhattacharya killed a ready-to-publish Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) this week which would have shown impressive effectiveness of COVID vaccines in preventing hospitalizations over the last couple years.

The analysis had already cleared evidence and technical review by career staff at the CDC. Then it got 86’d by Kennedy/Bhattacharya.

It isn’t surprising that Bhattacharya buried it. He knows what he did was wrong but doesn’t care because he’s loyal to Kennedy rather than evidence. 

I’ll be looking to see whether incoming CDC Director Erica Schwartz and her Deputy Director/CMO Jennifer Shuford publish the MMWR when they’re at their posts in a few weeks. It’ll be a good Alpha Test to forecast whether CDC’s reputation will improve or not under their leadership.

On paper, they are good picks. There’s a credible case that CDC could start turning the corner with them in charge. I’m cautiously optimistic.

But my optimism isn’t what matters. Schwartz and Shuford’s behavior is what will matter.

If Schwartz and Shuford take their posts and this MMWR stays buried or if a watered-down political document ends up being published, we’ll know that my optimism was unfounded (again).

If, on the other hand, if they publish the MMWR without watering it down it might be a sign that we can be optimistic about their future decisions.

This is a classic public health leadership test: Are you more interested in doing your job or keeping your job?

We’re about to find out which way it goes for Schwartz and Shuford.

ASTHO Statement on Appointment of Texas Commissioner Jennifer Shuford, MD, MPH, as CDC Deputy Director | ASTHO

Spot Bad Arguments Before They Spread

Dr. Greg Loeben joined us today for our Conversations & Coffee event and took on a problem every public health professional runs into: misleading arguments that sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny.

His core points were that bad reasoning spreads faster than good evidence. If you can recognize the pattern, you can respond more effectively in real time.

Greg walked through seven common logical fallacies that show up all the time in public health debates:

  • Appeal to authority – leaning on a person’s status instead of evidence
  • Ad hominem – attacking the person rather than the argument
  • Appeal to nature – assuming “natural” means safe or better
  • False dilemma – presenting only two choices when more exist
  • Straw man – distorting someone’s position to make it easier to attack
  • Slippery slope – claiming one step will trigger extreme outcomes
  • Hasty generalization – drawing broad conclusions from limited data

He made a useful distinction: cognitive biases are how our brains tend to process information, while fallacies are errors in the structure of an argument. Social media makes both worse by rewarding attention, not accuracy.

The practical takeaway wasn’t “win the argument.” It was to recognize the pattern and respond strategically. Sometimes that means asking a clarifying question (“Are those really the only two options?”). Sometimes it means pointing out the mismatch (“That’s not what I said”). And sometimes—especially with family—it means disengaging.

Bottom line: You don’t need to memorize philosophy terms. You need pattern recognition. Once you see the structure of a bad argument, it’s a lot harder to be pulled in by it—and a lot easier to steer the conversation back to evidence.

I really encourage you to invest an hour in the webinar! I mean it. I learned more in that 50 minutes Friday than I have in a long time.

View the Coffee & Conversations Webinar 

Passcode: rc%$?+*8

AHCCCS 101, Part 3: Contract Management & Accountability

In Part 1, we walked through why Arizona built AHCCCS using managed care from the beginning. In Part 2, we covered how the state gets permission from the federal government to design and update the program using waivers and State Plan Amendments.

AHCCCS 101 (Part 1 of 4): AHCCCS’ Origin Story – Why Arizona Built Medicaid Different – AZ Public Health Association

AHCCCS 101 (Part 2 of 4): Waivers, State Plan Amendments and Who Decides – AZ Public Health Association

Now we get to what AHCCCS actually does every day.

At its core, AHCCCS’ main job is contract management.

Before we get into that, it’s worth stepping back and remembering how many people depend on this system. AHCCCS provides health insurance to well over 2 million Arizonans in a typical year.

That includes kids, people with disabilities, seniors needing long-term care, and adults (and some kids) with serious mental illness.

So how does AHCCCS make sure those people actually get care?

It goes back to the model we talked about in Part 1. AHCCCS doesn’t pay most providers directly. Instead, it contracts with health plans called AHCCCS Complete Care contractors and pays them a fixed amount per member per month.

Those contractors are responsible for building provider networks, paying claims, and making sure members get the services they’re entitled to.

That means AHCCCS is paying these plans with taxpayer dollars and trusting them to deliver care. So the agency’s job is to make sure the plans do what they said they would do in the contracts they signed.

Note: The American Indian Health Program is an administrative exception to the AHCCCS as contract manager rule -as the agency directly runs that fee-for-service program. In my opinion the horrible multi-billion-dollar fraud and human trafficking that occurred during the Ducey Administration probably wouldn’t have happened if a contractor were running AIHP & AHCCCS was regulating the contract.

One of the main tools AHCCCS uses is something called ACOMs, which stands for AHCCCS Medical Policy Manuals. These are detailed policy documents that spell out what services must be covered, how decisions should be made, and what standards plans are expected to meet.

In simple terms, ACOMs are the contractual rulebook that health plans have to follow.

But writing rules for required services isn’t enough. AHCCCS also needs to check whether plans are actually following them. Contract management. Compliance and enforcement.

AHCCCS conducts regular audits of its contracted health plans. These reviews look at things like whether claims are being paid correctly, whether services are being approved appropriately, and whether plans are meeting their contractual obligations.

Another key area is network adequacy. This is about whether a plan has enough doctors, specialists, and providers so members can actually get care when they need it. A benefit on paper doesn’t mean much if there’s no provider available to deliver it or if people have to wait forever for an appointment or drive a super long way for care.

Quality is another focus. AHCCCS uses national performance measures like HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) to track how well plans are doing. These measures look at things like preventive care, chronic disease management, and follow-up after hospital visits.

If plans don’t meet expectations, AHCCCS can require corrective action and in some cases impose financial penalties.

Members themselves are also part of the accountability system. If someone is denied a service or has trouble getting care, they can file a grievance or an appeal. Those complaints are tracked and reviewed, and they can highlight patterns of problems within a health plan.

All of this ties back to the core idea from Part 1.

AHCCCS pays health plans a fixed amount per member per month. A plan can save money by postponing care, denying services, or offering a poor network.  That creates a real risk. That’s what AHCCCS is supposed to prevent.

That’s why contract management is so important.

AHCCCS has to make sure that the care it’s paying for is actually being delivered. Not just on paper via the contract but in real life.

In Part 4, we’ll take a closer look at the real-life part of AHCCCS…  how people enroll, who qualifies, – basically what real live people experience in the real world.

Two-Minute Warning at the Capitol (but both sides have unlimited time outs)

If you read our late-March update—Committee Deadlines Hit, Floor Action Accelerates, and Budget Negotiations Start—we said we were in the “late third quarter” of the legislative session. Fast forward a few weeks, and now we’re at the two-minute warning.

Arizona’s “100-day session” is more of a suggestion than a rule, especially with divided government. Legislature leaders can keep things going, and they often do, but less so on election years like this.

Almost all committees are done (except for Rules). What’s left is Committee of the Whole amendments, and third read (final floor) votes.

Just like we predicted, budget negotiations have taken center stage, and they’ve hit the phase where informal talks break down followed by pressure tactics to force real negotiations.

The Governor, like most of those before her, told the legislature she’ll veto everything that comes to her until a budget deal is done. This isn’t a new strategy… it’s standard operating procedure. Governors from Fife Symington forward have used the same play. It’s a way to force leadership to stop messing around and finish the budget.

Until there’s a budget agreement, the rest of the legislative agenda is effectively frozen. Bills that made it through committees and are sitting on deck for third read in suspended animation.

Once the budget deal comes together (it will) you’ll see a rapid series of floor votes as lawmakers clear the backlog and send a wave of bills to the Governor.

One added wrinkle this year is whether the state aligns with federal tax changes under HR1, which could complicate and slow negotiations even more.

Whether any agency directors will get confirmation is unclear. Hoffman’s Director Nomination Committee has hardly met at all this session – although Ruvjit “Ruby” Dhillon-Williams is up in that committee for the Department of Housing job next week (4/20).

Will Debbie Johnston at ADHS or Roberta Harrison at AHCCCS get hearings? We don’t know.

AG Mayes Compels APS to Stop Cutting Off People’s Power When Temps are Over 95°F

This week Attorney General Kris Mayes compelled Arizona Public Service to stop cutting off people’s power when temperatures are above 95°F.

Attorney General Mayes Secures $7 Million Settlement with APS Following Investigation into Disconnection Practices During Extreme Heat | Attorney General’s Office

APS would never have done this on their own. This was only done in response to a $7M settlement with APS pressed by Mayes – resolving allegations that APS violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act because of their previous disconnection policies.

There were several concessions APS made in the agreement – but the public health win is a new APS policy to stop cutting off people for nonpayment when the forecast high is 95°F or higher.

APS was earlier compelled to pause disconnections between June 1 and October 15, so this new agreement extends beyond fixed calendar dates and tying it directly to actual heat risk.

The settlement reflects a basic public health principle: align policy with risk. A temperature-based standard is better than a rigid seasonal window.

Kudos to Attorney General Mayes for pursuing this evidence based public health intervention.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the current Arizona Corporation Commission (or former AG Candidate Hamadeh) would never have gotten this out of APS.

Some Welcome News for Public Health (maybe_

This week brought a surprise and some relief (maybe). The president nominated Erica Schwartz, MD, JD to lead the CDC.

She’s a board-certified preventive medicine doctor, a former deputy surgeon general, a retired Coast Guard officer, and has a law degree. More importantly, she actually believes in using evidence to guide public health policy decisions.

I gotta say, this pick looks like the president is stomping on Kennedy’s toes pretty hard. Kennedy built his brand on spraying false information about vaccines and doing whatever he can to undermine evidence-based public health.

Schwartz is the opposite. She has a long history of believing in the scientific method and using evidence and data to inform and drive policy decisions.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, head of the APHA and keynote speaker at our May 1 AZPHA conference, said this week:

I think the administration has identified someone who is highly qualified and has a demonstrated track record of competence in being both a good physician and a decent manager. Things she’s said have clearly been based on good science.”

If confirmed, Dr. Schwartz would be a check on Kennedy’s whimsical vibe-based policy making. Let’s hope she uses her authority to push back on Kennedy. A bit of brinksmanship would be refreshing.