Loading…
Loading…
We use Google Analytics, Vercel Web Analytics, and Vercel Speed Insights to improve the site. Select Decline to turn them off in this browser. We honor GPC and Do Not Track.
Read our Privacy Policy.
Track enacted law, pending legislation, regulations, and ballot measures affecting FQHC funding, workforce, and patient access.
Updated: Sep 4, 2026 · Validated: Aug 26, 2026
12
Tracked Items
5
Critical
5
High Impact
9
With Deadlines
5
Federal
4
California
2
Other States
12 policy records · sorted by impact
Current federal law provides $4.6 billion for the Community Health Center Fund in FY2026 and $1,159,452,055 for October 1 through December 31, 2026. The same section provides $350 million for the National Health Service Corps in FY2026 and $88,219,178 for that three-month bridge. The cited statute contains no authority beyond December 31, 2026.
FQHC Impact:
This is the national mandatory funding and NHSC workforce clock. The statute does not establish that a particular center's award balance, staffing, or services stop on that date; local decisions require the center's current Notice of Award and any later enacted law or HRSA guidance.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported proposal recommends $1,858,772,000 in annual discretionary funding for primary health care, flat to the enacted FY2026 amount. As of August 26 it is not enacted, and the reported text does not extend the separate Community Health Center Fund authority that ends December 31.
FQHC Impact:
The House figure is a proposal, not award authority or guaranteed center revenue. A continuing resolution would be governed by its enacted duration, rate, terms, and anomalies; it should not be assumed to extend the mandatory fund or every award term.
Public Law 119-21 was enacted July 4, 2025. It created the Rural Health Transformation Program and enacted Medicaid eligibility, community-engagement, and financing provisions with separate implementation dates and exceptions.
FQHC Impact:
The law is the authority behind current state work-requirement implementation and RHTP awards. It does not itself identify an FQHC's payment, patient loss, staffing change, or award; those require state rules, agency guidance, and named award records.
AB 2161 is the only bill of California's four-bill H.R. 1 Medi-Cal mitigation package still alive. Verified against the official bill history: the Senate passed it 29-8 on August 25, the Assembly concurred in Senate amendments 60-11 on August 26, it was enrolled August 30, and it was ENROLLED AND PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNOR AT 4 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 — the clock is now formally running. It amends Section 14005.69 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Because the Legislature adjourned sine die on August 31, the Governor has 30 days — until September 30, 2026 — to sign or veto. IMPORTANT: it passed AS AMENDED on August 19, so any description written before that date is stale. The other three bills in the package all died in suspense on August 13: AB 2208 and AB 2201 were held under submission, and SB 1202 was held in committee and under submission.
FQHC Impact:
This bill governs the paperwork mechanics that decide how many patients a health center loses in January, when the federal community-engagement requirement starts. It is the state's only remaining guardrail on work-requirement verification. A veto would leave California with none before January 1, 2027. Watch the Governor's action, and read the amended text rather than earlier summaries before briefing a board.
Proposition 44 is qualified for California's November 3 ballot. The official title says it would require nonprofit FQHCs and Look-Alikes to spend at least 90% of revenue on program services, permit a CDPH waiver for exceptional circumstances, require Attorney General guidance, and establish refund, penalty, and false-reporting provisions.
FQHC Impact:
The measure directly covers nonprofit FQHCs and Look-Alikes, but it has not been approved by voters. The official qualified-measures page does not establish a per-center compliance cost, closure count, staffing effect, or election outcome.
GovInfo identifies the August 5, 2026 measure as S. 5244. It was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; it is not enacted law. The proposal addresses contract pharmacies, patient eligibility, a third-party data clearinghouse, transparency, and audits. Section 5 would, only after enactment, require HHS to conclude the 340B Rebate Model Pilot within one year, not expand it, discontinue it at one year, and transition to the proposed clearinghouse. HRSA's revised pilot under 91 FR 48883 is a separate current agency process; a manufacturer plan submission is not an approval.
FQHC Impact:
S. 5244 could change contract-pharmacy, patient-definition, and data workflows if enacted, but introduction creates no current FQHC payment, compliance, staffing, or service change. Continue to follow current law and official HRSA pilot materials; do not treat an August 24 manufacturer submission, the proposed section 5 sunset, or the proposed clearinghouse transition as implemented.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee ordered H.R. 9393 reported 45-0 in the nature of a substitute on July 21. Related primary text in H.R. 8201 would amend Section 330 to make behavioral health, mental health, and substance-use-disorder services required primary health services rather than optional additional services. No House floor or Senate action is reported, and no money is obligated.
FQHC Impact:
If enacted, the required-service language would create scope, staffing, contract, or referral implications. HRSA has not issued implementation guidance, and the committee action does not resolve the December 31 Community Health Center Fund boundary.
HRSA published its revised final notice on August 3 with a January 1, 2027 effective date. Manufacturer plans were due August 24. As of the August 26 review, HRSA had not published approved manufacturers or plans.
FQHC Impact:
The final notice declined an FQHC carve-out, so covered entities should track official approvals and implementation instructions. Submission of a manufacturer plan is not approval, and no manufacturer should be treated as active under the pilot until HRSA says so.
AB 2348 was enrolled August 27 and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. on August 31, the day the Legislature adjourned sine die. The enrolled text requires DHCS to maintain policy guides and all-plan letters defining coverage standards for each community support; publish ECM and Community Supports utilization data quarterly, to the extent feasible, until January 1, 2032; release written policy changes no later than six months before their effective date, with effective dates set at January 1 or July 1; and by March 31, 2029 report to the Legislature on transitioning community supports to required Medi-Cal benefits, drawing on the final community supports evaluation due to CMS by December 31, 2028.
FQHC Impact:
The bill is not law and does not bridge the December 31, 2026 CalAIM authority gap — the date January 1, 2027 appears nowhere in the enrolled text. The transition-to-required-benefit question is deferred to a March 31, 2029 legislative report, and the reporting paragraph goes inoperative January 1, 2032. Centers should not budget 2027 revenue as if this bill supplies authority. The one operationally useful provision is the six-month advance-notice rule on policy changes, which gives ECM and Community Supports programs a predictable planning runway.
Subtitle U directs the Department of Health Care Finance to award $800,000 total by October 31 to at least two FQHCs or Look-Alikes whose patient populations are at least 20% uninsured. The act is emergency legislation; the source names no recipient.
FQHC Impact:
$800,000 is the total program amount, not a per-center award. No organization should be described as eligible or funded until DHCF publishes its criteria and awards.
The Senate passed AB 2756 39-0 on August 20 and the Assembly concurred in Senate amendments 78-0 on August 24. The official history records the bill as enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. on 08/28/26, with no gubernatorial action recorded. Under Cal. Const. art. IV, sec. 10(b)(2), a bill passed before September 1 and in the Governor's possession on or after September 1 becomes a statute unless returned on or before SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 — so it is signed, vetoed, or law without signature by that date. It would require DHCS to establish vision performance measures by January 1, 2028, post CY2026 data by January 1, 2029, and set benchmarks by July 1, 2029 for use in CY2030, across both fee-for-service and managed care. The enrolled text sets no rate, changes no benefit, and does not mention federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, or prospective payment. It was introduced on 2026-02-20 as a unified health care financing bill and rewritten into vision services on 2026-03-02. Its finding is that only one in six school-age children enrolled in Medi-Cal receives basic primary care services — a measure of primary care, not of eye exams.
FQHC Impact:
The bill creates a state reporting framework, not a new FQHC payment, patient entitlement, or site-level performance finding. Any health-center workflow or rate effect remains unestablished until enactment and implementation guidance.
Missouri's official 2026 ballot-measures page lists Amendment 3 for November 3. The official title says a yes vote would repeal the 2024 reproductive-healthcare right through viability, replace it with narrower abortion exceptions, permit regulation and parental consent, restrict public funding, and prohibit specified transition procedures for minors subject to listed exceptions.
FQHC Impact:
The measure could affect the state policy environment, but the official title names no FQHC, patient count, payment, job, or site-level effect. It remains a ballot proposal, not current law.
Next move
Convert legislative risk into dollars, deadlines, and team priorities.