Date: April 17, 2026

Time: 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Type of Meeting: Virtual

Members Present: 3 out of 3 members were present

HCPF Staff Present: Antoinette Taranto, Chief Customer Officer; Thessica Covato, Member Engagement Specialist; Cesar Zatarain, Community Liaison

If you have issues accessing any of our digital materials, if one of the file formats prevents you from accessing the information, or if you have any questions or accommodation needs regarding the accessibility of this document, please contact HCPF’s Digital Accessibility Compliance Officer using this form.

Meeting Objectives

  • Continue to build understanding and commitment for person- and family-centeredness.
  • Provide opportunities for collaboration between the Department and members with the goal of improving member experience.
  • Develop clear, actionable recommendations for the Medical Care Advisory Committee (MCAC).
  • Strengthen alumni council collaboration by preparing for the December recommendation presentation.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

All members confirmed no conflicts of interest.

New Business

Development of H.R. 1 (Community Engagement) Recommendations

The primary focus of the meeting was to review prior feedback and begin drafting recommendations related to H.R. 1 for presentation at the June MCAC meeting.

Staff presented a synthesis of feedback collected from prior MEAC discussions over the past year to provide a starting point for recommendation development.

Identification of Key Concern Areas

Members reviewed and discussed several recurring themes identified from prior feedback:

Clarity of Requirements

Members noted ongoing confusion regarding community engagement requirements, including:

  • Timeframes for meeting requirements (monthly vs. six-month periods)
  • Definitions of qualifying activities (work, school, volunteer activities)
  • Use of inconsistent terminology across communications

Members emphasized that inconsistent language contributes significantly to misunderstanding.

Unknown or Evolving Federal Guidance

Members discussed the challenge of making recommendations while some requirements remain undefined at the federal level.

Key points included:

  • Recognition that guidance is still evolving
  • Concern about how late updates will be communicated to members
  • Need to distinguish between known requirements and areas still pending clarification

Members agreed that recommendations should acknowledge both known and unknown elements.

Documentation Requirements

Members identified concerns related to how individuals will demonstrate compliance, including:

  • Lack of clarity on acceptable documentation
  • Uncertainty around how documentation applies to non-traditional employment (e.g., gig work)
  • Questions about which time periods documentation must cover

Members emphasized the importance of clear and specific guidance to prevent confusion.

Exemptions

Members discussed confusion regarding exemption criteria and processes.

Key issues included:

  • Lack of clear definitions (e.g., medically frail, caregiver)
  • Uncertainty about who determines eligibility for exemptions
  • Lack of clarity on required documentation and verification processes

Members noted that unclear exemption guidance may result in both underreporting and overreporting.

Renewal Process Burden

Members expressed concern about the shift to more frequent renewal periods.

Discussion points included:

  • Increased administrative burden on members
  • Risk of eligible members losing coverage due to process challenges
  • Need to address existing issues in the renewal process before increasing frequency

Members referenced prior recommendations related to improving the renewal experience.

Communication Challenges

Members emphasized that current communications are often:

  • Text-heavy and difficult to navigate
  • Not structured to highlight critical actions
  • Easily overlooked or misunderstood

Members highlighted the importance of clearly communicating:

  • Required actions
  • Deadlines
  • Consequences (e.g., loss of coverage)

Recommendation Development Discussion

Members began identifying potential recommendation approaches to address the concerns discussed.

Communication Improvements
  • Use consistent, plain language across all materials
  • Clearly define requirements and timeframes
  • Provide real-world examples, particularly for complex scenarios (e.g., gig workers)
  • Highlight critical actions and consequences prominently at the beginning of communications

Members emphasized that examples should reflect real-life, non-traditional situations rather than simplified scenarios.

Transparency and Information Structure

Members discussed the importance of organizing information to distinguish between:

  • Confirmed requirements
  • Pending or unknown elements

Potential strategies included:

  • FAQ-style resources
  • Clear identification of what is known vs. unknown
  • Providing optional background information for members seeking additional context
Documentation and Verification Guidance
  • Provide clear lists of acceptable documentation
  • Specify required timeframes for documentation
  • Clarify verification processes and next steps following submission
Exemption Guidance
  • Provide clear, plain-language definitions for each exemption category
  • Explain verification requirements and processes
  • Clarify whether all members must complete required forms regardless of exemption status
Website Navigation and Access

Members discussed improving access to information through:

  • Enhanced search functionality
  • Centralized landing pages for H.R. 1-related information
  • Regular updates to ensure accuracy as policies evolve
Policy Framing

Members discussed how to reference H.R. 1 in member communications.

Key perspectives included:

  • Prioritizing clear, actionable information for members
  • Avoiding overloading communications with policy or legislative context
  • Providing optional resources for members who want additional background information

Members generally aligned on focusing communications on required actions while offering additional context through secondary resources.

Future Recommendation Topics

Members began identifying topics for future MCAC recommendations.

Initial topics included:

  • Non-emergency medical transportation (including upcoming statewide changes)
  • Provider access and accuracy of provider directories
  • Vaccine availability
  • Verification processes
  • Member billing issues
  • Eligibility barriers for recently incarcerated individuals
  • Inconsistencies across systems (e.g., online portal vs. mailed communications)

Members noted that transportation and provider access are recurring concerns and may be prioritized in upcoming meetings.

Wrap-Up

Members expressed that the discussion provided a strong foundation for developing H.R. 1 recommendations.

There was agreement to continue refining recommendations in advance of the June MCAC meeting and to further develop future topic areas.

Next Steps

  • Refine and finalize H.R. 1 recommendations for MCAC presentation.
  • Incorporate feedback into structured recommendation materials.
  • Schedule an additional working session to support recommendation development.
  • Continue identifying and prioritizing future recommendation topics.

Staff also noted scheduling adjustments may be needed for March due to an extended MEAC meeting.

Adjourn

Next Meeting: 

  • MEAC – May 12, 2026, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (virtual)
  • MEAC Alumni Council – May 12, 2026, 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. (virtual)