The Brief

California under Gov. Gavin Newsom has made sweeping changes to its behavioral health system, pouring billions of dollars into new services and support programs.

But the state’s ambitious plans face a looming threat: the proposed federal spending cuts that Congress is currently considering are seen as all but certain to impact Medicaid and could bring to a halt some of the headway the state has made in responding to its behavioral health crisis.

It’s not that all of California’s behavioral health policies are explicitly tied to Medicaid, but many state and local mental health programs draw funding from it. Less Medicaid money means less money for those efforts.

“When you remove resources of this size and scope everything is at risk,” said Alex Briscoe, principal with the nonprofit Public Works Alliance and who previously led the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. “To be fair, the behavioral health reform landscape of California was just written, and we are still very much moving from promise to practice.

“So it's an extremely difficult time to see such fundamental threats to funding Medicaid,” Briscoe said.

It is unclear what these federal spending cuts will look like, but a budget resolution that passed the House last month proposed $880 billion in reductions over the next 10 years from the committee that oversees Medicaid. Both chambers still need to agree on a joint budget resolution.

Medicaid, the joint state and federal health insurance program for low-income people, pays for the care of four in 10 Californians. It’s through this program, also known as Medi-Cal in the Golden State, that millions can access behavioral health services such as therapy, medication, psychiatric evaluations and crisis support. About two-thirds of California’s $161 billion Medicaid spending comes from the federal government.

It’s also the Medicaid program that helps California pay for some of its social support services for its most vulnerable residents. They include housing navigation and food assistance, which help stabilize people and improve their chances of completing their course of mental health or substance use treatment.

The federal threats to Medicaid funding come at a time when close to half of adults in the state have reported symptoms of anxiety or depression, and about 1.2 million of them live with a serious mental health illness, according to figures by the National Alliance of Mental Illness. When it comes to children, 1 in 6 experience a mental health disorder every year.

Meanwhile, opioid-related deaths skyrocketed between 2018 and 2023, largely because of fentanyl use, state data shows. Opioid overdose deaths peaked at more than 8,000 in 2023 and have been declining since last year.

In response to the grim landscape, Newsom set out to revamp the state’s behavioral health system. This has included growing the number of treatment beds, training new mental health workers, expanding the reach of crisis hotlines and mobile crisis services, increasing the availability of opioid overdose reversal medication, and increasing mental health access in schools, among other changes.

Tents outside the Federal Courthouse in Los Angeles on April 22, 2024.

(

Ted Soqui

/

CalMatters

)

The state pulls from multiple buckets, such as special taxes, to fund its public behavioral health system, but federal funding through Medicaid is an essential piece of it. Across the country, Medicaid is the largest payer for mental health services.

CalMatters asked the governor’s office what Medicaid cuts could mean for the state’s behavioral health system. It released a written statement from Health Secretary Kim Johnson in which she reiterated that the administration had an “unwavering” commitment to ensure that all Californians have access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment.

“Behavioral health care is essential health care for the well-being of individuals, families, and communities across California,” she said. “Investing in behavioral health services saves lives, reduces long-term costs, and strengthens our workforce and economy.”

But mental health advocates, health plans, and county officials put it this way: Medicaid funding cuts would result in more sick people going without treatment. That would increase the likelihood of them losing employment or dropping out of school and ending up in need of more acute care, or worse, on the street.

“There are tons of people on the streets who are struggling,” said Corey Hashida, a senior research associate at the Steinberg Institute, a mental health advocacy organization. “At a time when we're trying to move forward with doing these big things to help those folks, all this uncertainty and chaos is swirling around federal cooperation … it just infuses a little fear into the safety net.”

In a recent policy brief, Hashida explained that in addition to possible funding cuts to Medicaid, key federal behavioral health grants are also at risk. And California has already started to see some of this fallout. On March 24, the California Department of Health Care Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, received termination letters from the federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, pulling back $120 million in behavioral health grants.

Those grants, according to the department, were intended for initiatives at the state and local level, including work to reduce overdose deaths and expand access to medications for opioid use disorder.

California could lose billions in Medicaid funding

The feds could roll back Medicaid spending in a number of ways, such as imposing work requirements or restructuring funding formulas. They could also restrict how Medicaid funds are used by ending federal waivers that expanded how California and other states use money from the program.

Policy and budget experts say that it is difficult for states to make contingency plans when it is unclear how or if the cuts will play out.

President Donald Trump has said that he will not touch Medicare and Medicaid as he looks for spending reductions to fund extending his 2017 tax cuts. He has said he will only go after eliminating fraud in the programs. However, the Congressional Budget Office has found that if cuts to Medicare, the insurance program for seniors, are off the table, then Congress would have to make deep cuts to Medicaid to reach House Republicans’ savings goal.

By some estimates, Republican proposals to reduce spending in Medicaid could translate into an annual loss of $10 billion to $20 billion in federal funds for California.

For example, Congress may choose to reduce the matching dollars that the federal government pays states for adults who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. The federal government pays California 90% of the cost for this expansion population — that’s more than the 50% matching rate the feds pay the state for other enrollees.

This expansion allowed many childless adults to access critical mental health treatment, including many struggling with psychosis, said Michelle Doty Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. Psychosis is a condition that can result in hallucinations. It typically emerges in late adolescence or early adulthood, but can be treated with medication and therapy.

That expansion “was a game changer,” Doty Cabrera said. “Taking away funding for that population would be devastating.”

Counties are responsible for providing specialty mental health services to people with more serious mental health conditions and substance use disorders. Counties fund these services with their own local revenue, some state dollars and matching federal Medicaid funds.

“There's really nowhere else to go in terms of funding,” Doty Cabrera said. “We're already maximizing local spending to try to support these services, and if the federal funding were taken away, it would just put additional pressure on the state budget that obviously is already facing a tremendous number of pressures.”

Federal Medicaid dollars are a significant portion of counties’ mental health budgets. In Los Angeles County, for example, 30% of the county’s annual budget for its behavioral health services department comes from Medicaid, according to the department. In Santa Clara County, about a quarter of it does.

“So when you're talking about a quarter of the funding for a system, you're talking about the ability of the entire system to function,” said James Williams, county executive for Santa Clara County.

Will Trump extend California health waivers?

California relies on special permission, or “waivers” from the federal government to be able to use Medicaid dollars to fund non-traditional services, such as access to a care coordinator, housing navigation, rental deposit aid, and medically tailored meals. Experts say these types of support services go hand-in-hand with successful behavioral health care, and in the long run should save the state and feds’ money by helping people avoid costly emergency room care.

“Waivers are about granting some flexibility so that you can deliver more holistic services,” Williams in Santa Clara County said. “And one of the biggest challenges in behavioral health care, and this is especially true for substance use care, is having people make it through a course of treatment.” To increase people’s chances, you need things such as stable housing.

Some of these support services are just now starting to reach people. But their continuation is also in the feds’ hands. The federal government has the power to rescind the waivers or let them expire.

Two waiver programs are seen as key to California’s behavioral health transformation because they extend Medicaid funding and flexibilities for these support services. These are BH-Connect, which was just approved by the Biden-Harris administration in December, and CalAIM, for which federal approval is set to expire at the end of 2026.

The Trump administration has not indicated whether it will renew the CalAIM permissions, but given the discussion of Medicaid funding cuts, it is creating some anxiety over the future of the program.

Michael Schrader, chief executive of the Central California Alliance for Health, the local Medicaid plan for people in Merced, Santa Cruz and neighboring counties, said he has been hearing concerns about this from providers in his network.

“Providers are wondering, ‘Do we keep making investments in CalAIM?’” Schrader said.

“I’ve got clinics saying, ‘I did what you asked me to do. I stepped up and I hired community health workers, I hired enhanced care managers, I put together structured programs, we're serving these people, and I continue to make these investments thinking this is long term, and now I don't know.’”

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Take accountability and move forward.

Those were the two points Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore hit repeatedly when speaking with LAist’s Larry Mantle this week.

On taking accountability, Moore said hazardous conditions and decisions made before the Palisades Fire erupted a year ago meant “our firefighters never had a chance” to arrest the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

On moving forward, he emphasized that reform is already in the works.

“Things have changed since the Palisades Fire, and we're going to continue making big changes in the Los Angeles Fire Department,” said Moore, who was selected for the LAFD top job by Mayor Karen Bass in November.

Here are three takeaways from the interview, which aired on AirTalk on Tuesday.

1. Staffing decisions hampered fire response

The LAFD uses a so-called pre-deployment matrix to set firefighter staffing levels ahead of high-risk weather.

According to the department’s after-action report, however, staffing levels on the day the Palisades Fire began fell short of the LAFD standard for extreme weather conditions. The National Weather Service had warned of low humidity, high winds and dry vegetation, what it calls a “particularly dangerous situation.” It’s the highest level of alert the agency can give.

Despite the high risk, the LAFD report said the decision not to deploy more firefighters in advance was in part made to save money.

Moore said Monday that the department has updated its policies to increase staffing for especially hazardous conditions, but he said he doesn’t believe additional resources would have stopped a fire of the magnitude that leveled the Palisades.

To suppress that kind of fire, he said, the department would need to pre-deploy resources across the city’s vast geography — to places like Baldwin Hills, Franklin Canyon, the Hollywood Hills, the Palisades, Porter Ranch and Sunland-Tujunga.

Moore said the department has already made new policies to call for more resources when the Weather Service issues a “particularly dangerous situation” alert.

2. LAFD is mostly an urban firefighting department

Moore referenced a key finding of the after-action report regarding a lack of training in wildland firefighting, which contributed to confusion and struggles to effectively utilize resources during the fire.

Wildland fires pose a number of challenges that are different from what firefighters face in urban environments. Those include the need to coordinate a large number of resources over vast areas, all while dealing with fast-moving flames that can rapidly tear through dry plants and structures.

The department found in its report that fewer firefighters were trained in fighting these wildland fires in recent years and that “leaders struggled to comprehend their roles.”

Some leaders in the department had “limited or no experience in managing an incident of such complexity,” the report said. And some reverted to doing the work of lower positions, leaving high-level decision-making positions unfilled.

“What we're doing now is really furthering that training and reinforcing that education with our firefighters so that they could be better prepared,” Moore said on AirTalk.

3. Changes to the after-action report

Early versions of the after-action report differed from the version released to the public in October, a fact that was first reported by the Los Angeles Times. The Times also reported that Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, who wrote the report, wouldn’t endorse the final version because of the changes.

Moore acknowledged to the L.A. Board of Fire Commissioners at a Jan. 6 meeting that the report had been watered down.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore told the commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief, and I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief."

Some changes were small but telling. A section titled “Failures” later became “Primary Challenges.”

Moore told LAist that changes between versions “ made it easier for the public to understand,” but an LAist review found the edits weren’t all surface-level.

In the first version of the report, the department said the decision not to fully pre-deploy all available resources for the particularly dangerous wind event “did not align” with their guidelines for such extreme weather cases. The final version said that the initial response “lacked the appropriate resources,” removing the reference to department standards.

The department also removed some findings that had to do with communications.

One sentence from the initial version of the report said: “Most companies lacked a basic briefing, leader’s intent, communications plan, or updated fire information for more than 36 hours.” That language was removed from the final report.

LAist has asked the Fire Department for clarification about why these assertions were removed but did not receive a response before time of publication.

Fans who want a chance to buy tickets to the 2028 Olympic Games have until March 18 to enter the draw, which opens at 7 a.m. Wednesday.

Locals will get the first bite at the apple. A pre-sale for people in L.A., Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties will run April 2-6. Certain Oklahoma residents where some Olympic competitions are taking place also will be eligible for the pre-sale.

The first round of ticket sales for all fans will launch April 9. The first round will include tickets to the Opening and Closing ceremonies.

Those selected to buy tickets will get an email with a time slot. After the first round, LA28 says there will be rolling ticket drops. Each person who registers will be able to buy a maximum of 12 tickets.

"Fans are encouraged to register today for the best choice of tickets and events, as capacity may be filled or limited in subsequent drops," the private Olympics organizing committee said in a press release.

Registering once will enter applicants into all future draws to purchase Olympic tickets until they've maxed out ticket purchases, according to LA28.

At a press conference Tuesday outside the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, Olympics organizers also provided more details on ticket prices for the first time. One million tickets will sell for $28 a pop and around a third of tickets will be under $100, according to LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman.

That means the majority of tickets to the Olympic Games will run into triple digits. If the World Cup is any indication, some tickets could get astronomically pricey.

Tickets to the Paralympic Games will go on sale next year.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors took a step toward banning ICE from unlawfully operating on county-owned property and to post signage designating those spaces as “ICE Free Zones.”

The board unanimously approved the motion at Tuesday’s meeting, directing staff to draft the policy.

The draft could include requirements for county employees to report to their supervisor if they see unauthorized immigration activity on county property.

The city of Los Angeles passed a similar order last July, which strengthened protocols that prohibit ICE from operating on city-owned property. The agenda staff report points to an “ICE Free Zone” ordinance passed by the city of Chicago in October.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis co-authored the motion.

Horvath said the county will not allow its property to be used as “a staging ground for violence caused by the Trump administration."

Solis added that their action as a board could have a ripple effect on other city councils and local governments.

“Even though it's taken us this long to get here …I think it's really important for our communities to understand what we're saying is you don't have the right to come in and harass people without a federal warrant,” Solis said. “And if you use our property to stage, then you need to show us documentation as to why.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in an X post that the county cannot exclude federal agents from public spaces.

"Anyone who attempts to impede our agents will be arrested and charged, including county employees," Essayli said in the post. "We have already charged more than 100 individuals for similar conduct."

Since June, ICE raids have ramped up across the nation, heavily targeting certain immigrant communities like those in Los Angeles.

The motion directs the draft to include language that prohibits all types of ICE operations on county land, including staging and mobilizing without a warrant.

The motion cites an incident on Oct. 8, when county officials say federal agents raided the Deane Dana Friendship Park and Nature Center in San Pedro, arresting three people and threatening to arrest staff.

The motion also requires that the county post 'Ice Free Zone' signage on all of its properties.

Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center of Human Rights and Constitutional Law, told LAist the policy is enforceable under Fourth Amendment case law.

“You have to make sure that when you post that signage … that means that you routinely, or semi-routinely, assess who's coming in to the property, so that you can control access,” Perez said. “But if ICE shows up with a warrant, with a subpoena, then all bets are off, and they can enter into the property and do what they need to do.”

Perez said the county has moved “incredibly” slow on this issue.

“It's embarrassing that the county is moving six months later, given how we've been facing violent, aggressive, invasive and illegal raids now for so long here in Southern California,” Perez said, adding that local governments have not been fast or creative enough in protecting immigrant and refugee communities.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, one of the region’s largest immigrant advocacy groups, supports the motion.

"We do not want our county resources being used for federal immigration enforcement activities, which disrupt, uproot, and terrorize our communities,” Jeannette Zanipatin, policy director for CHIRLA, said in a statement. “It is important for all public spaces to be really safe for all residents.”

County staff have 30 days to draft a plan to implement the new policy.