Ryan White Planning Council - Executive Committee - Regular Meeting

12, 32 with five out of six members present. So we've reached quorum, call this meeting into session. Gwendolyn, will you do introductions and conflicts of interest?

Yes, I can start that now. So if you are on the executive committee or a member of the Part A office who is scheduled to speak on today's agenda, When I call your name, please state your name and list any conflicts you have. Michael Brown.

Michael Brown, no conflicts.

Randall Furrow.

Randall Furrow, no conflicts.

Eric Eason.

Eric Eason, no conflict.

Erica Teacamp. Erica Teacamp, conflicts with medical and non-medical case management, referral for health care and support services, transportation, and HPSCA. Tanika Drake.

No interest there.

Shantae Coleman. Shantae Coleman, Maricopa County.

All right, so that's everyone on the executive committee or our recipient staff. So, Michael, we can go ahead and proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Gwendolyn. The next item on the agenda is... Line item number 3 review and acceptance of agenda. The chair will not make any adjustments to the agenda. The chair may change the order of the agenda items but may not add any new items. Yeah, go ahead. Open meeting laws, advance notice of agenda topics. So does anybody have any... Any additions or want to make any changes to the agenda, the order of the items or anything on the agenda? Okay, so I don't think we need to approve this agenda. Do we can just go forward to the next item?

Yes, that's correct. We don't have to vote on this or anything.

Okay, thank you. Next item is review and approval of the minutes. action items the council will review the minutes from April 27 2026 hopefully everybody received their minutes in their package is there any updates or changes to the minutes okay I will now accept a motion to approve the minutes from the April 27th meeting

This is Erica. I move to accept the minutes from the April 27th meeting.

Thank you, Erica. I have a motion that made by Erica. Do I hear a second?

I second to approve the meeting.

Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Eric. Does anybody have any questions on the minutes before we vote? I just have one thing. I probably should have let you know earlier um and it's not a biggie it's about um let me see here well now i can't find it so nothing important nothing important on it so i have no conflict so i'm ready i think we're ready to take a vote

Okay, sounds good. I'll start with Randall Farrell.

Yes.

Eric Eason.

Yes.

Erica Tecan. Yes.

Tanika Drake.

I saw Tanika unmute.

I was probably saying yes. Okay. Michael Brown?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Wait, earlier she was breaking up really, really bad. I don't know if others heard that, but I know she was breaking up pretty bad on my side.

Yeah, I heard that too. Tanika, if you're able to, you can also use the chat because we have the chat open for this meeting. So if you have any questions or I can hear you now. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Perfect.

Awesome, thank you, Gwendolyn. We'll now move to item number five on the agenda, chair update. I do have a couple updates I wanted to announce. One is to extend my gratitude to the allocations work group that met for your hard work, time, and commitment. The work you do is critical to ensuring that resources are allocated responsibly and equitably to meet the needs of our community. And I would just like to thank you for your dedication, for all you contribute to the Ryan White Planning Council, and the hard decisions we had to make and the importance of it and the discussions. It was my first time being on the allocations committee, and I learned a lot and hopefully gained a lot of insight. So thank you to everybody who was part of that committee. I really appreciate your help. And the next thing on the chair update is I would like to do an appointment. And my appointment is for Tanika Drake to serve as our team committee chair. And I'm excited to announce that. And I would just like to say a little word. It's to thank you for stepping up and serving this important role. Leadership requires commitment and your willingness to take. on this responsibility demonstrates your dedication to our community and to the work of the Ryan White Planning Council. We sincerely appreciate your service. And if she would like to say anything, maybe, or I don't want to put you on the spot, Tanika, but I'm just happy that you're able to take that position and look forward to serving with you.

Oh, thank you, Michael. I appreciate the opportunity to do it. I'm looking forward to the training. so that I don't do things incorrectly. So I watch a lot of people on here and it's just, it really makes you feel good to be a part of this. So thank you for the opportunity, all of you.

Thank you. And that's all the updates I have for this meeting. So I think we can move on to item number six, which is the Ryan White HIV AIDS Part A Recipient Update. And I think we have Chantelle Coleman, or Shanti Coleman gonna present

Yes, I'm here. Awesome. Good afternoon, everyone. Um, 1st, I'd like to provide a brief overview of our grant year 2026 notice of award. Um, so for part a funding, we received a total award of 11,350,085 dollars, which represents an increase of 300,623 dollars in our formula and supplemental awards, including funding. In addition to Part A award, we have $421,983 in carryover funding and approximately $150,000 in Part B rebate funding, bringing the total funding available for services to just under $12 million. Now for our EHE or the Ending the HIV Epidemic funding, we received $2,768,896, which is an increase of $336,942 compared to last year. We will discuss funding amounts and the proposed allocations in more detail later during the allocation sections of today's meeting. Moving on to my updates, HRSA has launched a new HIV resource hub. which is currently serving as the interim replacement for their target HIV website. The new website contains many of the resources, tools and training materials that were previously available through target HIV. The website is HIV resource hub dot org. I'm going to drop that in the chat for you all. And and that is my update regarding the HRSA. One more update. The Positively You campaign is seeking new ambassadors as part of a campaign refresh project for the grant year. The campaign is looking for individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who are living with HIV or current or former Ryan White service clients. Ambassadors have an opportunity to share their experiences and help shape future campaign messaging and outreach efforts. If you know someone who may be interested, please contact katethomas at kate.com. thomas at maricopa.gov and include a brief message explaining why they would like to serve as an ambassador and I will also drop that email in the chat for you all as well and then that concludes my program updates I had a quick question um and if you don't have the answer um I can ask Kate

Um, previously on the ambassadors, I know that they had started off that they were wanting younger people, but then they ended up having, um, some people that were up there in years. I was just wondering why they aren't doing that this time.

That is a great question. Um, I can definitely pink Kate to get that. I'm not sure on on what the change was regarding that age.

Thank you.

No problem.

Thank you, Randall. Is there any other questions? Awesome. Thank you, Shanti, again, for the information and the update.

At this time, we'll move on to item number seven on the agenda, the integrated plan concurrence. Somebody from the Arizona Department of Health Services will be presenting the plan today.

I think you might be on mute.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah, speaking here.

How's it going? Good day. Good morning. Good morning.

Welcome.

So, I have a presentation ready that I did during the chips committee, and I have the plan ready. Well, I would, which do you have a preference? Would you guys just want to go over the plan? Or would you all want to see the presentation of kind of where we're at?

If you wanted to walk through the presentation first, and then maybe we can see if there's like questions after that, but maybe we start with the slides. If that sounds good with you, Michael.

Yeah, that sounds great. Thank you, Gwen.

Sure.

So, can you all see my screen now?

Yes, we can see it.

Awesome. So, hello, everyone. My name is Rowell Yala. I've been working with some of you all for a while. And so today I'm going to be presenting the Arizona where we're at so far with the 2027 to 2031 Arizona HIV, STI, and Hep C integrated plan. So I'll kind of start with what the plan is since there's really not slides for those that do not know. is before I've heard back in the day that all the different programs had to write their own five-year plan to HRSA and to CDC and sometimes there was like a lot of redundancies and or the programs were not talking to each other so I'm not sure how long ago I think probably not the cycle before but the one before that um I believe that's when HRSA and CDC got together and they were like no for Ryan White, Part B, and all the different programs are going to have them work together to do a five-year integrated plan for the state. And Part B is going to be the person that's going to kind of like, you know, guide the state through it. And a lot of you all have worked on the last integrated plan in this one. So the guidance for this integrated plan was released December 24th and then revised the 25th. And the approach that we took was that we really worked on editing and modifying the 2026 to 2020, the 2022 to 2026 plan, because a lot of you all worked on it so much. We did tons of focus groups. And because of decrease in funding, we wanted it to be more streamlined, reflect the things that did get accomplished also as well. And ADH leading with coordination and from SWAG, from UALL, from Hep Free AZ, Phoenix Backtrack Cities, and the Vegas TGA, which scoops into Mojave. So that's why we also work with them. Quickly, this is like, I entered right after late summer 2025. So we just did like a needs assessment to kick off. Then we did surveys to get our goals and objectives. Then we did tons of working groups, check-ins, oversight committees, swag, lunch and learns. To get people's feedback, we would gather feedback, make an iteration of the plan, gather feedback, make an iteration. So this is a fourth iteration. And then now we're here is asking for concurrence, finalizing plans. We did the community webinar. We've added the matrix. So we're pretty much done. So this is a little quick, everything we've done so far. And then this is kind of where we're at on stage four. So we currently are working with Hep Free AZ, Fast Track City sent their letter of support. The Vegas TGA approved their concurrence. This is Ryan White and Hep Free AZ and Phoenix Fast Track City. I think Phoenix Fast Track City already sent their letter of support and Hep Free AZ is getting it to us.

And I think the STI control program is also writing a letter of support.

so i need to update some of these but venus fact check city is complete vegas cj is complete hopefully we'll receive um pep free az and then ryan white part a soon and then for those of you all who do not know is um we always say letter support and concurrence because it's kind of different because you all are riding white part a we need to do concurrence so these are kind of the different options we ask the planning bodies is what is concurrence, planning bodies in support of the plan, concurrence with reservations, nodding concurrence, and letter of support.

And then I'll stop here before going into the plan if there's any questions so far.

Awesome.

So here's the first pillar, which is the diagnose pillar. And here, the objective is to improve and expand testing for HIV, STI, and Hep C. A lot of you all have worked on this, so you guys have seen many of the different versions and iterations. So I'm going to let you all look at it, take a look, a gander. Then I'll point out some trends and some of the big changes from last year. So a big one is objective one is obviously to increase the availability of testing. Really important things here, like after test hours was one that we've heard reoccurringly. In the second one, which is improve access to testing, it's how do we, so how do we get more people to be tested? So here there was a lot of talk about expand home mail testing options, increase opt-out HIV screenings for routine blood work in different emergency departments and substance use disorder programs. Partnering with correctional systems is something we saw a lot. A reoccurring theme throughout the whole plan is this move towards endemic testing and education. Number three is focused on awareness. And then this one is more like the promotional side of things. And then number four is focused on partner services. So this is the one first of the four pillars. I couldn't get this objective in here, but this one is the reduce new transmissions of HIV STI. This is a prevent pillar. And the first one was focused on improving and expanding PEP coverage. The second one is specifically targeted at overdose, overdose prevention and disease program. I have to add the and disease. I have my notes here and on the final version, it is the one that we, and then improve expanded sexual health prevention mechanisms. Here's where we have all of our, All of our PEP and DOCSY PEP stuff as well as our where we focused our U&U wording and reinforcing the role in preventing hepatitis C, STI, and HIV, utilizing sex positive approach to improve how we talk about sex in our trainings, work, and education. And then the last one is to reduce and prevent cases of perinatal hep C and syphilis, which have been a problem. Then we have the third pillar, which is treat, which is rapidly and effectively link all persons to treatment or retain them in care or achieve a cure. Here we have three objectives. Following along this endemic theme, we have number one. Number two is specific to Hep C1. And number three is specifically to increase the percentage of people who are living with HIV are retained in care and are virally suppressed. And lastly is RESPOND, which is to strengthen HIV, STI, and Hep C prevention and care systems. So number one is very focused on cluster detection response. Number two is following this theme of developing new partnerships, syndemic testing. And then number three is focused on our workforce across the state. And so submission is at the end of this month. So right now we're completing all the concurrent cycles. We've completed all of number four too. We're just waiting on concurrence and letter of support. We've written up all the narrative pieces, our methodology, our explanation and narrative of the goals, how we got here, a list of partners and resources. We have all of our epidemiology or situational analysis. Yeah, we finished last week and so this is what we're asking for is a letter of concurrence from the Ryan White. Is there any questions on timeline or any anything at all?

Awesome. Roel, thank you for your time and commitment to this. I know it's a lot of work, and I appreciate the work you've done on the integrated plan, statewide integrated plan. I guess at this time, we'll accept a motion to vote on concurrence of the final statewide integrated plan from the council. Do I hear a motion to accept concurrence of the final statewide integrated plan?

I would make that motion, Michael.

Thank you, Randall. A motion has been made by Randall.

Do I hear a second?

Jason, I second.

Was that Eric or Jason?

Yes, I second that motion.

Thank you, Eric. I have a motion made by Randall and a second made by Eric Eason. Is there any discussion before we vote?

Awesome. Gwendolyn, would you like to make a roll call vote?

Thank you, Michael. I'll start with you, Michael.

Michael Brown, I vote yes.

Randall Furrow?

Yes.

Eric Eason?

Yes.

Erica Tecan? Yes. Tanika Drake? Yes. Thank you. Motion carries.

Awesome. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, and thank you, Raul, again, for your time today. Next item on the agenda, I have item number eight, grant year 2026-27, allocation recommendations. And I do believe Shanti and Elena are going to present today.

Yes, I will be covering that here right now. If you can, Gwen, if you mind sharing the worksheet. And let's start with the party tab. Oh, no, actually the worksheet, the.

the grant year funding discussion tab.

And if you have issues, Gwen, I can share it because I do have it up too.

Wait, sorry, could you pull it up, Chante? Yeah, no problem.

Thank you. No problem. Okay, just a moment, team. Let me just move it over. Okay, make sure I'm sharing the right screen. Perfect. Here we go. Awesome. Okay. So, as part of the recipient update that I briefly reviewed the funding we received through our notice of award, I'd like, I'd now like to walk through the allocations recommendations developed by the allocations work group. So, starting with the worksheet, um, the rankings reflect, uh, in the 1st column are the priorities established by planning council during last year's priority settings and, um, resource allocation process. So these, the ranking with the service category is the 1st, um, column E. This shows the final expenditures for grant year 2025 by service category. This provides a picture of where funds were ultimately spent and helps explain how we ended the year with carryover funding. Then column F reflects the allocations that Planning Council proposed and approved during last year's PSRA process. These allocations were based on the projections available at the time and included decisions to reduce or discontinue certain service categories. And that's when we a stopped discontinuation of the EFA and early intervention services. Column G represents the projection if everything remains relatively unchanged. In other words, it shows where we would likely end up if current spending trends continue based on provider budget requests, year end utilization trends from last year and the trends we've seen so far this year. And then, Column H represents the proposed grant year 2026 Part A allocation scenario. So under this proposal, $50,000, we're going to scroll down here for a bit. $50,000 of Part B rebate funding would be allocated to Health Insurance Premium and Cost Sharing Assistance or HPSCA. As a result, the Part A allocations for HPSCA would be reduced by the same amount. The remaining $100,000 in Part B rebate funding would be reserved to address potential overages in both HPSCA and outpatient ambulatory health services, or OHS, providing some flexibility should utilization exceed projections during the year. We're also seeing an increase in client need in both transportation and food bank services. To respond to those additional funds have been a been proposed for both service categories. In addition, it's proposed that beginning August 1st, the Ryan White program increased food voucher assistance from $40 per month to $100 per month for eligible clients based on current program protocols and available funding. And then just again, just to kind of reiterate what we talked about this earlier in the meeting, this is our NOAs, a carryover. Uh, just 1 thing to mention about the admin and budget. It's a lure. It's a, it was. Decreased a little because we had some vacancies, um, some staff vacancy. So that's why the budget is a little different this year. Trying to think if that was all I'm also going to just kind of turn it over to Gwen and Michael for any discussions and next steps and see if there's anyone from the work group that would like to add some further discussions or. Topics on this.

It's a lot. I know.

Thank you for sharing.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Michael.

Yeah, go ahead. Thank you for sharing. Yeah. Is there any. Anybody who was part of the allocation work group would like to maybe put in some insight or thought on to. How we came to concurrence on these.

or discussion or anybody have any discussion out there on the proposed allocations.

I know the committee spent, I think it was over two hours going through this and a really thoughtful and debate and a lot of information. I myself learned a lot about about the things and programs and how the needs are for each area. So I'm really grateful to be a part of that and everybody's work on the allocation work group. Okay, I guess at this time I will accept a motion. I'm sorry. I said, thank you, Michael. You're welcome, Eric. So at this time, I will accept a motion to accept the allocations as presented by Part A office and to issue a directive to the Part A office to raise monthly food vouchers amounts to reflect the increase in allocated funding for the food bank home delivered meal service category. Do I hear a motion?

I'm releasing that first motion.

Thank you, Eric. A motion has been made by Eric Eason. Do I hear second?

I'll second that motion.

Thank you, Randall. I have a motion made by Eric Eason and a second by Randall. Is there any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing no discussion, Gwendolyn, would you like to do a roll call vote?

Michael Brown?

Michael Brown, yes.

Randall Furrow?

Randall Furrow, yes.

Eric Eason?

Eric Eason, yes.

Erica Tikia? Abstain. Tanika Drake?

Tanika Drake, yes.

Thank you. Motion carries.

Awesome. Thank you, Gwendolyn, and thank you, everybody. Now moving on to item number nine of the agenda, the AE AEM results and Gwendolyn, I think you're going to be presenting that. Yes, let me just go ahead and share my screen.

OK, and my screen is up for everyone, right?

Yes, we can. Thank you.

OK, so today I will be presenting the assess the results of the assessment of the efficiency of the administrative mechanism, also known as the AEM. And this is one of the annual responsibilities of the planning council where the Ryan White Part A office is evaluated for how rapidly Ryan White Part A funds are allocated and made available for care. And this involves ensuring that funding is being moved into the community quickly and that there is an open process and that providers are being paid in a timely manner. And it also means reviewing whether the funds are used to pay only for services that were identified as priorities by the planning council during PSRA and whether the amounts for each service category match the PSRA allocations. So starting off with question one. So our first question looks to see if providers are being paid within 30 days of receiving a completed invoice. And this is important to measure how quickly the funding moves into the community. And as you can see there at the bottom, the average number of days is 10.36, which is well within the 30-day requirement. So moving on to question two. So question two, were contracts with Part A subrecipients signed and executed in a timely manner? So the partial notice of award for Part A was issued last year, January 14th of 2025, and an email to providers was sent out on March 12th, 2025. I wanted to also note real quick that guidance on level funding was given to providers during contractor calls from February 3rd to February 14th. So there was some guidance given in between the partial notice of award and the actual email notice. And then the final NOA was issued on July 9th of 2025 with task orders to providers being sent out on September 2nd, 2025. So our next question, question three, is focused on if we have 5% or less in carryover funds. So HRSA only allows us to carry over up to 5% of formula funding. And the formula portion of the award is based on the number of people with HIV and the number of new diagnoses. And any money that is not spent does have to be returned to HRSA. That's out of that 5%. And so these charts show the budget year award information, including the Ryan White Part A's internal budget for non-services. So that's what the top chart is. So those non-services include clinical quality management and administration, and that includes planning council costs. And it also includes high-level budgets for core and support services, which is that middle chart right there. And then for the purposes of this question, I'm going to zoom in on that small chart at the bottom, so we'll look at that on this slide. And as you can see, for unspent funding, we had 4.77% for formula, so that's under the 5%. And then for Minority AIDS Initiative, you'll see that it says 9.91%. There's not a 5% cap on that one, so we're totally fine there. So question four. Now we're going to look at how the funding was spent and did the recipient's office follow the guidance of the council regarding which service categories were paid for. And so these next two slides will look at core services and then support services. So the blue column there is the initial allocations from PSRA. The gray column shows final allocations. The green column shows final expenditures. And then that variance column shows PSRA versus expenditures. And then our last column of course is showing the explanation of each of those variances. So I'll keep this on the screen just for a few moments for people to read through. And moving on to the second part of this question, we're still on question four, but now this is just an explanation of the support services. So same chart, but now looking at support. So again, I'll leave this on the screen for a few moments. Okay, and moving on to question five, were Part A resources allocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met? So on this, we just have two notes here on the narrative from reallocations. It shows you which service category funding was moved from and then where it was moved to. So again, I will leave this on the screen for a few moments for people to read through. And then our final question, question number six, did the Part A office notify clients of any applicable Planning Council decisions that directly impacted services and eligibility in a timely manner? So last year on June 6, the Planning Council issued a directive to the Part A office, and that directive included a number of service category decisions that are all described here on the slide. So as you can See at the bottom, we have two rows, one for early intervention services and the last one for psychosocial support. And you'll see that it says not applicable for notifications. And that is because for EIS clients were closed out of that service individually and transitioned into case management services. And then for psychosocial support, that reduction did not impact service delivery because costs were moved to another funding source. So there was no impact to services or clients with that one. And that is the last question of the AEAM. So those are all my slides. We can pause here for questions, or if you want me to go back to another slide, I can also do that. I'm gonna take down my screen for now, just so I can see if there's people raising their hands.

Great presentation, by the way.

Thank you, Randall. Yeah, if there's any questions, Shantae and I can answer those. If not, we could look for a motion to accept this and forward it to tomorrow for the full Clinton Council to approve.

Thank you, Gwen.

Thank you, Gwen.

I'll make that motion.

Okay, thank you, Randall. I do have a motion on the floor to accept the motion to accept the AEM results. Do I have a second?

This is Erica. I'll second that.

Thank you, Erica. I have a motion on the floor made by Randall and a second by Erica to accept the motion on the AEM results. Any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing no hands, let's go ahead and take a vote, Gwendolyn.

Michael Brown?

Yes.

Randall Farrell?

Yes.

Eric Eason?

Yes.

Eric Katigian? Yes. Tanika Drake? Yes. Thank you, everyone. Motion carries.

Thank you, Gwendolyn, and thank you, everybody. We are moving forward to item number 10 on the agenda, the review of the EMA continuum in care and service category. I believe we have Reagan on the call to do a presentation of the continuum of care.

Yeah, thanks, Michael. I sent the slides to Gwen, so I think she'll probably just need a moment to pull those up.

Yes, I have them right here, Reagan. So just a moment while it loads, but I'll have those ready.

OK, and I'm sharing my screen.

Thank you, Glenn.

All right, so this is our overview of the 2025 annual continuum data, which I completed a few weeks ago. Just as a reminder, the 2025 annual continuum data takes data from all our providers from January 1st, 2025 through December 31st, 2025. So this is the overall snapshot of some of our main indicators. First things first, we served 4,353 clients in 2025. That is about 500 less clients than 2024. A big reason for that is that our ReConnect program wasn't as prolific this year because we were restructuring it a little bit. And so we served 720, I believe, clients in ReConnect in 2024, and we only served about 150 this year. So that accounts for a lot of the drop here. Our retention and care stayed at 94%. Receipt of care actually increased 1% from 2024. And then as I have been mentioning over the past few weeks, our suppression did drop. So it actually dropped by about 1.5%. It was listed at 89% when I presented it to you in 2024 because of rounding. But now it's rounding to 87%. So it's a drop of about 1.5%. And it's, for some perspective, to make up that difference, there would need to be about 50 more suppressed clients. So that's the actual number of clients we're looking at that account for that percentage drop. I see a hand already. Yes, Erica.

I just wonder if that drop is really just about reconnect because those clients are supposed to be eligible, correct?

Yes, it's not entirely reconnect, but it does explain a good chunk of them.

But wouldn't they be part of that? I mean, this 4353 is really like kind of who went through eligibility, right?

For the actual, we actually made a change to continuum recently where clients who are just getting their eligibility aren't being counted in these statistics. At this point, they were in previous years. But if they just got their eligibility renewed, we're not putting them in this presentation in particular.

OK, so that's really helpful to know. Thank you. Because I had a different understanding of the data, so that's great to know. So could that also be a reason for some of the change? Yes, definitely part of it.

Yeah. And I have mentioned that in previous presentations. I'll try to bring it up regularly because I know for many years we counted them in it. So I understand that that's a change that needs to be indicated. So I will make sure in the future to always say that.

Yeah, and sorry if I, you brought it up before, I totally missed it. So, okay, thank you. Appreciate that.

Yeah, no problem. Jimmy?

Can you define then what makes up the 4353?

So these are eligible clients who had a service with us. The reason that we removed clients who are just getting eligibility is because it was just, it was inflating the referral process. service category quite a bit. So we could no longer really get an accurate picture of the clients who are getting the referral for service category and their indicators. So we chose to just remove the clients who were getting the eligibility service in that service category. So every other client who got a service of any kind is still included here.

So it would be hypothetically somebody that went through eligibility, like Erica said, and then they went and got dental or they had a case manager visit. Okay.

Yes.

Okay, so they went through eligibility and did nothing, then they're not counted.

Yeah, and we do have the data for every single client as well. It's not like we don't track that anymore. It's just in this particular presentation for our purposes, we chose just to involve the clients who are a little bit more engaged in our actual services.

So this is Erica again. Could that be also why some of our numbers are down? like our suppressed number or have you been doing that for a while? And I just didn't realize it.

So 2024 was when we started it actually. So it's likely not this drop. It's probably not accounting for that. That is something I looked at as well. I tried to compare to see how the numbers would look if we kept all those clients in there and it was a very similar drop. So that I can pretty safely say is not the reason that we see a drop. Okay, thanks.

I should know the answer to this, but if we're serving about 500 less clients, does that have any, any effect on our grant and how much money we get? Cause to me, if I'm telling you one year that I had approximately 4,800 clients and then the next year, I'm telling you, I only served 4,300 clients. Does that make any sense?

Yeah, that's a good question. Um, again, this is kind of like a separate data reporting thing. So we do report directly to, you know, our, um. funders and in that we include every client there's much fewer exclusions so this is more so that we're getting an idea of how our clients are being served and we make a couple exclusions that make the most sense for us and our kind of data tracking so the actual reporting we're doing the numbers are typically higher than this um but this is just for our purposes how we like to track and present the data because we feel like it reflects our programs the best

The best okay, I jumped down a rabbit hole and so now I'm going to jump back out of it. So thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

That was a great question.

And just to know, because it is relevant for the planning council on something like, you'll see some higher numbers because also there we don't always do the exclusions because that relates to funding. So if you notice later on in the year when we're presenting, the numbers look a little bit higher, that could explain it.

So, Reagan, the numbers you're reporting to HRSA that gets the grant is the numbers that include folks that may not have gotten a service.

Yes. I mean, it depends. Like, you know, not for if a provider were reporting their service numbers, then, of course, they're not going to be included in that. But for every client who got a relevant service, it will be reported in the official reports.

With the new criteria being people living with HIV in the area, that's what sets the grant now. It's not people diagnosed here anymore. It's living. So that's how the grant's awarded now.

This is Erica again. I think since you're saying some data is based on one group of people and some data is based on another, it would be helpful for me to know whether it's a little asterisk on the bottom or something as to which data is which. Because I know I'm not going to remember that, oh, the annual continuum data is not the CE, is the people who have services, not just CE. And then, oh, yeah, other data at PSRA is the whole crowd. Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

I think we can probably create like a guide because I know even in our office, we get a little confused. I think, you know, it's really just the data people who keep that straight because it's confusing. I'm sure, you know, yeah. And you've seen reporting and every report is different and it gets confusing. So we can definitely lay something out because I know it's a lot to keep track of.

Thank you. And so this 4843 for 2024, that was, Services only, not the CE only people.

If the client had a CE service and another service, they are counted in there. It's just the clients who only had the CE services, they were inflating some metrics. So we chose to exclude them from this particular report.

But can you go back to the page you were just on where we're comparing these years? So I just want to be clear, are all of these years in the diagnose column, are those all people that received, you know, went through CE and had a service?

It is not for 2023. And you'll actually be surprised that it's not that big a difference. The main difference is in the REF service category in particular. That's where you'd see a massive drop if you compare across the dashboards. Um, because many clients end up getting both the service and another service during the year. So there really isn't that big a drop, which is why you'll see, like. As I told you, um, in some years we did include those clients, but the change isn't that significant in this overall number specifically.

Okay.

And if you want, I can send you, I mean, it's on every Ryan White dashboard. You can see the number of REF clients overall. And if you compare those to the years, that's where you'll see a really big difference because they didn't actually used to be counted in the REF numbers. The ones who just got the CE services and now they are. So it was just, it was causing issues. And that's why we chose to make the change. Okay, so on this slide, again, it's just comparing the years to each other. Our retention remained consistent, receipt of care increased, and our suppression decreased. So these are our service category goals. I mentioned a few months ago there are actually fewer goals this year because of service utilization standards. So we set goals based on how much the services are utilized. So these are basically our most utilized services, so we chose to just have goals for them. For the services highlighted in orange, that's where we didn't quite meet the goal. I do have a note here, particularly on medical case management suppression, because it looks like we're far below the goal. I do want to bring up how we made some updates to the standards of care for medical case management. So we're serving more clients with lower acuity levels, and we're trying to move clients that don't necessarily need the full breadth of MCM services over to non-medical case management. So we may have seen the suppression drop just because we're serving and focusing on the clients who need a little bit more help. So that may be why that one dropped in particular. But there are some other ones where we aren't quite meeting the goals. So that is, of course, something to keep an eye on. And this is a demographic breakdown to some of our demographics for the suppression rate. Again, our overall suppression rate is 87%. You can see the vertical line there is showing you where the average is and then how the groups compare to it. Something I do want to point out here, the group where we saw the largest drop actually was in white non-Hispanic clients. Their suppression dropped by 4%. We're still exploring why that is, but that is the group that had the biggest drop. And because the population is so large, it likely had a pretty big effect on the overall suppression as well. And then something positive here is that Asian and Pacific Islander suppression increased by 2%. Here are some priority populations. First things first, EHA, that acronym there stands for early identification of individuals with HIV and AIDS. And then further down at the bottom, we have NUI-DX, that stands for newly diagnosed clients. And those are clients who were diagnosed within the continuum time period, which again was January 1st, 2025 to December 31st, 2025. So here we can see The things I want to point out is that Hispanic MSM is above the average. That group is doing really well with suppression. Another thing is that black MSM fell by 4%. So that group dropped quite a bit. Also the 18 to 24 year old age group fell by 5%. I would say that that age group saw a big drop in the number of clients served as well. So not only suppression, but also the number of clients. So that can be something to keep in mind. And then finally, just to note, this bottom one is not actually suppression. That is linkage. So we always try to get our newly diagnosed clients linked within 30 days. And we did that for about 70% of our clients, which is an increase over the 2024 amount. Finally, here's our EIS services continuum. This group of data is different as well because many EIS clients are not eligible when they first get services. So they are typically removed from the overall continuum because we only keep eligible clients in there, but EIS have their own separate continuum where we keep them all in there. So just to show you the difference between those groups. So we served a total of 367 early intervention service clients, 66% were linked to medical care, 53% were linked to Ryan White, 64% were obtained. 58% were engaged in care, which is a 6% drop from the last time. And then finally suppression is at 50%. That is a 5% drop from last time. These metrics are always gonna be lower than our general population overall numbers I showed you at the beginning, just due to the nature of EIS, but we are seeing a little bit of a drop here as well. That is all the data I have for you today. I did send out the dashboards to providers. I know Jeremy sent out the overall dashboard along with a couple notes. But if anyone has any questions, you can let me know. You can always reach out through email as well if anything comes up later. But I will be sure to put together some kind of guide to show you the difference between the data sets because I know it gets confusing and there is a lot. So I will try to have that ready for you shortly so that we always have that on hand.

Reagan, great presentation, and thank you for always taking the time to answer questions and explain things to us.

Yeah, no problem. I appreciate that you guys care and always want to know the details.

It means a lot.

Yeah, I'd just like to chime in as well, and thank you, Reagan, for your time today and your commitment. I really appreciate your reporting and the information you report to us. Thank you. Can this be found on the Ryan White webpage? Is that where we'll find that information, the dashboard?

It is not there right now. We can send it out in an email, but it is not on the webpage right now.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you again for your time today.

No problem. I did see Jimmy raise his hand again, I think.

I guess I never put it down from before. Let me get rid of that. Okay. Sorry. I don't know how to get rid of it. Hopefully it went away.

Yeah. Maybe it's a high five. So, okay. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, we have a light item number 11, and that would be the, uh, Committee update, training, education, and membership, team committee update. And I would like to say, I turn it over to Randall and thank Randall for stepping in for me. I was on vacation and I appreciate you, Randall, being able to step in and lead that chair.

Miss Tanika and Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to give the update for our last meeting. One of the things that we talked about at that meeting was that we did have an opening for chair and for vice chair. So, it's nice to see that you stepped up and again, for anybody that's interested in the vice chair position, they can always speak directly to Michael or Gwendolyn and go from there. We. Also reviewed our policies and procedures for the team committee. We were very excited because we got completely through them and we voted to approve them. But then we found out later in the day, I think it was a star committee. that we actually needed to go back and look at attendance policies for all of the subcommittees so at the next meeting we'll be doing that we don't have any applications at this time and the next team meeting excuse me is july 28th starting at 10 a.m so does anybody have any questions Hearing none, I will turn it back over to Mr. Michael.

Thank you, Randall. And again, thank you, Tamika, for stepping up. I appreciate you taking over as chair. Thank you. Next on the agenda item is line item number 12, which is the Community Health Planning and Strategies CHIPS Committee Update. And I have Eric Eason today, who's going to provide the update.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes. Okay.

Update. The next CHIPS meeting will be Tuesday, July 28th at 12 o'clock p.m. At this meeting, the committee will be continuing preparations for PSRA and working through the CHIP's policies and procedures.

And that's all I have. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you, Eric. Any questions? Does anybody have any questions? No. Next on the agenda item is item number 13, the standards and rules star committee updates. And I have Erica who's going to present the committee updates.

Hello all. Can you pull up the, what we're doing this afternoon is reviewing the HPSCA standards, which the star committee approved and is bringing to the executive committee for review. Approval and hopefully, and then forwarding on to the planning council if approved. So this is the standard language with definition, guidance, if you'll keep scrolling, Gwen. Standard language of intake and eligibility in terms of C, the service components and activities. There are two kind of, separate service areas within HPSCA one is HPSCA which is the premiums and the cost sharing so outcome for that is 90 of clients who use that will show retention and care and then same for the second kind of component of the HPSCA category which is the dental insurance program so again for both of those 90 will show retention and care we can keep scrolling So we have the standards broken into different sections. Even within HPSCA, there are kind of two parts. It's the health insurance premiums, which is, as it says, paying premiums for individuals to have their health insurance, private health insurance. And then there's also the cost sharing. Cost sharing is the payment of deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance. for health insurance. So for both of them, you can scroll through and you received all these ahead of time, but the standards for HIP are about insurance adequacy, cost benefit, making sure it makes sense to pay a premium versus enrolling them in something else. And then most importantly, processing in a timely manner so we don't have a client losing potential insurance coverage. so the standards for all those are 90 percent and then for cost sharing which is about that paying of the you know cost towards deductible copay coinsurance again we're looking at there that the service is hiv related that we have all the appropriate documentation requirements which are primarily about an invoice for the service and that is reconciled against the explanation of benefits from the insurance provider And then again, a processing timeframe, which is much broader because these are basically kind of like financial assistance paying something after the fact. The service was already provided. So there's not a tight timeframe of getting something paid because the client received their service. This is just a bill that they got that they're requesting assistance with. So for those things, 90% there. Before I move forward, any questions about that? Okay, we'll move on to the next set then, which is the Dental Insurance Administration. So again, this isn't really about dental insurance because we are not a dental insurance company. We are not doing the dental insurance. We are getting them enrolled in a dental insurance provider out there, which we use Delta Dental. So again, it's really about timeframes of processing to get those people enrolled appropriately. So from a referral timeline of processing that request for the dental insurance program in a timely manner, five business days, which is the standard for all of the different referrals that come in through Ryan White. So 95% completed within those five business days. And then we left this here for right now about dental insurance predetermination it's currently not something that is available to go over the dental insurance limits but we did leave it in case something were to change with funding in the future that we would have this in here as a standard and so it's about processing any request to go over the dental insurance funds Tamara Hemmerlein, With a within a timely manner, so that of course clients could receive their services in a timely manner, and that would be 80% of fund request process with in 10 business days. Tamara Hemmerlein, Any questions about those two. Tamara Hemmerlein, Okay. And the rest is all pretty much the standard fare. You know, personnel qualifications are specific to each standard and service, but the rest of it, again, assessment for HIP is really, and dental insurance is looking about other payer and, you know, so that's part of that. Transition and discharge, case closure, client rights and responsibilities, keep scrolling. um grievance uh cultural linguistic client records and recertification are all the standard fare nothing that stands out for HPSCA so any questions well if there's no questions I would be open to receiving a motion to approve the HPSCA standards

Erica, this is Michael Brown. I hope it's okay if I make a motion to accept the standards as presented.

Assuming it's okay as well, I would be glad to accept Michael making a motion to accept the standards. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Randall, for the second. Any discussion? Oops, does Eric have a question? I hear static.

Eric, did you have any question or were you just trying to second?

Okay. I'm good, thank you.

Okay, thanks Eric. Okay, so we have first from Michael, second from Randall. No discussion. And so Gwen, can we have the vote?

Michael Brown?

I vote yes.

Randall Faroe?

Yes.

Eric Eason?

Yes.

Erica Tikias? Approved. Tanika Drake?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Erica. I'm done there. Thanks.

Thank you, Erica, for the update and hitting that health insurance premium cost sharing standard up to date. We really appreciate it. Next, I don't see any parking lot items, so we can move past agenda item number 14 to determination. Item number 15 is the determination of agenda items for next meeting. I guess the PC will pull the PCAT document to share with the council. And going over this document, I think the only thing that I see for the June meeting today was appointment of chair committees that wasn't on there. But I went ahead and appointed a chair committee, a team chair committee, which would be Tanika. Thank you, Tanika. It looks like we've covered everything else. Reports of the standing committees, Ryan White Part 8, recipient update. no parking lots, the scope of the work of the planning council timelines, the PCAT, the EAAM, I think. Mine is showing, okay, it does. So I think that's all on the PCAT. So the next item on agenda is current event summaries. This is the time for planning council members to share a brief summary on current events. Members of the committee cannot propose, discuss or deliberate or take legal action on any matter of voice during this time.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, I will be doing a health affair In October, I know it's kind of early, but if anyone knows anybody that would like to volunteer, I'm working on trying to get an HIV testing mammogram and mobile to a health care in Maricopa, Arizona, to bring those services out to the community since we don't really have those kind of services available. So if you know anybody who wants to volunteer, I'm still working on putting all of this together, and it's going to take a lot of hands to make light work. So I just wanted to share that.

Awesome, thank you. Any other current events, announcements for the council today?

Awesome, moving to line item number 17, call to the public. This is the time for the public to comment. Members of the committee cannot propose, discuss, deliberate, or take legal action on any matter voice during this time. The Planning Council can request that the Part A office follow up after the meeting on matters discussed at this time. Is there anything from the public for our meeting today? Hearing none, let's move to adjournment. Thank you everybody for your time today. And today, the time is currently, I have 1.44 p.m. And the executive committee will, the next executive committee will be held on October 26th, 2026 at 12.30 p.m. And I adjourn the meeting.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Michael. Thank you.

Well,