SB 246 requires the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to make additional Medi‑Cal payments to district and municipal public hospitals and their affiliated government entities to recognize the Medi‑Cal managed care share of graduate medical education (GME) costs. The bill directs DHCS to use the same methodology and payment components used for designated public hospitals under Section 14105.29, and authorizes seeking federal approvals for alternative payment forms that better capture fee‑for‑service shortfalls or provide incentives.
The statute creates the District and Municipal Public Hospitals (DMPH) GME Special Fund, funded by voluntary intergovernmental transfers (IGTs) from district and municipal hospitals or other eligible public entities, and forbids use of the state General Fund for the nonfederal share. Implementation is conditional on obtaining federal financial participation and CMS approvals; DHCS may adjust program details to comply with federal rules and may implement the program by guidance rather than formal rulemaking.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs DHCS to pay district and municipal public hospitals for the Medi‑Cal-managed‑care portion of GME costs using the same methodology as Section 14105.29, and allows DHCS to seek federal approval for other payment forms. Establishes a special fund to receive voluntary intergovernmental transfers as the source of the nonfederal share.
Who It Affects
District and municipal public hospitals (nondesignated public hospitals), their affiliated government clinics and physician groups, county and municipal governments that may provide transfers, and DHCS as program administrator required to obtain CMS approvals and run the fund.
Why It Matters
It creates a pathway to reimburse safety‑net hospitals for managed‑care GME obligations without using state General Fund dollars, reallocating fiscal responsibility to local public entities while relying on federal matching funds and CMS sign‑off.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 246 adds a dedicated statutory mechanism for reimbursing nondesignated public hospitals—called district and municipal public hospitals—for the portion of graduate medical education (GME) costs attributable to Medi‑Cal managed care. The bill requires DHCS to make the payments in a way that mirrors the payment components and methodology already used for designated public hospitals under Section 14105.29, so the same categories of GME funding will apply to these hospitals once implemented.
To fund the state’s nonfederal share, the bill establishes the DMPH GME Special Fund and authorizes voluntary intergovernmental transfers (IGTs) from district and municipal hospitals, their affiliated government entities, or other eligible public entities. Those transferred amounts are deposited into the special fund, which is continuously appropriated to DHCS for the program.
The department must set IGT timing and amounts to cover the nonfederal share for each fiscal year and must include a 5 percent aggregate buffer calculated as if the federal medical assistance percentage were 50 percent.All payments and the use of IGTs are explicitly conditioned on obtaining any necessary federal approvals and securing federal financial participation (FFP). DHCS must seek CMS approvals (for example, via state plan amendments) and may modify program rules after consulting affected hospitals to meet federal requirements or to maximize available FFP.
The bill also permits DHCS to implement program details through guidance (all‑county letters, plan letters, provider bulletins) without formal rulemaking, while requiring that such guidance remain publicly accessible until payments are finalized.Operational safeguards and mechanics are embedded in the text: transferring entities must certify that funds qualify for FFP, DHCS will claim FFP to the fullest legal extent, and the statute instructs DHCS to return transferred funds within 14 days if federal participation is not available or if payments are recouped. The statute sets an earliest effective date for federal approvals and related payments of January 1, 2026, and defines key terms (for example, what counts as an affiliated government entity and which hospitals are covered).
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 246 requires DHCS to make Medi‑Cal payments recognizing the managed‑care share of GME costs to district and municipal public hospitals using the payment methodology and components in Section 14105.29.
The bill creates the DMPH GME Special Fund to receive voluntary intergovernmental transfers from hospitals or other eligible public entities; those transfers fund the nonfederal share and are continuously appropriated to DHCS.
DHCS must determine yearly IGT amounts to fully fund the nonfederal share plus a 5% aggregate buffer calculated as if FMAP were 50%, and transferring entities must certify eligibility for federal matching funds.
Payments and the use of transferred funds are contingent on obtaining necessary CMS approvals and federal financial participation; DHCS must return transferred funds within 14 days if FFP is not available or payments are recouped.
The department may implement or modify the program via all‑county letters, plan letters, or provider bulletins (no formal rulemaking required), and payments cannot take effect before January 1, 2026, absent CMS approval.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes eligibility and payment methodology for DMPH GME payments
This subdivision directs DHCS to make additional Medi‑Cal payments to district and municipal hospitals and affiliated government entities to cover the managed‑care portion of GME costs. It requires the payments to follow the same methodology and include the same components used for designated public hospitals under Section 14105.29. Practically, that ties payment design, allocation formulas, and allowable expense categories for nondesignated hospitals to an existing statutory framework, reducing the need to invent new rate mechanics but also importing any complexity or limits of Section 14105.29.
Authorization to seek federal approval for alternative payment forms
DHCS may consult with district and municipal hospitals and seek CMS approval for other GME payment approaches—such as payments reflecting fee‑for‑service volume or revenue that do not currently capture GME costs, or incentive payments. This creates flexibility to design payments that better align with local billing realities, but any alternative design still requires federal sign‑off and must fit within Medicaid rules.
Creates the DMPH GME Special Fund and sets IGT mechanics
The statute establishes a continuously appropriated special fund to receive voluntary intergovernmental transfers from hospitals or other eligible public entities to serve as the nonfederal match. It authorizes DHCS to determine timing and amounts of transfers, requires transferring entities to certify federal eligibility, and specifies allowable uses of the fund (nonfederal share, admin costs, other Medi‑Cal support). Importantly, the department must size transfers each year to cover the nonfederal share plus a 5% aggregate buffer calculated as if FMAP were 50%—a built‑in cushion intended to mitigate recoupment risk but tied to a hypothetical FMAP.
Conditions implementation on federal approvals and allows modifications
Implementation is expressly conditional: the program only moves forward to the extent necessary federal approvals are obtained and FFP is available without jeopardizing federal dollars. The director may alter requirements to satisfy federal rules or to maximize FFP after consulting hospitals, which gives DHCS discretion to change mechanics midstream to remain compliant with CMS.
Timing, consultation, and implementation via guidance
DHCS must seek necessary CMS approvals for payments effective no sooner than January 1, 2026, and must consult district and municipal hospitals on program development and changes. The subdivision permits DHCS to implement and interpret the statute through non‑regulatory instruments (all‑county letters, provider bulletins), requiring the department to provide access to such guidance and keep it publicly available until payments are finalized—accelerating operational rollout but reducing formal administrative notice-and-comment.
Definitions of covered entities
This part defines 'affiliated government entity' broadly to include government‑operated physician practices, clinics, and training programs, and specifies that 'district and municipal public hospital' means nondesignated public hospitals per Section 14166.1(f). Those definitions determine who can receive payments and which transfers qualify, and therefore shape the universe of both beneficiaries and potential transferring governmental payers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- District and municipal public hospitals (nondesignated public hospitals): Receive statutory authorization to be paid for Medi‑Cal’s managed‑care share of GME costs using an established methodology, which can stabilize funding for residency programs and training infrastructure.
- Affiliated government-operated physician groups, clinics, and training programs: Become eligible recipients (through their hospital affiliation) of GME payment components, improving reimbursement for training-related clinical activity.
- Public hospital trainees and residency programs: Gain indirect support when hospitals secure additional GME funding, which can help maintain or expand training slots important for workforce development in underserved areas.
Who Bears the Cost
- District and municipal hospitals and other eligible public entities providing IGTs: Must supply the nonfederal share from local budgets or reserves—creating potential cash‑flow strain or opportunity cost for county or municipal budgets.
- County and municipal governments: Face potential budgetary exposure if local public entities are the sources of transfer funds, and they bear fiscal risk if CMS disallows payments or recoups FFP.
- DHCS (administration): Assumes program design, federal negotiation, certification collection, FFP claims, and recoupment management responsibilities, increasing operational and compliance workload (partially funded by the special fund but still a staffing and systems burden).
- Local taxpayers and general public entities (indirect): May indirectly bear costs if public entities reallocate funds to support the nonfederal share or if local services are reprioritized to free up transfer funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 246 aims to shore up GME funding for safety‑net hospitals by leveraging federal matching dollars while avoiding any use of state General Fund, but that strategy shifts financial risk to local public entities and depends on uncertain CMS approvals—creating a trade‑off between preserving training capacity and exposing counties and municipal institutions to potential recoupments and cash‑flow burdens.
The statute hinges on federal approval and correct application of federal Medicaid rules (including 42 C.F.R. § 433.51). That introduces legal and timing uncertainty: CMS could reject the payment design, limit the scope of eligible transfers, or require changes that materially reduce the program’s value.
Even when approvals are obtained, the program relies on transferring entities to certify that their funds qualify for federal matching; any later federal audit or recoupment would shift financial exposure back to those local entities. The 14‑day return requirement narrows DHCS’s window for resolving recoupments, but it does not eliminate the risk that local budgets will temporarily front funds or pay ancillary administrative costs.
The 5% buffer requirement is a blunt risk‑mitigation tool: it insulates the state aggregate from small mismatches but is calculated using a notional FMAP of 50 percent, which may under‑ or over‑estimate actual matching rates for particular transfers. That approach could create mismatches between transferred amounts and real FFP realized, leaving some entities exposed or others unnecessarily locking capital in the special fund.
Finally, permitting DHCS to implement the program via guidance accelerates deployment but reduces formal notice-and-comment opportunities that stakeholders and auditors use to flag problematic mechanics before funds move.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.