Date: September 8, 2026

Time: 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Type of Meeting: Virtual

Members Present: 5 out of 5 members were present

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

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.
  • Review member feedback about Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT) and identify issues to carry forward as potential recommendations.
  • Continue refining the Provider Directory recommendations and speaker notes for the September Medical Care Advisory Committee (MCAC) meeting.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

All members confirmed no conflicts of interest. 

Welcome

Staff and the existing alumni members welcomed two new members to the council.

Review of September MEAC Meeting

The Alumni Council reviewed feedback and experiences shared during the September MEAC meeting, with particular attention to issues that could inform future recommendations.

Transportation and Mileage Reimbursement

Members discussed concerns heard during MEAC related to Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT), including difficulty obtaining mileage reimbursement. It was noted that NEMT will be the focus of the Alumni Council recommendations planned for the December MCAC meeting, making the feedback particularly relevant as MediDrive continues its statewide implementation.

The discussion also highlighted the administrative burden experienced by some rural members. One MEAC member who travels more than 100 miles for care described needing separate paperwork for different providers and ultimately choosing not to pursue mileage reimbursement because the process was too burdensome.

Rural Provider Access and Continuity of Care

The discussion expanded beyond transportation to broader concerns about access to health care in rural communities. Members described difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, frequent provider turnover, long waits for appointments, and limited alternatives when a provider does not meet a member’s needs. One Alumni Council member described waiting six months for an appointment only to have the provider leave before the appointment occurred.

Members also discussed concerns about provider and organizational capacity, including whether staff have sufficient support to keep up with changing requirements and information. A member shared anecdotal information suggesting that compensation may contribute to difficulty retaining providers at some rural organizations. 

Potential Future Recommendations

The rural access discussion generated several ideas that could be explored as the council develops future recommendations:

  • Improve stability of the provider network in rural and frontier communities. Rather than prescribing one specific solution, members could focus a recommendation on the underlying need for greater provider recruitment and retention.
  • Explore greater transparency related to provider compensation or pay structures as one potential strategy for understanding provider-retention challenges.
  • Improve ongoing training and communication between the Regional Accountable Entities (RAEs) and provider staff. One member suggested regular training opportunities to help provider staff stay current with changing information and requirements.

These ideas were discussed as potential directions and were not finalized as Alumni Council recommendations during the meeting.

Developing Effective Recommendations

The rural health discussion led to a broader conversation about how the Alumni Council should formulate recommendations. Staff encouraged members to clearly identify the problem that needs to be addressed without unnecessarily prescribing one specific solution.

For example, instead of recommending a particular provider-retention program, the council could recommend that HCPF improve stability within the rural provider network. This allows the Department to consider different approaches, such as workforce incentives, payment-related strategies, or other solutions, while still requiring a response to the underlying member concern.

Members were also encouraged not to abandon an important recommendation simply because implementation may be difficult. The council’s role is to identify the problem and desired change, the Department can then determine what is feasible and explain its response.

Review of Provider Directory Presentation

The council reviewed the Provider Directory presentation following its dry run during the September MEAC meeting. Presenters reflected on their experience and discussed final changes needed before presenting the recommendations to the Medical Care Advisory Committee (MCAC).

Staff shared that the presenters appeared increasingly comfortable with the material and were clearly communicating the recommendations.

Provider Availability

The council clarified that difficulty finding Health First Colorado providers is not limited to rural areas.  They discussed situations shared during previous MEAC discussions involving members in the metro area who had difficulty locating nutrition services, vision care for a member with dual eligibility, and a dermatologist who accepts Medicaid.

The discussion also addressed situations in which a provider technically accepts Medicaid but is not currently accepting additional Medicaid patients because of the provider’s payer mix. The council agreed that this reinforces the existing recommendation to ensure that information about whether providers are accepting new Health First Colorado patients is accurate and current.

Improve How Search Results Are Presented

The council identified several recommendations that relate specifically to how Provider Directory search results are displayed rather than to the search filters themselves. Members agreed to create a new presentation slide focused on improving the presentation of search results.

The revised recommendations include:

  • Prioritize exact or close provider-name matches at the top of search results. The directory already allows members to search by provider name, but members demonstrated that the provider being searched for can appear below unrelated results.
  • Optimize provider search results for mobile users. Members noted that search results can be difficult to review on smaller screens because of scrolling and how information is displayed.
  • Allow members to download or save search results for later reference, comparison, or sharing. The council agreed to move this recommendation from another section of the presentation to the new search-results slide because it better fits how members interact with their results.

Simplifying the Search Experience

The council also reviewed the existing recommendation to provide helpful tips or suggestions when a search returns no results. Members considered moving this recommendation to the new search-results slide but ultimately agreed that it fits better with recommendations for making the overall search process easier to use.

Members noted that guidance could help people understand why a search produced no results and how to modify their search. This recommendation complements existing recommendations to clearly show when filters remain applied and make it easy for members to reset them.

Virtual, Mobile and Home-Based Services

Members revisited recommendations related to virtual, mobile and home-based services. The discussion clarified that the directory currently includes a telehealth option, while identifying mobile or home-based providers and accurately representing providers who serve multiple locations remain separate concerns.

The council discussed how these issues should be reflected in the presentation without making the recommendation overly prescriptive about the technical solution.

Wrap-Up and Next Steps

State staff will:

  • Finalize the members’ changes to the Provider Directory presentation.
  • Renumber the presentation and speaker notes and share the updated materials with the members.
  • Follow up with MCAC staff regarding the September meeting and co-chair responsibilities.
  • Share the existing MCAC presentation rotation and make time during the next meeting for the council to incorporate the two new Alumni Council members.
  • Review the Alumni Council bylaws to determine whether any updates are needed following the addition of new members.

Members will:

  • Review the final updates to the Provider Directory presentation materials.
  • Prepare for the September MCAC presentation.

Adjourn

Next Alumni Council meeting: October 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. (virtual).