Arizona House Republicans Pass FY2027 Budget Along Partisan Lines
April 30, 2026
Proposed Budget Would Have Severe Healthcare Implications
The Arizona House passed a fiscal year 2027 budget along partisan lines this week, spending roughly $800 million less than Gov. Hobbs' January proposal.
How the Budget Pays for Tax Cuts
The nearly $18 billion proposal fully conforms with H.R. 1 tax policy, funding those cuts primarily through a 5% reduction to nearly all state agencies — excluding the Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, and Department of Child Safety. Additional savings come from:
- $100 million in "government efficiencies" through streamlining and AI implementation
- $86 million in cuts to the Commerce Authority and Tucson's Rio Nuevo
- $76 million by eliminating solar tax credits and incentives
- Various other clawbacks
What's Not Included
The proposal does not include any "member funding asks" — typically the vehicle for targeted investments such as infrastructure and healthcare. It also does not address renewing Proposition 123, which funds public education through the state land trust.
Healthcare Provisions in the FY2027 Budget
For healthcare, the budget would:
- Claw back last year's graduate medical education (GME) appropriation
- Require the state to request a waiver from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to limit Hospital Presumptive Eligibility to children and pregnant women
- Implement eligibility checks for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS)
- Expand work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
What Happens Next
Gov. Hobbs has not publicly indicated how she would respond if this budget reached her desk, though signing it appears highly unlikely. House Speaker Steve Montenegro said the House is prepared to continue negotiations, while her press aide indicated the governor's office is still reviewing the proposal.
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment.
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .
