Ciscomani, Mendoza Debate Focuses on Health Care Policies

September 18, 2026

Arizona's 6th Congressional District candidates clashed over HR1's effects on Medicaid funding, rural hospitals, and patient coverage.


Health Care Takes Center Stage in CD6 Debate

Health care policy dominated a debate last week for Arizona's 6th Congressional District, as Republican incumbent Rep. Juan Ciscomani and Democratic challenger JoAnna Mendoza sparred over the effects of federal Medicaid changes enacted last year under HR1. The debate comes as Arizona's health care community braces for changes to Medicaid eligibility and financing under the federal budget law enacted in 2025.


What's at Stake for AHCCCS

AHCCCS serves more than 2 million Arizonans, and coverage losses could increase uncompensated care and strain emergency departments and other safety-net physicians. The law also limits Arizona's ability to finance its Medicaid program through provider taxes, requiring the state's current 6% tax rate to decline to 3.5% by 2032. While the federal Rural Health Transformation Program will deliver $167 million to Arizona in its first year, most health care leaders say the funding will not offset what's lost.


Where the Candidates Stand

Ciscomani defended his support for the federal budget law, saying it protects Medicaid for those who need it while targeting fraud and strengthening program integrity. Mendoza called for reversing the Medicaid and AHCCCS reductions, arguing the changes could reduce coverage and add financial pressure on rural hospitals and other physicians.


Watch the Debate

Watch the full Ciscomani-Mendoza debate, or visit the Arizona Clean Elections site for a schedule of upcoming debates.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
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. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
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 .