California is currently navigating a stark contradiction in its fiscal planning. While Governor Gavin Newsom has presented a positive outlook for the state’s financial trajectory, a growing coalition of health advocates and immigrant rights organizations warns that this “rosy” budget comes at a steep cost to the state’s most vulnerable residents.
At the center of the controversy is the revised 2026-27 California state budget proposal, known as the “May Revision.” While state revenue projections have reportedly improved, the proposal maintains and, in some cases, intensifies planned spending reductions for essential health care programs. For low-income families, undocumented immigrants, older adults, and people with disabilities, these fiscal decisions could translate into a loss of life-saving medical coverage.
As a physician and health journalist, I have seen how administrative barriers and financial hurdles often serve as the primary deterrents to preventive care. When the cost of entry—whether through a monthly premium or a restrictive asset test—becomes too high, patients do not stop being sick; they simply stop seeking help until a manageable condition becomes a medical emergency. The current budget proposals in Sacramento risk triggering exactly this cycle across the Golden State.
The Financial Burden: Rising Premiums and Coverage Gaps
One of the most contentious elements of the May Revision is the proposal to increase premiums for low-income Medi-Cal enrollees who possess what the state terms “unsatisfactory immigration status.” According to health advocates, the plan would increase these monthly premiums from $30 to $50. While $20 may seem nominal to some, for families living below the poverty line, such an increase can be the difference between purchasing medication and buying groceries.
Beyond the cost of premiums, advocates are sounding the alarm over the status of immigrant asylees and refugees. The Governor’s proposal reportedly continues a plan to remove these populations from comprehensive health care coverage, though the timeline for this action has been delayed by nine months from the original proposal. This creates a period of precarious stability for thousands of individuals who have fled persecution and rely on the state for basic health stability.
These proposed cuts follow a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for undocumented individuals that reportedly took effect on January 1, which advocates claim has already led to significant coverage losses across California. The cumulative effect of these policies is a tightening web of eligibility requirements that threatens the state’s goal of universal health equity.
Structural Shifts: Managed Care vs. Fee-for-Service
A significant and potentially disruptive change in the budget proposal involves the transition of Californians with unsatisfactory immigration status out of “managed care” and into a “fee-for-service” program. To understand why this is a point of contention, it is necessary to distinguish between these two models of healthcare delivery.
In a managed care system, patients typically have a primary care provider who coordinates their overall health and refers them to specialists. This model is generally designed to emphasize preventive care and streamlined coordination. Conversely, a fee-for-service model pays providers for each specific service rendered. While this can offer more direct access to certain providers, it often lacks the integrated coordination of managed care, potentially leaving patients to navigate a complex healthcare bureaucracy on their own.
Kiran Savage-Sangwan, Executive Director of CPEHN, has suggested that while a shift to fee-for-service could theoretically redirect funds away from insurance company profits and administrative overhead, it will only be effective if it protects access to specialists and gender-affirming care. Without strict safeguards, advocates fear that this shift will create fragmented care, making it harder for immigrant communities to maintain consistent treatment for chronic conditions.
The ‘Poverty Trap’: Asset Tests and Disability Care
The budget proposal also seeks to reinstate asset test limits for older adults and people with disabilities. An asset test requires applicants to prove they have very little in the way of savings or property before they qualify for Medi-Cal. This requires the most vulnerable populations to remain in a state of near-total indigence to maintain their health coverage.
From a public health perspective, asset tests create a “poverty trap.” When individuals are disincentivized from building modest savings for emergencies, they remain more susceptible to economic shocks, which in turn exacerbates health declines. By restricting the ability of older adults and those with disabilities to save, the state may be inadvertently increasing the long-term cost of care by keeping these populations in a state of chronic financial instability.
The Health4All Coalition has emphasized that these barriers do not eliminate the need for health care; they merely shift the costs. When people are priced out of preventive care, they inevitably rely on emergency rooms for treatment. This shift not only worsens patient outcomes but increases the financial burden on county hospitals and public providers.
Legislative Resistance and the Fight Against Work Requirements
The battle over the 2026-27 budget is not happening in a vacuum. There is significant movement within the California State Legislature to counter these proposals. One key point of conflict involves the imposition of work requirements for Medi-Cal enrollees.
Advocates argue that work requirements are both ineffective and unnecessary, noting that a vast majority of enrollees are already working, attending school, or providing essential unpaid care for family members. To address this, Assemblymember Bonta has introduced AB 2161, a legislative proposal aimed at eliminating these requirements for state-funded populations. The bill has already passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is moving toward a full Assembly floor vote. You can track current legislative progress and bill statuses through the official California Legislative Information portal.
Senate Democrats have also proposed alternative revenue and accountability measures. Their goal is to mitigate the most harmful reductions impacting immigrant communities and to ensure that the state’s increased revenue is used to protect the “Health4All” vision—the goal of providing affordable, comprehensive coverage to all Californians regardless of their immigration status.
The Human Cost of Budgetary ‘Math’
The discourse surrounding the May Revision often focuses on “math”—revenue gaps, projections, and fiscal sustainability. However, as medical professionals and policymakers know, health care is a matter of values as much as it is a matter of accounting.
Christine Smith, a Policy and Legislative Advocate for Health Access California, has warned that these proposals force families to delay preventive care and skip medications. This is a dangerous gamble. In my experience in internal medicine, delaying a blood pressure medication or a routine screening can lead to strokes or late-stage cancer diagnoses—events that are far more expensive to treat and often irreversible.
Dr. Seciah Aquino, Executive Director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, has pointed out that these budget decisions are particularly poignant given the escalating federal threats to Medicaid funding. For many Latine and immigrant families, California has long been seen as a sanctuary of health equity. The current budget proposals, according to Dr. Aquino, risk undoing that legacy and leaving these communities more vulnerable than ever.
The tension is clear: the Governor’s office views these as necessary fiscal adjustments to maintain a balanced budget, while health advocates view them as a retreat from the state’s commitment to human rights and public health.
What Happens Next?
The May Revision is not the final budget. It serves as a starting point for intense negotiations between the Governor’s office and the State Legislature. The final budget must be passed and signed into law before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.
The coming weeks will be critical. Legislators will weigh the Governor’s proposals against the alternative measures suggested by Senate Democrats and the advocacy of the Health4All Coalition. The outcome will determine whether California continues to expand its health safety net or begins to dismantle it for those who need it most.
For those affected by these potential changes, it is vital to stay informed through official channels. Residents can find resources and updates on coverage and eligibility at the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) website.
What are your thoughts on the balance between fiscal responsibility and health equity in state budgeting? We encourage you to share this article and leave your comments below.