Updates About Public Health

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) is looking for members to serve on the Rural Health Transformation (RHT) Advisory Council. Those selected will support the implementation of Michigan’s RHT program.

The Rural Health Transformation Program stems from a grant established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) passed into law this year. The grant program is a five-year initiative that will allocate up to $10 billion to states each year from 2026 to 2030. This year, all 50 states received funding for FY 2026, with Michigan set to receive $173.1 million.

MDHHS will be awarding the funds to organizations in the state that prioritize expanding access, quality, costs, and technology advancements of healthcare for rural Michigan residents.

The advisory council will have the responsibility of creating a strategy to strengthen the input of partners and communities throughout the implementation of the program. The council will also offer guidance to MDHHS on decision making and ensure the program remains committed to rural areas.

Individuals and organizations with experience and commitment to improving rural health are encouraged to apply for a seat on the council. Other criteria include knowledge of rural health challenges or service delivery gaps, dedication to problem-solving, and availability to participate and contribute to the program’s scheduled meetings.

Interested applicants can apply here. To receive updates on program developments, you may also subscribe to the RHT Listserv. Applications are due end of day 1/23.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has issued an order extending the grace period for implementing new SNAP benefits distribution rules. This extension prevents the federal government from imposing financial penalties on states and allows SNAP programs to continue operating as the case moves forward. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined 21 other state attorneys general in the lawsuit back in November.

See related news on the latest SNAP benefits here:

AG DANA NESSEL LEADS DUAL LEGAL FIGHTS OVER FEDERAL SNAP AND HOUSING ROLLBACKS

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS PARTIAL SNAP PAYMENTS AMID ONGOING SHUTDOWN

GOVERNOR, MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE SEEK TO PROVIDE SNAP FUNDING

State Attorney General Dana Nessel has launched a pair of legal challenges in recent weeks aimed at protecting vulnerable residents from abrupt federal policy changes. Most recently, Nessel joined 21 other attorneys general in suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over new Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) guidance that she argues unlawfully restricts benefits for thousands of lawful permanent residents. The USDA memo directs states to treat refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, and other legally admitted immigrants as permanently ineligible for SNAP, despite federal law explicitly allowing these groups to qualify once standard requirements are met. Nessel warns the guidance would create widespread confusion, risk wrongful terminations, and expose states to major financial penalties due to the USDA’s misapplication of its own rules.

The lawsuit also highlights a procedural issue: USDA claims that states’ 120-day compliance window expired the day after the guidance was released, leaving agencies without enough time to adjust eligibility systems. According to the coalition, this interpretation is impossible under the agency’s own regulations and forces states into an untenable choice to violate federal statute or absorb significant administrative liability. The attorneys general are asking the court to block implementation of the memo to ensure families do not lose critical food assistance because of what they view as unlawful and rushed federal policymaking.

Just a week earlier, Nessel joined another multistate lawsuit, this time targeting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The challenge centers on sweeping changes to the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, including sharp reductions in allowable spending on permanent housing, new gender-based service limitations, and penalties tied to local homelessness policies. States argue that HUD’s decision to cut traditional funding levels from 90% down to 30% and impose new conditions on housing providers undermines long-standing federal policy, including the widely adopted Housing First model. Nessel and her counterparts contend that HUD enacted these changes without congressional authorization or adequate explanation, and warn the shifts could destabilize housing providers, create uncertainty in local markets, and leave thousands of the most vulnerable at risk of losing long-term housing.