1. Will OOH and/or Gainwell/Smile, California be developing messaging around the impacts to coverage due to HR1? The Medi-Cal Dental Services Division (MDSD) is developing a template for the 30-/60-day notice and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document to address the upcoming elimination of dental benefits for members without satisfactory immigration status who are 19 years of age and older, effective July 1, 2026. It hasn't been finalized/released yet.

   Local resource from Aliados Health about Medi-Cal impacts that other LOHPs are sharing: https://aliadoshealth.org/medi-cal-community-resources/. There is a section specific to dental benefits.

2. Will Medi-Cal 12 months post-partum or emergency coverage be impacted by HR1? No, HR1 does not impact pregnancy and postpartum dental coverage or medical coverage under Medi-Cal. This population will not be affected by the changes. This resource from DHCS is really helpful in understanding the changes to Medi-Cal: https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Medi-Cal/Pages/changes.aspx 

   As of now, the only confirmed change is that dental coverage for adults (19+) with unsatisfactory immigration status is scheduled to end on July 1, 2026. This is based on information from Medi-Cal Dental. Additional updates will be shared as Medi-Cal releases more information.

   Emergency dental care (such as treatment for severe pain or infection and tooth extractions) will still be covered for everyone, no matter their immigration status.

   Additional resources regarding Medi-Cal changes: Medi-Cal Immigrant Changes Flyers in English, Spanish & other languages

3. Is there a contact person at CDPH if we would like oral health data for our county? Please reach out to your PC or [email protected].

Dental Care Utilization During Pregnancy

1. Do we think the barriers data was affected by COVID? Since the data was released in 2022, is that when it was asked or was it asked earlier? The 2022 data means the survey was fielded in 2022. Yes, it likely reflects some impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. The barriers question appears in MIHA on a rotating cycle—2012, 2016, 2019, and 2022. While we do not have specific evidence showing how much COVID affected responses, it was very likely a factor.

2. Is there a reason why certain counties don’t have data for specific ethnicities? MIHA collects data for the top 37 birthing counties. To comply with CDPH data confidentiality guidelines and to produce statistically reliable estimates, if the sample size is too small for a particular ethnicity in a particular county, the data is not available.
3. Were the barriers assessed in 2022 shared with LOHP’s along with the MIHA 2022-2023 data sheet? Yes, it was.

4. Regarding the MIHA data, is there more information on how to interpret the response option “did not need to go”? It’s unclear whether respondents felt their oral health was fine, had recently seen a dentist, or had another reason for choosing that option. The response option “didn’t need to go” may be a reflection of a variety of factors and underlying beliefs and is a self-reported measure. This highlights an opportunity for public health messaging to emphasize that dental care utilization during pregnancy is both safe and important, even in the absence of symptoms, and plays a key role in protecting maternal and infant health. For details regarding MIHA survey methodology and MIHA questionnaires, please visit the CDPH Maternal and Infant Health Assessment webpage.

Community Water Fluoridation Infographic

1. Is the fluoride infographic available as a template? While a template will not be available, Office of Oral can customize the CWF infographic for your Local Health Jurisdiction. Please contact your Program Consultant, who will notify Margaret of the request.

2. Did the map use My Water's Fluoride data or a different source? Yes, the data for the map come from CDC My Water’s Fluoride Fluoridation Status Report.

3. Does the map show the percentage of the population served with optimal fluoridation (0.7 ppm)? My Water’s Fluoride lists “yes/no” under “fluoridated,” but when I reviewed individual water systems in our county, some that marked “yes” didn’t appear to consistently meet the 0.7 ppm optimal level. According to the My Water’s Fluoride glossary, a “yes” fluoridation status indicates that a system is intended to provide optimal fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. Monthly averages may occasionally fall below that level. Nevertheless, a fluoridation status of “yes” indicates that a public water system is delivering or is supposed to deliver optimally fluoridated water to its consumers, regardless of whether or not the system adds fluoride. Beyond what is included in the glossary, there is limited additional clarification. Efforts are underway to develop a more accurate database for fluoridation in California.

4. Are there concerns that CDC may alter, remove, or cease gathering this data? Is OOH saving this data for CA and the counties? Is it recommended that local counties save our own data? The Office of Oral Health is working on addressing those concerns right now. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) serves as California’s regulatory agency for drinking water. It monitors fluoridation data and submits this information to the CDC’s Water Fluoridation Reporting System (WFRS), which is publicly available on the My Water’s Fluoride website. The SWRCB has been advised to archive all of the previous data. The contract for CDC to post data on My Water’s Fluoride expires in the middle of January, so if you have data, it is recommended to work with the State Water Resource Control Board to archive that data.