Summary#

HB 26-1411, “Changes to Cover All Coloradans Program,” amends Colorado law and repeals the statute for the state children’s basic health plan. Its stated goal is to change health benefits for some low-income people who are ineligible for Medicaid because of immigration status; it also changes appropriations.

• The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing must apply new benefit limits to pregnant people and eligible children under 19. These include a $1,100 annual dental-services cap starting July 1, 2026, and limits on behavioral health and managed-care services starting January 1, 2027.
• Starting January 1, 2027, eligible children lose access to certain long-term services and supports, some ongoing home health services, and services under another specified program—unless they were already receiving those services by December 31, 2026.
• For children in this group, 2026–27 enrollment must be capped at 25,000 if enrollment exceeds that number or quarterly spending exceeds one-quarter of the appropriation by more than 5%. The department must make rules and report on enrollment, use, and cost-reduction strategies.
• The bill repeals the statute for the state children’s basic health plan and removes a department duty to run a specified outreach strategy. It also changes references to that plan in a study of continuous coverage for children.

What it means for you#

• Pregnant people and children in the covered group: The bill limits covered benefits as described above. Behavioral health services must be offered on a fee-for-service basis only (providers are paid for each service). The bill does not specify that patients’ cost-sharing changes.
• Children receiving specified services: Children already receiving one of the listed services by December 31, 2026, are exempt from the new exclusion for that service. This exception does not remove the other benefit limits.
• Families seeking to enroll children: If either enrollment or spending triggers the cap, the department must limit enrollment to 25,000 after the time period in the bill. The bill does not set out how the department chooses who can enroll.
• Families and community outreach groups: The bill removes a legal duty to create an outreach strategy that included community-based organization funding, information for schools and nonprofit groups, and information in specified languages.
• People using the children’s basic health plan: The bill repeals its statutory basis, but the supplied text does not explain how current enrollees or services transition. The parent law was not supplied, so the plan’s current rules and the full effect of repeal could not be verified.

Money#

The bill makes specified state appropriations and reductions, but the supplied material does not give a full estimate of the program’s net cost.

• For 2026–27, it appropriates $3,378,166 from the General Fund to the department: $2,286,549 for information systems, $1,017,700 for benefits-system operating and contract costs, and $73,917 for behavioral health fee-for-service payments. It anticipates $137,274 in federal funds for those payments.
• It directs reductions totaling $14,202,723 in specified 2026–27 General Fund appropriations. The bill also assumes reductions in federal funds for some of those items.
• Depending on whether HB 26-1401 becomes law, another $280,827 reduction applies to either General Fund or adult dental fund spending; the bill assumes a related $521,535 reduction in federal funds.
• No publicly available information on the overall net cost, or the costs of administering the enrollment cap, is included in the supplied material.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not explain how the department would select children for enrollment if the 25,000 cap takes effect, or what happens to people already enrolled if enrollment exceeds the cap.
• The supplied text does not define how the dental-services cap is applied in practice or explain what happens after a person reaches it.
• The bill does not explain how current users of the repealed children’s basic health plan would be handled.
• The full current statutes and a fiscal analysis were not supplied, so the existing program rules and the bill’s total budget effect cannot be fully checked.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to keep spending within available appropriations by setting an enrollment cap tied to enrollment or spending levels.
• Requiring a report on what drives children’s enrollment and service use could give lawmakers information for future budget decisions.
• The bill preserves access to the specified services for children who were already receiving them by the stated cutoff date.

Case against#

• One concern is that children and pregnant people could face narrower coverage, including a dental cap and the loss of access to some services.
• The enrollment cap could prevent eligible children from enrolling, but the bill does not explain how the department would decide who gets a place.
• The bill removes outreach duties without explaining what outreach, if any, would replace them.
• The supplied text does not explain the transition from the repealed children’s basic health plan, or how the benefit changes will affect access in practice.