DHCS Admitted There’s a Gap in California DUI Regulations… So Why Not Fix It?
So Kings View Community Services DUI Program in Visalia, like a lot of other California DUI programs, was enforcing this rule that you had to be on General Assistance to qualify for a reduced fee.
The problem is… that’s not what Title 9 says.
After months of going back and forth with them, filing a formal complaint with DHCS, and pushing the issue, they finally started following what the regulation actually says: you can’t charge a participant more than their ability to pay, and you can’t deny services just because they can’t afford to pay.
I’ll get into that whole Kings View situation in another post because it’s a story by itself.
But here’s the part that really got me thinking.
I had zero income. I submitted documentation proving it. They denied it. Then denied it again. Said it wasn’t acceptable proof.
Months later… they accepted essentially the exact same paperwork.
The only thing that changed was the date on the notice.
Not my income. Not my address. Not my circumstances!!! Nothing.
So I filed a Petition for Rulemaking with DHCS because I realized there was a gap in the regulations.
I basically said, “Hey… the regulations don’t actually say what happens if the program causes the delay. If someone qualified the whole time but the program didn’t approve the reduced fee until months later, shouldn’t the reduced fee be applied retroactively?”
DHCS’s response was basically, “Yeah… you’re right, the regulations don’t explicitly address that. But making that change would require more stakeholder involvement and rulemaking.”
Okay… fair enough lol So I asked them again.
If you’re not saying participants should get a retroactive adjustment when the delay was entirely caused by the program… then are you saying they shouldn’t?
Because if that’s the case, what’s the point of saying you can’t charge someone more than their ability to pay if the program can delay the determination and the participant just has to eat the extra cost?
They never really answered that question.
They just denied the petition and said they’d consider it during future rulemaking.
Honestly, I think this is something that could actually change.
DHCS already acknowledged there’s a gap. The only reason they gave for not changing it now was that it would require broader stakeholder involvement.
Which tells me… more voices matter.
If enough people supported a petition or submitted public comments, I honestly think this is something that could be fixed.
I’m not asking for people to get out of paying.
I’m asking why someone should pay more than they legally should simply because a program took too long to process paperwork.