Project HOME is CAHSAH’s proposed rural home-based care transformation network. It brings healthcare providers, education and workforce organizations, technology partners, evaluators, and community partners together to improve access, outcomes, workforce capacity, care coordination, and technology-enabled care in rural California.

Project HOME is being developed for HCAI’s California Rural Health Transformation Program, Initiative One: Transformative Care Model Accelerator Partners grant opportunity. CAHSAH is assembling one coordinated application with multiple partner workstreams.

No. Project HOME’s current application is for the Transformative Care Model Accelerator Partners opportunity. Workforce development and technology activities may be included when they directly support measurable Transformative Care Model outcomes. HCAI may issue separate workforce or technology opportunities with different requirements.

CAHSAH will serve as the lead applicant. If funded, CAHSAH intends to be the primary grantee, fiscal agent, grant administrator, statewide convener, project-management backbone, and consolidated reporting entity for Project HOME.

CAHSAH will coordinate the full grant, including governance, partner selection and agreements, integrated budgeting, compliance, financial monitoring, common reporting requirements, performance oversight, technical assistance, learning collaboratives, communications with HCAI, sustainability planning, and statewide scaling.

No. Organizations participating through Project HOME will submit requested planning materials to CAHSAH. CAHSAH will determine how selected partner roles, budgets, and commitments are incorporated into the consolidated application.

No. Submission is part of a competitive planning and selection process. CAHSAH may include all, part, or none of a proposed scope. Inclusion in the application does not guarantee that HCAI will fund the project, that a partner will receive its full requested amount, or that a contract will be executed.

Healthy Hearts at HOME™ focuses on improving hypertension control. Living Well at HOME™ focuses on decreasing poor diabetes control. Connected Care at HOME™ focuses on increasing virtual visits, eConsults, remote monitoring, and other technology-enabled access. Cross-pathway workforce, data, care-coordination, and sustainability activities may support these pathways.

Yes. The application must demonstrate a credible pathway to measurable improvement in at least one HCAI Transformative Care Model metric. Workforce, technology, education, and operational activities should be presented as enabling strategies that help providers achieve the selected clinical or access outcomes.

Yes. A partner may support one, two, or all three pathways. However, the proposal should identify one primary pathway or purpose, separate the activities and costs by pathway when practical, and avoid proposing more work than the organization can realistically implement and report.

The project should do more than complete isolated activities. It should test practical rural care models, document implementation lessons, share successful approaches, and create tools or methods that can be replicated in other rural communities.

Grant-funded implementation must benefit eligible rural or Frontier and Remote communities in California. Partners should identify the specific counties and ZIP codes to be served and, when a county is not entirely rural, identify the applicable rural communities, unincorporated areas, census tracts, or service locations.

Each of these counties contains communities with significant rural, remote, or access needs, but eligibility should not be assumed for the entire county. A proposal should identify the actual rural or Frontier and Remote communities, ZIP codes, provider sites, and populations that will benefit and explain the documented care-access or outcome gap.

CAHSAH will prioritize areas where the proposal demonstrates significant access barriers, chronic disease burden, workforce shortages, travel distance, limited specialty or primary-care access, technology gaps, fragmented referrals, or other measurable need. Partner selection will also consider readiness, geographic coverage, collaboration potential, and the ability to produce measurable results.

Potentially. A technology, education, workforce, evaluation, or statewide partner does not necessarily need to be headquartered in a rural community if its funded work directly supports eligible rural provider sites, workers, patients, or communities. Provider implementation partners must clearly establish their rural service reach.

All prospective funded partners should complete the Partner Scope of Work Worksheet, Preliminary Budget Template, and Conditional Letter of Commitment. Healthcare provider implementation partners must also complete the Provider Baseline Data Worksheet. CAHSAH may request additional role-specific information, such as curriculum and faculty qualifications, pricing, cybersecurity documentation, data-sharing information, references, licenses, or organizational due-diligence materials.

No. CAHSAH’s current process is designed to avoid asking partners to repeat information already submitted through the interest form. Invited partners should focus on the scope, budget, commitment letter, baseline information, and any requested supporting documentation.

Prospective partner materials are currently due to CAHSAH by August 7, 2026. The HCAI application deadline is currently August 14, 2026. Because the timeline is compressed, partners should be prepared to respond promptly to clarification requests after submission.

Current planning assumes that award notifications and agreements could occur in September or October 2026, with implementation beginning as soon as authorized. The final project start date, performance period, and milestone schedule will be established by HCAI and the executed award documents.

CAHSAH will use submitted information for grant development, partner review, budgeting, due diligence, and proposed project administration. Information may be shared with CAHSAH staff and advisors supporting the application and with HCAI or other authorized reviewers. Partners should not submit patient-level protected health information in routine planning documents.

No. The letter authorizes CAHSAH to identify the organization as a prospective partner and confirms preliminary intent to participate if the project is funded and mutually acceptable terms are reached. It does not guarantee funding, authorize costs, or replace a formal agreement.

No. Partners should not incur Project HOME costs, order equipment, sign noncancelable commitments, or hire grant-funded staff unless CAHSAH provides written authorization under a fully executed agreement. Pre-award or unauthorized costs may not be reimbursable.

The budget should be reasonable, necessary, allocable to the proposed work, nonduplicative, and supported by a clear cost basis. Each cost should connect to a defined activity, deliverable, milestone, participant or site count, staffing commitment, or measurable outcome.

The current HCAI workbook includes personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, other direct costs, and indirect charges. Final allowability depends on the HCAI requirements, federal rules, the approved Project HOME budget, and the partner agreement.

Yes, when the staff member will perform additional or grant-specific Project HOME duties. The budget should identify the position, salary or rate, percentage of time, number of months, and responsibilities. Organizations should not charge the same staff time to more than one funding source.

Indirect charges may be proposed when they are reasonable, consistently applied, and permitted under the final grant terms. The basis must be explained. CAHSAH may revise or limit indirect charges during budget consolidation or negotiation.

Yes. Leveraged institutional, employer, WIOA, payer, philanthropic, or other resources may strengthen the proposal. Partners must clearly identify the source and purpose and must not charge the same cost or activity to two funding sources.

The grant is intended to support approved transformation activities, not routine reimbursement for providing care or unrestricted operating support. Costs must be tied to the approved project. The HCAI guide specifically identifies provider payments as unallowable for Accelerator Partner subrecipients.

CAHSAH has not established a guaranteed partner allocation. Partners should submit the amount genuinely needed to complete a realistic scope. Final amounts will depend on application design, HCAI’s award, budget negotiations, allowability, geographic and pathway balance, and the role assigned to each partner.

HCAI currently describes the Accelerator Partner funding method as milestone-based. CAHSAH’s partner agreements are therefore expected to link payments or reimbursement to approved budgets, documented costs, required reports, and accepted deliverables or milestones. Final payment terms will be stated in each executed agreement.

Partners should anticipate regular activity, milestone, outcome, financial, and risk reporting. CAHSAH’s current planning model includes monthly implementation monitoring and quarterly performance and expenditure reporting, with additional annual and final reporting as required.

CAHSAH may require selected funded partners to provide entity, tax, licensing, insurance, financial-management, SAM.gov, Unique Entity Identifier, and other due-diligence documentation. The exact requirements will depend on whether the organization is treated as a subrecipient, contractor, or other partner under the final award.

CAHSAH will review submissions for alignment, rural reach, readiness, measurable impact, partner fit, budget reasonableness, reporting capability, and overall Project HOME needs. CAHSAH may request revisions, combine related roles, align partners with specific providers or regions, reduce or reclassify costs, or decide not to include a proposal.

Not necessarily. The final relationship may be structured as a subaward, professional-services contract, technology agreement, training agreement, memorandum of understanding, or another appropriate arrangement. The classification will depend on the partner’s responsibilities, control over programmatic decisions, deliverables, and applicable federal and state requirements.

Potential partners may include home health agencies, hospice providers, home care organizations, rural hospitals, rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, Tribal health programs, county public health departments, health plans, pharmacies, physician groups, and other qualified organizations that can support the selected rural care model.

Home-based care is not automatically the same as primary care. However, home health, hospice, home care, and other home-based organizations can play an important implementation role by extending monitoring, education, medication support, care coordination, referral follow-up, telehealth access, and patient engagement into the home. The proposal should explain how that work strengthens the grant’s primary-care or Transformative Care Model outcomes.

A provider must implement a defined improvement or expansion in rural care delivery and demonstrate, through measurable data, whether the change improved an approved clinical or access outcome. The proposal must identify the target rural population, baseline, new workflow or service, staff and partners, milestones, budget, reporting method, and sustainability plan.

Select the pathway that addresses the strongest documented rural need and for which the organization can produce reliable data. Providers may support more than one pathway, but should identify one primary pathway and avoid proposing multiple initiatives that exceed their staffing, technology, or reporting capacity.

Providers should report the most recent reliable pre-implementation result for the selected primary and supporting measures. Include the measure definition, reporting period, numerator and denominator when applicable, result, data source, reporting frequency, and known limitations. Geographic and participant-volume information should also be included.

Use the most recent reliable pre-implementation period available. If the current baseline is incomplete, identify the gap and include baseline validation or collection as an early implementation milestone. CAHSAH’s current planning expectation is that selected providers confirm usable baselines during the first implementation quarter.

Potentially. The organization must clearly disclose the data gap, identify the source system or partner needed, explain how the baseline will be established, assign a responsible data lead, and include a realistic timeline. A proposal with no feasible measurement plan is unlikely to be competitive.

The organization may contribute through education, adherence support, digital-literacy assistance, social-needs identification, caregiver engagement, referral completion, home monitoring support, or care coordination. It should partner with an appropriate clinical organization or data source for the primary clinical metric and define which operational or engagement measures it will report directly.

Yes. Medication reconciliation, education, adherence support, pharmacy coordination, escalation of concerns, and related workflows may be included when they directly support hypertension control, diabetes control, virtual-care access, or another approved outcome. Medication management should be presented as part of a measurable care model, not as a standalone activity without a defined result.

Yes, as a supporting outcome or project-specific metric when the proposed intervention is expected to reduce avoidable utilization. The proposal should still identify at least one primary HCAI Transformative Care Model metric and explain how readmission reduction supports or results from improvement in that metric.

No. Training, devices, software, and other resources are inputs. The provider proposal must connect those investments to a documented rural gap, a redesigned workflow or expanded service, specific participant or patient reach, measurable milestones, and a time-bound outcome.

CAHSAH has not established a universal minimum. The proposed number should be credible for the provider’s current rural volume, staffing, service area, and implementation period. A smaller well-defined population with strong measurement may be more credible than an unsupported statewide estimate.

Yes. Identify each participating branch or site, the counties and ZIP codes served, expected patient or client volume, responsible staff, and any differences in readiness, workflow, technology, or baseline. The budget and milestones should reflect the number of sites actually being implemented.

At minimum, identify an executive sponsor, day-to-day project or implementation lead, clinical or operational lead, data or quality lead, and technology lead when applicable. Also identify frontline staff who will enroll participants, provide education or monitoring, coordinate care, document services, or complete follow-up.

Examples may include grant-specific staff time, workflow design, data and quality support, staff training and release time, patient education, translation and accessibility supports, approved travel, monitoring devices, software or licenses, integration, technical support, evaluation, and contracted expertise. Every cost must be necessary for the approved scope and supported by a cost basis.

Providers should expect to participate in planning, required training, technical assistance, learning collaboratives, data validation, performance review, quality-improvement activities, financial reporting, implementation meetings, and sustainability planning. Partners will also be expected to respond promptly when CAHSAH identifies a reporting or implementation issue.

Routine Project HOME worksheets and reports should use aggregate or de-identified information. Do not submit patient names, medical record numbers, dates of birth, or other individually identifiable information unless a specific secure process and agreement has been established.

Success will include completion of implementation milestones and measurable change from baseline. Depending on the pathway, measures may include hypertension control, poor diabetes control, virtual visits, eConsults, enrollment, monitoring participation, referral completion, alert response, patient engagement, satisfaction, workforce readiness, and other approved supporting outcomes.

Explain how the successful workflow will continue after grant funding ends. Address staffing, reimbursement or payer support, integration into normal operations, technology costs, partner commitments, ongoing training, leadership ownership, and the minimum scale needed to maintain the model.

Potential partners include local workforce development boards, community colleges, universities, approved CNA or HHA training sites, qualified CHW training organizations, continuing-education providers, apprenticeship or career-pathway organizations, employer collaboratives, faculty, subject-matter experts, and workforce intermediaries.

The current Project HOME application is for the Transformative Care Model Accelerator Partners opportunity. Workforce activities are included because they are essential to implementing and sustaining the care pathways. They must connect to the primary clinical or access outcomes rather than operate as an unrelated standalone training program.

CAHSAH plans to administer and coordinate the grantwide workforce strategy through a Project HOME Rural Workforce and Learning Center workstream. CAHSAH will convene employers and education partners, align training with provider implementation needs, coordinate common reporting, support learning collaboratives, and integrate workforce outcomes into the overall grant.

CAHSAH plans to work with existing approved CNA and HHA training sites rather than independently replace required state-approved training infrastructure. CAHSAH may coordinate recruitment, curriculum alignment, employer engagement, continuing education, project management, learner support, and shared reporting. Credential-bearing training must be delivered by appropriately approved or qualified entities.

CAHSAH may deliver or coordinate education that fits its qualifications and approved scope, including employer training, leadership development, care-pathway education, train-the-trainer activities, professional development, and learning-system support. CNA, HHA, CHW, or other credential-related components must comply with applicable approval, instructor, curriculum, and certification requirements.

The proposal should identify the rural region and employers served, current workforce gap, baseline, expanded training or pipeline strategy, target occupations or competencies, participant and employer outcomes, quarterly milestones, staffing, budget, reporting process, and sustainability plan. It should also explain how the work enables one or more Project HOME pathways.

Examples include recruitment, incumbent-worker training, CNA or HHA capacity, CHW development, digital-care and telehealth competencies, care-coordination training, chronic-disease education, faculty development, curriculum adaptation, train-the-trainer models, internships, clinical placements, work-based learning, employer engagement, and supportive career pathways.

Yes. The partner should explain what already exists and what will be new, expanded, adapted, translated, delivered in rural areas, aligned to employers, or implemented at greater scale because of Project HOME. Routine education with no grant-supported change or measurable contribution is not sufficient.

Provide current enrollment, completion, credential, placement, retention, vacancy, turnover, time-to-hire, employer participation, training capacity, geographic reach, or other relevant measures. Identify the baseline period, source, owner, and limitations, and distinguish confirmed data from estimates.

Appropriate measures may include employers engaged, participants recruited, enrolled, trained, completing, earning credentials, placed, advanced, or retained; vacancy or time-to-hire changes; competency results; participant and employer satisfaction; rural training capacity; and cost per participant or outcome. Workforce outputs should be connected to provider implementation capacity.

Not necessarily in every circumstance, but the funded activity must primarily benefit eligible rural providers, workers, patients, or communities. The proposal should define participant eligibility, employer service areas, placements, and how the training strengthens the rural workforce. Final eligibility rules will be reflected in the approved scope.

Potentially, when they are necessary to participation and allowable under the final award. Examples might include required materials, accessibility support, language access, travel assistance, testing fees, or learner support. Each cost should have a clear basis and may be revised during budget review.

Examples include project management, employer engagement, outreach and recruitment, curriculum development, faculty or instructor time, learning-management systems, registration, participant materials, competency assessment, approved travel, data and evaluation, learner support, and reasonable indirect costs. Separate each cost and explain the unit, participant, cohort, hour, or deliverable basis.

Yes. Partners are encouraged to identify leveraged WIOA, institutional, employer, philanthropic, or other support. The proposal must show which source pays for which activity and avoid double counting the same participant cost, staff time, or deliverable.

Workforce partners should anticipate monthly implementation reporting and quarterly participant and employer outcomes. Reports should address enrollment, completion, credentials, placement or advancement, retention when available, employer engagement, expenditures, barriers, corrective actions, and progress against milestones.

Explain how the curriculum, faculty capacity, training pathway, employer relationships, learner supports, placement network, and data process will continue after the grant. Identify tuition, WIOA, employer investment, reimbursement, institutional support, shared-service models, or other continuation strategies.

Potential partners include telehealth and eConsult vendors, remote patient monitoring companies, EHR vendors, interoperability and data-exchange organizations, analytics and dashboard providers, digital patient-engagement tools, scheduling and referral platforms, connectivity partners, cybersecurity specialists, and implementation-support organizations.

No. A competitive proposal must explain the rural problem, intended provider sites and users, baseline, workflow change, configuration and implementation plan, training and support, data and security approach, measurable targets, reporting capability, budget, and post-grant sustainability.

The proposal should identify a specific access, monitoring, workflow, communication, referral, connectivity, interoperability, or reporting gap. It should explain the operational consequence of the current problem and how the proposed solution will improve a selected Project HOME pathway.

Not in every case. However, the partner must explain how information will move through the workflow, what interfaces or exports are available, how duplicate entry will be minimized, and how providers and CAHSAH will obtain usable aggregate reports. Any required integration costs, testing, and dependencies should be identified.

Provide current utilization, sites, users, devices, virtual visits, eConsults, RPM enrollment, connection success, response or referral turnaround, staff trained, support capacity, existing integrations, workflow, and known data limitations, as applicable.

A strong plan generally includes readiness and workflow assessment, technical and security review, configuration, testing and validation, staff training, patient or caregiver onboarding, pilot launch, expansion, utilization review, optimization, support, sustainability, and closeout or transition.

Technology partners should be prepared to describe HIPAA readiness; business associate agreement availability; access controls; encryption; audit logging; incident response; vendor-risk management; data storage and transmission; subcontractors; and relevant certifications such as SOC 2 or HITRUST, when applicable.

The proposal should identify who owns provider and patient data, what data the platform generates, how long data are retained, what exports are available, how data can be retrieved at contract end, any termination assistance, and what happens if a provider does not continue the solution after the grant.

Routine grant reporting should use aggregate or de-identified information. The partner should design reporting that supports Project HOME measures without unnecessary disclosure of protected health information. Any exchange of identifiable information would require an approved secure process and appropriate agreements.

Examples may include site assessments, configuration, project management, integrations, APIs, licenses, devices, shipping, connectivity, training, onboarding, help-desk support, reporting, analytics, maintenance during the grant period, accessibility, translation, and specialized subcontractors. Costs must be itemized rather than presented only as one lump-sum package.

State whether each cost is fixed, estimated, per site, per user, per patient, per device, per month, per encounter, per integration, per support tier, or per deliverable. Identify discounts, implementation assumptions, replacement rates, minimum volumes, renewal pricing, and any costs paid from another source.

Depending on the solution, measures may include sites launched, users trained, patients enrolled, devices active, readings transmitted, alerts reviewed, virtual visits completed, eConsults completed, connection success, referral turnaround, response time, no-show rate, satisfaction, clinical outcome improvement, avoided travel, and report timeliness.

The proposal should identify implementation staffing, response and escalation processes, help-desk coverage, training refreshers, issue tracking, uptime or service expectations, device replacement, technical support for rural users, and how performance problems will be corrected.

Potentially. The company must be able to support eligible California rural sites, comply with applicable federal and California requirements, execute required agreements, provide appropriate support and data protections, and meet the project’s implementation and reporting schedule.

CAHSAH may align selected technology solutions with providers based on pathway fit, geography, workflow needs, readiness, interoperability, cost, cybersecurity, and scalability. A technology partner should identify preferred provider types and technical prerequisites but should not assume that every proposed site or customer will be included.

Provide the post-grant pricing model, ongoing licenses and support costs, minimum utilization assumptions, payer or provider financing options, ability to scale up or down, reusable implementation materials, and transition or export procedures. The plan should show how providers can continue the solution without creating an unsustainable cost cliff.