Meeting of the
PRIORITY SETTING & RESOURCE ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
Monday, January 12, 2026
By Zoom Videoconference
3:05 – 4:20pm
MINUTES
Members Present: Marya Gilborn (Co-chair), Raffi Babakhanian, Joan Edwards, Billy Fields, Camila Gomez, David Klotz, Marcelo Maia, David Martin, Guadalupe Dominguez Plummer (ex-officio), Stella Safo, MD, John Schoepp, Diane Tider
Members Absent: Matt Baney, Paul Carr
Other Council Member Present: Charmaine Graham
Staff Present: Michael Navejas, Doienne Saab, Scott Spiegler, Johanna Acosta, PhD, Laura Moya Adames, Abraham Omeyoma (DOHMH); Arya Shahi (Public Health Solutions)
Agenda Item #1: Welcome/Introductions/Minutes
Ms. Gilborn opened the meeting, followed by introductions and a moment of silence. The minutes of the December 8, 2025 meeting were approved with no changes.
Agenda Item #2: GY 2026 Spending Scenario Planning
The Committee continued its discussion of the GY 2026 spending scenario plan. Mr. Klotz explained that there has been some movement in Congress to pass 2026 federal appropriations bills. There were conflicting reports on the timeline for the health appropriations bills, which Congress has until January 30th to pass when the current continuing resolution expires (or pass another CR). While all proposals keep Base Ryan White Part A (RWPA) funding level, the main variable is MAI funding (which accounts for 8.6% of the EMA’s total award). The formula portion of the Base award (and the MAI award if Congress appropriates funding) will likely stay close to level given the recently announced change in the way formula funds will be calculated using current addresses.
It was explained that the Recipient is reporting a savings in carrying costs of $651,294 as a result of final contract negotiations after the rebid Care Coordination Programs that start March 1st (out of a total $21.1M allocation), which is available to absorb a reduction in funding or be reallocated in a flat-funding scenario according to the application spending plan approved in July 2025. In addition, there is a savings of $226,628 in Tri-County from contract recissions in two service categories (Legal, Early Intervention). The Tri-County Steering Committee (TCSC) will meet in two days to discuss the use of the uncommitted funds, but the PSRA Committee should provide overall guidance. The TCSC will receive data showing that these two categories have severely underperformed and that there are many other sources of funding for these services. The former Legal Services provider will still provide the same services, but with non-RWPA funds, and there are numerous other providers of the same services, as well as extensive testing and linkage services.
In response to a question, Ms. Plummer explained that when any program ends, there is a transition period (generally up to 90 days) to give the program time to close out (submit outstanding invoices, etc.) and implement a transition plan to ensure the clients have seamless services. For EIS, the nature of the program is one-time or brief interactions (testing, linkage to care), so there are no ongoing clients enrolled in those programs.
Mr. Klotz reported that in a discussion with Julie Vara, Director of the HIV Uninsured Care Program (ADAP, etc.), the NYS AIDS Institute reported that they can absorb any amount of a reduction to their Part A allocation as long as some funds are allocated in order to allow ADAP to absorb the EMA’s underspending (reprogramming and carryover). It was noted that the ADAP allocation (which has shrunk over the years from a high of over $16M to $2.7M) is also needed to help balance the actual Base and MAI award amounts, and so the Committee may want to consider putting a cap on the amount of a reduction.
The Committee discussed the methodology approved for GY 2025 when a reduction of up to 11.5% was planned for. For that plan, after any savings in carrying costs, programs were cut from the lowest ranked up. This is based on the Committee’s strategy of using targeted reductions to keep the highest priority services fully funded. In the case of a complete loss of MAI funds, but level funding in Base, the entire reduction could be absorbed through the savings in carrying costs ($878K in NYC and TC), a reduction of the ADAP allocation of $2.5M, and the elimination of NYC EIS programs ($3,729,234). In response to a question, Ms. Plummer explained that the DOHMH Sexual Health Clinics, which is the sole provider of RWPA0funded NYC EIS services, is aware that funding is contingent on the award and the Council’s allocations and that services can be suspended until the funding amount is known. Mr. Klotz added that the reason EIS is the lowest ranked category is due to the large number of other payers of this service, and that the Clinics would still provide the service with other funding, albeit at a lower level. Mr. Babakhanian noted that, given the wide availability of testing, the PSRA Committee should reconsider the allocation for this service, given other pressing needs. This will be included in the discussions around the GY 2027 application spending plan in the summer. Mr. Klotz noted that one third of score of the grant application is based on the EMA’s Early Identification of Individuals with HIV (EIIHA) plan. The description of the EMA’s EIIHA activities includes the full range of initiatives to find undiagnosed people and link them to care.
The Committee will meet again on February 2nd to complete the GY 2026 Spending Scenario Plan, with the hope that there will be a resolution to the funding amount in the federal budget.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
