HR1 affects a specific subset of DCHS clients whose SNAP or Medicaid eligibility, renewal cadence, proof burden, or immigration category may change. This page focuses on where continued eligibility becomes hard to prove, what happens when benefits lapse or end, and where DCHS may be able to make the experience more manageable or connect someone with another source of help.

Two post-HR1 persona profiles give the discussion a concrete starting point:

• Janice Brown (post-HR1) receives SNAP and Virginia Medicaid Expansion while her four children live with kinship caregivers. Her profile shows how one determination — her SNAP work-requirement status — governs both programs, and focuses attention on proof, treatment continuity, food access, housing, and the possible effects on her CPS plan.
• Aboul & Hossina (post-HR1) are modeled as lawful permanent residents enrolled in expansion Medicaid, with no pregnancy or dependent child under 14. Their profile brings language access, household-income matching, and divided household labor into view.

The four mock reports use Janice because her situation makes several possible consequences visible at once. Aboul and Hossina could support a later study focused more closely on accessible communication and household verification. These are prospective scenarios based on policy information checked September 17, 2026, including the CMS interim final rule of June 2026; see the Janice validation review for the claim-by-claim basis.

Four methods worth considering

Each method answers a different kind of question. The group may choose one method or combine methods where seeing the issue from more than one angle would be useful. The choice does not have to be either-or: client accounts, case review, journey synthesis, and staff observations can complement one another without being forced into one shared measure or report structure.

Method	Especially useful for	Limitation to keep in view
Mobile ethnography	Learning what happens between official contacts as clients receive notices, gather proof, try channels, make tradeoffs, and pursue help	It will miss people for whom a phone diary is inaccessible or unwelcome
Quality Service Review	Examining a small number of cases across records and interviews to understand how benefits, behavioral health, CPS, appeals, and alternatives hold together	A small, intentionally selected sample cannot provide population rates
Customer journey mapping	Seeing the full experience, locating duplicated work and uncertain ownership, and identifying where a process change might help	The map needs client or observational evidence so it does not simply restate assumptions
Staff friction logs	Quickly identifying recurring operational problems with notices, proof, systems, deadlines, exemption review, and referrals	Staff logs show the operating problem from the staff side

Some potentially useful combinations are:

• Journey mapping with friction logs, when the group wants both an end-to-end picture and a quick view of recurring operational obstacles.
• Mobile ethnography with journey mapping, when the group wants client experience to shape or challenge the map.
• Quality Service Review with mobile ethnography or friction logs, when a deeper case review would benefit from evidence about what happens between recorded contacts.

Each study would define questions, evidence, and outcomes appropriate to its own design. For example, a staff log may count recurring workflow problems, while mobile ethnography may examine effort, comprehension, and events between contacts. They do not need to produce identical measures to inform the same decision.

Questions for choosing an approach

• What decision should the research help DCHS make?
• Do we most need to understand client experience, case practice, the end-to-end journey, recurring staff obstacles, or more than one of these?
• Which affected clients and staff can participate safely and accessibly within the available time?
• What kind of evidence would be persuasive enough for the people expected to act on it?
• Would combining two methods answer an important blind spot, or add work without changing the decision?