Week 9 of the 2026 Session

During Week 9, with First Adjournment less than three weeks away, legislators continued to conduct bill hearings and work bills that survived Turnaround, including bills related to the remote practice of pharmacy, increased Home Plus capacity, family foster home licensure, guardian training for adults with neurological conditions, Board of Nursing disciplinary authority, and public assistance eligibility requirements.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Kansas Legislature the week of March 9.

House Committee on Health and Human Services
(Rep. Will Carpenter, Chair)

On Monday, March 9, the Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 322, which would remove the ability of the Kansas State Board of Pharmacy to maintain the list of individuals authorized to access the Prescription Monitoring Program database, K-TRACS, through rules and regulations. The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 40-0 on Feb. 10.

Neutral, written-only testimony was submitted by Alexandra Blasi, Executive Secretary of the Board, who stated that despite language adopted by the Kansas Legislature in 2022 to authorize the Board to add K-TRACS delegate roles by administrative regulation, the Board has not adopted any such regulations. No proponent or opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked Blasi questions regarding why licensed addiction counselors and mental health counselors sought access and whether granting it would be harmful (treatment providers serving patients with substance use disorders had requested that counselors working under their oversight be allowed to access K-TRACS to verify patients’ current prescription status on behalf of the supervising prescriber) and what options would remain if the bill passed (those counselors would not be able to be granted access by the Board and would require legislative action, though the supervising physician or pharmacist could still obtain the information directly).

The bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Wednesday, March 11, and referred to the House Committee on Insurance.

On Tuesday, March 10, the Committee held a hearing on SB 431, which would amend the Pharmacy Act to include provisions regarding the remote practice of pharmacy. The bill would permit any pharmacy to employ a remote worker to engage in the remote practice of pharmacy subject to meeting all of the requirements of the Act. The bill was passed by the Senate Committee of the Whole on a vote of 40-0 on Feb. 18.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Alexandra Blasi, stated the bill would allow pharmacy personnel to perform many day-to-day administrative and clinical functions in a hybrid or remote format, consistent with pharmacy laws in many other states and with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy model pharmacy act. Blasi noted the Board’s support stems from a two-year pilot project with a large mail-order pharmacy that began after COVID-19 public health emergency waivers expired and produced no increase in complaints, incidents or disciplinary actions. No neutral or opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked Blasi questions regarding whether remote workers must be located in Kansas (the bill does not include a geographic restriction but noted all remote workers must be licensed or registered with the Board, giving it jurisdiction regardless of location); what functions pharmacy technicians would perform remotely (non-discretionary tasks such as data entry, insurance adjudication and other administrative work in pharmacy management systems); whether independent pharmacists were consulted (stakeholder input was gathered and independent pharmacies did not express concerns); and whether interns or technicians could fill and dispense prescriptions without a pharmacist present (no, as a pharmacy is closed by law when a pharmacist is not on site).

The Committee also worked SB 448, which would authorize the use of expedited partner therapy to treat sexually transmitted diseases, and passed it favorably out of committee.

Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare
(Sen. Beverly Gossage, Chair) 

On Tuesday, March 10, the Committee held a hearing on House Bill (HB) 2587, which, as amended, would authorize a licensed private psychiatric hospital to maintain a stock supply of emergency medication kits for pharmaceutical emergencies. The bill passed the House on a vote of 106-10 on Feb. 19.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Corterra of Wichita, a 24-bed private psychiatric hospital serving patients ages 55 and above, who stated the bill would allow life-saving medications to be available on-site during a mental health crisis. He explained that the hospital contracts with an off-site pharmacy and does not have the resources to employ an on-site pharmacist, meaning that obtaining emergency medications currently requires after-hours calls to the psychiatrist and pharmacy, physical transportation of the medication and significant delays. He also asked the Committee to consider removing the House amendment requiring consistency with state psychiatric hospital kits, noting that state hospitals operate large Pyxis dispensing machines under Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) oversight, a model that does not apply to a small private facility without an on-site pharmacy. No neutral or opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether medications are dispensed by protocol or physician order (Corterra representative said all e-kit medications would require a physician order, following existing processes) and where the kit would be stored (behind two locked doors in the existing secure medication storage area, with thumbprint and code access required for each use).

The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 11, amended it to remove the House-added requirement that private psychiatric hospital e-kits be consistent with those used at state psychiatric hospitals, and passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of committee.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2702, which, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, would amend the Kansas Healing Arts Act regarding practice protocols to provide for collaboration between a physician assistant or associate (PA) and a physician and to amend the Physician Assistant Licensure Act. The bill also would authorize the use of a criminal history record check and the collection of fingerprints for an applicant for PA licensure by the State Board of Healing Arts. The bill passed the House on a vote of 120-2 on Feb. 19.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Michelle Columbo, Kansas Medical Society, and a representative of the Kansas Academy of Physician Associates (KAPA) stated the bill is a modernization of an outdated practice act and does not change the scope of practice for PAs. They emphasized that PAs continue to work within a physician-led team and that all services listed in the updated scope section are already authorized under active practice agreements. No neutral or opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether fingerprinting is currently required (KAPA representative confirmed it is not, unless participating in the compact); whether prescribing is already occurring (PAs currently prescribe under their practice agreements, with authorized drug classes determined at the practice level, and the bill moves this from regulation into statute); and whether the Committee should resolve the physician assistant versus physician associate terminology (both terms are used in Kansas PA programs and the bill intentionally includes both to cover all graduates).

The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 11 and passed it favorably out of committee.

The Committee then worked HB 2534, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, which would enact the Respiratory Care Interstate Compact. The bill was passed by the House Committee of the Whole on Feb. 11 on a vote of 121-0.

The Committee adopted technical amendments to the bill, including defining the effective date of the bill and when the Compact would go into effect, which is defined as the date that the statute is enacted into law by the seventh member state, and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended. Note: As of Feb. 5, 2026, the Compact has been enacted in five states: Alabama, Iowa, Montana, Washington, and Wisconsin. The Compact is being considered in 11 states, including Kansas.

The Committee also worked HB 2533, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, which would enact the Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact. The bill was passed by the House Committee of the Whole on Feb. 11 on a vote of 121-0. The Committee amended the bill to take effect upon publication in the Kansas Register and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended.

On Wednesday, March 11, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2520, which, as amended, would amend the Adult Care Home Licensure Act to allow a maximum of 16 individual residents, increased from 12, in Home Plus facilities. The bill passed the House on a vote of 90-32 on Feb. 19.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Rep. Mark Schreiber, stated the expansion is needed because increased building costs and flat reimbursement rates make the current 12-resident cap financially difficult for operators, particularly those looking to open new facilities in communities that currently lack home plus options.

Opponents, including Haely Ordoyne, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, argued that while the Ombudsman’s office does not oppose expansion, it opposes expansion without resident safety parameters. She proposed either a 1:6 staff-to-resident ratio requirement or a delay to develop an acuity-based formulary system. Written-only neutral testimony was submitted by Lacey Hunter, Commissioner of Survey, Certification and Credentialing at KDADS and a representative of LeadingAge Kansas.

Committee members asked questions regarding how private businesses could be incentivized to expand given high capital costs (Ordoyne acknowledged the financial reality but said the additional revenue from four residents at $7,000 to $8,000 per month is roughly $400,000 annually per building, sufficient to also fund additional staffing) and whether any staffing ratio currently applies to home plus settings (no).

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2524, which, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, would amend law concerning licensing of family foster home applicants and licensees by the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). The bill would allow DCF to allow for the continuation of a license of a family foster home when:

• • The applicant or licensee otherwise qualifies for such licensure
  • A person who resides in such home:
    • Has been convicted or adjudicated of an offense as described in continuing law
    • Was a child with such conviction or adjudication in custody and placed in such home by the Secretary for DCF
    • Is less than 26 years of age
    • Maintains residence in such home or has been legally adopted by a person who resides in such home

The Secretary could grant a license or allow the continuation of a license if there are no safety concerns, as determined by the Secretary, and if a person residing in such home otherwise meets the above-listed requirements, but

• Is older than 26 years of age
• Has an additional conviction or adjudication after release from the custody of the Secretary

The bill would allow an applicant or licensee of a family foster home to appeal to the Secretary for review if licensure has not been granted. If this arises, the Secretary’s decision upon review of the appeal would be final. The bill passed the House on a vote of 122-0 on Feb. 19.

Read testimony  submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Rebecca Gerhardt from DCF, Child Advocate Kerri Lonard, and representatives of KVC Kansas and Children’s Alliance of Kansas, stated the bill addresses a gap that forces foster families to choose between providing permanency for a youth they have been caring for and continuing to foster other children. Lonard noted the Office of Child Advocate had initial concerns about the original bill language regarding new license issuance and post-custody convictions, and that those concerns were addressed through House amendments developed in coordination with DCF and the bill sponsors. No neutral or opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding potential safety concerns for younger children in the home (a private citizen said DCF routinely places youth with more serious records in these same homes and the bill preserves DCF’s case-by-case safety review); how the bill relates to similar legislation in the Judiciary Committee (Lonard described it as one piece of a broader continuum of care for high-risk youth); and the structure of the appeal process (Gerhardt said that standard license denial appeals go through the Office of Administrative Hearings and the appeal mechanism in this bill is a separate, specific provision).

On Thursday, March 12, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2536, which would prohibit a court from appointing a person as a guardian for an adult diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia or a similar neurological condition until the person to be appointed files an affidavit with the court verifying completion of an approved training program. The bill would authorize the court to waive the training if it is in the best interest of the adult diagnosed with the condition, and any such waiver would be entered into the record of proceedings. The bill passed the House on a vote of 124-0 on Feb. 18.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees

Proponents, including a representative of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA), stated that guardians currently receive no dementia training despite making significant life-shaping decisions for individuals who can no longer make those decisions themselves. She noted that the number of Kansans living with Alzheimer’s is projected to increase by 41 percent by 2050 and that the training required by the bill is available at no cost online and takes less than an hour to complete. Neutral testimony was submitted by Nancy Mayberry, Kansas Guardianship Program (KGP), who supported the intent of the bill but noted that many KGP volunteers already have clinical backgrounds exceeding the one-hour training and suggested Kansas would benefit from a broader, multi-diagnosis resource for guardians rather than a requirement focused solely on dementia. No opponent testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding why spouses and family members rank below court-appointed guardians in the priority order (Mayberry noted that KGP referrals from adult protective services typically arise because family members cannot serve); whether the AA had worked with the Kansas Judicial Council (AA representative said yes and that the Council’s only concern was resolved once she clarified the training applies only to guardians of individuals with cognitive decline or dementia); the timeframe and enforcement for completing training (AA representative said there was a 30-day window and an affidavit requirement but acknowledged there is no follow-up enforcement mechanism specified in the bill); and whether the requirement creates an additional hurdle for prospective guardians (Mayberry expressed neutrality on mandatory versus optional status and suggested training should be broadly encouraged across all diagnoses).

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2528, which, as amended by the House Committee of the Whole, would amend statutes regarding the Board of Nursing, including voiding disciplinary actions based upon a violation of certain statutes, providing a grace period for nursing license renewal and a process for late renewal, and amending the definition of “unprofessional conduct” under the Kansas Nurse Practice Act.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Rep. Sandy Pickert, Rep. John Carmichael and a representative of Midland Care Connection, stated the bill is needed to address a pattern in which the Board of Nursing has pursued disciplinary action for non-clinical administrative licensing errors rather than patient safety violations. Opponents, including Carol Moreland, Kansas Board of Nursing, and a representative of Kansas Advocates for Better Care, argued the bill raises significant operational and public safety concerns. They also stated that the shift from a single expiration date to separate renewal and cancellation dates would require a new notification system at an estimated cost of up to $250,000, create potential conflicts with the national nursing licensure compact’s expiration date reporting requirement, and divert resources from an already underway migration to a new licensing system. They further argued a national opt-out renewal notification upgrade set to launch in May would address many of the concerns without legislative action. Neutral testimony was submitted by Rep. Melissa Oropeza and a representative of the Kansas Advanced Practice Nurses Association.

Committee members asked questions regarding how a 22-month investigation limit addresses the backlog (a private citizen explained the limit reflects the longest cases the board provided as samples and that an amendment would push implementation to Jan. 1, 2027) and whether nurses under investigation continue practicing during the investigation period (private citizen said the Board has never used its emergency suspension authority despite audited evidence of cases requiring it).

On Friday, March 13, the Committee held a hearing on SB 522, which would enact the Kansas Medical Freedom Act and prohibit private entities from denying, restricting or otherwise penalizing any individual’s access to services, products, venues or transportation based on such individual’s use or nonuse of medical interventions. The bill also would prohibit governmental entities and private entities from requiring medical interventions as a condition of employment. Medical interventions would include, but not be limited to, masks, vaccines, biologics, swabs, tests, pills, capsules, creams, sprays, liquids, injections, chips devices and monitors. Personal protective equipment could be required in certain circumstances. Any individual aggrieved by a violation of the Act could file a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General who would be required to investigate and issue a final order as specified in the bill within 60 calendar days.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated that the right to make individual medical decisions free from coercion is a foundational principle of informed consent, that existing vaccine and masking requirements imposed by employers and schools have caused harm to workers and students in Kansas, and that the bill would restore individual liberty without preventing anyone from choosing to receive medical interventions. Opponents, including representatives of the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments (KALHD), Kansas Chamber of Commerce and the Kansas State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), argued that the bill does not distinguish between personal medical decisions with only individual consequences and those that affect community disease transmission, that existing federal and state law already provides religious and medical accommodation protections for employees, and that the bill’s broad definition of medical intervention would restrict employers’ ability to maintain safe workplaces. Opponents also raised concerns that the bill would result in increased litigation for Kansas businesses and weaken public health protections that have significantly reduced disease rates over generations. No neutral testimony was submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding the scope of the bill’s application to private entities (Revisor confirmed it applies to both private and governmental entities); whether recommending rather than requiring a mask would constitute a violation (a recommendation would not); whether a hospital could restrict NICU visitor access (the bill’s personal protective equipment exception applies to occupational health and safety standards and does not directly address visitor access); whether the bill’s enforcement mechanism provides due process before a fine is issued (the bill does not reference the Administrative Procedure Act, is silent on pre-fine due process and is atypical in that respect); herd immunity thresholds for specific vaccines (Sen. Bill Clifford said that measles requires approximately 95 percent vaccine participation for herd protection and that roughly 1,400 U.S. cases were recorded in 2025); whether county health departments have flexibility to deviate from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations (KALHD representative said they follow Kansas Department of Health and Environment guidance); whether the badge sticker practice described by a proponent is common among employers (SHRM representative said it is an individual employer practice within their authority to manage workplace safety); and whether legislation that preserved employer freedom while addressing individual protections would draw neutral support from the Chamber and SHRM (representatives of both indicated they were open to further conversation and review of specific language).

House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care
(Rep. Cyndi Howerton, Chair)

On Monday, March 9, the Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care received presentations on foster parent recruitment, training and retention from several organizations, including the Children’s Alliance of Kansas, DCF, KVC Kansas, DCCCA and several child placing and service agencies.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Committee members asked questions regarding health insurance for children placed with relatives over age 65 who are on Medicare (Children’s Alliance representative replied that all children in foster care are eligible for Medicaid coverage); whether the kin-first designation is official and how “kin” is defined (Children’s Alliance representative stated it reflects DCF’s definition and generally includes individuals with a close relationship to the child, and the definition has expanded over the years to include sibling care providers); compensation rates for relative placements versus licensed foster home placements (Children’s Alliance representative described a tiered daily rate structure ranging from basic to intensive levels of care, with an additional clothing allowance for relative placements); faith-based foster parent recruitment (DCF representative stated that many child placing agencies are affiliated with religious organizations and that DCF welcomes recruitment from any source, including churches and civic organizations); and how DCF addresses placement situations in which a foster family’s religious beliefs may differ from a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity (DCF representative responded that placement decisions are made based on the best match for the child’s needs and circumstances, and that DCF works with child placing agencies to identify placements that are appropriate for each youth).

On Wednesday, Mar. 11, the Committee held an informational hearing on the use of psychotropic medications in foster care.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Brenda Stout, Director of Medicaid and Children’s Mental Health, DCF, described the state’s psychotropic medication workgroup, which includes representatives from DCF, KDADS, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), community mental health centers, managed care organizations (MCOs), and child welfare case management providers. Christine Osterlund, KDHE, spoke about Medicaid’s role in the oversight of psychotropic medications for children, including those in foster care, and referred to the Kansas Legislature’s 2015 creation of the Mental Health Medication Advisory Committee, a body of nine physician and pharmacist specialists in mental health that meets quarterly and makes recommendations on prior authorization criteria.

Committee members asked questions regarding how psychotropic medication data is collected and reported (Stout stated that the primary source is claims data housed at KDHE, drawn from children’s Medicaid claims); how medication and appointment information is transferred when a child in foster care changes placement (Stout stated that child welfare case management providers are responsible for ensuring continuity of medications and appointments during transitions); whether psychotropic medication coverage could be affected by budget cuts (Osterlund explained that because Medicaid is an entitlement program, the state cannot cap pharmaceutical spending, and any drug that meets coverage criteria must be covered); informed consent protocols for off-label prescribing, particularly for very young children (KDHE pharmacist stated that prescribing for very young children must be under the direct care of a pediatric specialist and Osterlund added that informed consent is the responsibility of DCF staff and MCOs); and whether a centralized system for reporting adverse reactions could be valuable (KDHE pharmacist replied that no such system exists within KDHE but that it is available at the federal level through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Osterlund added that a broader reporting mechanism outside the Medicaid system could have value).

House Welfare Reform Committee
(Rep. Francis Awerkamp, Chair)

On Tuesday, March 10, the Committee received an update about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from Dr. Carla Whiteside-Hicks, who reported that Kansas’ SNAP payment error rate for October 2025, the first month of the current federal fiscal year, was 6.13 percent, down from over 9 percent at the close of the prior fiscal year. If the rate remains above 6 percent through the end of the federal fiscal year, the state will face an additional $20.6 million cost share for SNAP benefits, on top of an administrative cost share shift from 50/50 to 75/25. She also reported on the recent launch of the SNAP National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which enables real-time identification of individuals receiving SNAP in more than one state simultaneously; a new requirement that applicants provide documentation of shelter costs and utility expenses rather than self-attesting to those amounts; a standardized statewide training curriculum for eligibility workers; a high-risk alert tool under development in the Kansas Eligibility Enforcement System (KEES) to flag cases with elevated error risk before benefits are issued; and a draft request for proposal for an income verification or income monitoring service. Whiteside-Hicks noted that the leading cause of payment errors is income, followed by shelter and utility costs and unearned income such as child support, and confirmed that just over 60 percent of errors are client errors arising from unreported mid-period changes in circumstances rather than from intentional fraud or DCF processing mistakes.

The Committee also held an informational hearing on SB 363, which, as amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole, would require KDHE to seek federal approval for continuous Medicaid eligibility for certain individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities receiving services through a home and community-based services waiver; require DCF and KDHE to enter into data-matching agreements with state agencies to verify eligibility for SNAP benefits and Medicaid; prohibit certain public assistance waivers or exemptions without legislative approval and self-attestation for purposes of determining eligibility for public assistance; require quarterly eligibility redeterminations for Medicaid and provide exceptions for certain individuals; limit retroactive enrollment in Medicaid; immediately terminate Medicaid eligibility upon confirmation of death of the enrollee; increase the age limits for able-bodied adults without certain dependents; and prohibit certain exemptions from work requirements under the SNAP program. The bill was passed by the Senate on Thursday, March 5, on a vote of 25-12.

Dr. Whiteside-Hicks, DCF, and Christine Osterlund, KDHE, expressed fiscal and operational concerns about the bill. DCF estimated the need for 62 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) eligibility workers to implement the bill’s requirements, above the approximately 60 existing vacancies, and noted that current wages are not competitive enough to fill those openings. KDHE estimated an $880,000 all-funds fiscal impact, primarily driven by staffing for quarterly data checks and the manual casework required when data matches return discrepancies. Both agencies noted that federal policy prohibits taking adverse action on a case based solely on a data match so human intervention will be required in every instance, which is the primary driver of the staffing need.

Both agencies also raised concerns that the Department of Revenue (KDOR) income data matching requirement would generate a high volume of discrepancies because tax return data is often more than a year old for this population, forcing manual review of cases that would otherwise be straightforward. For the self-attestation provisions of the bill related to household composition, Osterlund noted there is no available data source to independently verify who lives in a household, that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must approve any state verification plan before self-attestation can be removed, that federal regulations permit but do not require states to accept self-attestation for most categories, and that no state she is aware of has eliminated self-attestation for household composition in Medicaid. On quarterly Medicaid redeterminations, Osterlund clarified that federal law permits a full eligibility renewal only once per year, so the quarterly process would be limited to targeted data checks rather than a full renewal, with any resulting match requiring manual follow-up. She also noted the quarterly redetermination requirement is not a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and does not apply to Kansas’s non-expansion Medicaid population under federal guidance. Both agencies cautioned that implementing the bill without adequate staffing would increase payment error rates and application processing timeliness failures, both of which carry federal financial sanctions, and that under OBBBA, CMS will lose discretion to waive Medicaid payment error rate measurement (PERM) penalty assessments for states with error rates above three percent in future years. KDHE’s most recent PERM result was below 1 percent.

On Thursday, March 12, the Committee held an official hearing on SB 363.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) Action who stated the bill aligns Kansas SNAP work requirements with federal law, reduces errors through data matching across state agencies and addresses what he described as the primary vulnerability in Kansas’ current process, the practice of self-attestation. He cited other states that have implemented similar requirements without additional costs and asserted that DCF has not accounted for savings from removing ineligible households when presenting fiscal concerns.

Opponents, including representatives of the KanCare Advocates Network, Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas, Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, Harvesters, Kansas Interfaith Action, Kansas Action for Children and the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, argued the bill would cause eligible Kansans to lose coverage and food assistance, not because of ineligibility but because of paperwork barriers, that the populations most affected are among the least equipped to navigate frequent and complex eligibility processes, and that the bill goes beyond what federal law requires.

Dr. Whiteside-Hicks, DCF, and Christine Osterlund, KDHE, provided neutral testimony and reiterated concerns expressed during the March 10 informational hearing.

Committee members asked questions regarding how other states verify household composition without self-attestation (FGA representative said the most common method is cross checking tax records); whether the quarterly Medicaid redetermination requirement is consistent with OBBBA (FGA representative acknowledged it is not a provision of OBBBA); whether there was concern about federal approval of the Section 1115 waiver for individuals with permanent disabilities (FGA representative said there are some concerns based on a July 2025 CMS letter signaling skepticism toward such waivers); the elements of the KDHE fiscal note (Osterlund said the $2.39 million all-funds total includes 20 FTEs at approximately $880,000, system changes and data costs, based on an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 individuals subject to quarterly redetermination requiring approximately 15 minutes of worker time per case per quarter); what Kansans currently experience when applying for SNAP or Medicaid (Flint Hills Breadbasket representative described assisting a Manhattan SNAP recipient complete a 32-page application with employer-provided documentation, noting the individual could not have navigated the process independently and that the Bread Basket assists at least one person per week with a SNAP application); and whether nonprofits would face significant unreimbursed costs under the bill (Rep. Heather Meyer said that beyond the state fiscal note of over $10 million there is an unspoken cost to nonprofits absorbing increased application assistance demand).

Other Bills With Action During Week 9

HB 2250, as amended by the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare, would add administering an emergency opioid antagonist as a protected act immune from criminal prosecution if the person to whom aid was rendered reasonably appeared to need medical assistance or requested medical assistance from law enforcement or emergency medical services as a result of the use of a controlled substance. The bill also would define emergency opioid antagonist, permit the administration of an emergency opioid antagonist up to 10 years past the product’s expiration date, and add civil liability protection for first responders. As defined by the bill, “emergency opioid antagonist” would mean an intranasal form of a drug that inhibits the effects of opioids and is approved by the FDA for the treatment of an opioid overdose. The bill also would prohibit pharmacists, health care providers and school nurses from prescribing, dispensing, distributing or furnishing expired emergency opioid antagonists. The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill, as amended, on Friday, March 13, on a vote of 39-0.

 HB 2478 would require an applicant for an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) or certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) license to be fingerprinted for state and national criminal history record checks. The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill on Friday, March 13, on a vote of 38-1.

HB 2557 would enact the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC or Compact) and would repeal the current ICPC. The bill was passed by the Senate on Tuesday, March 10, on a vote of 39-1. (Note: The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on Monday, March 16.)

 HB 2635 would create the Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, would make several findings related to pregnancy centers and the services provided at such centers, and would prohibit regulations, policies, procedures or other measures that would prohibit a pregnancy center from taking certain actions, or requiring that a pregnancy center take specific actions. The bill was passed by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, March 12, on a vote of 31-9.

SB 263, as amended by the Senate Committee on Education, would create the Student Safe at School Act to establish standards and requirements for active shooter drills, active shooter simulations and violence prevention training conducted by elementary and secondary schools. The bill would also amend the requirement that the State Fire Marshal adopt rules and regulations concerning crisis drills at public and private schools. The Senate Committee of the Whole amended the bill to:

• Include language that the Act’s provisions regarding active shooter drills could not be construed to supersede or limit a parent, or person acting as parent, from opting a student out of participation in an active shooter drill.
• Prohibit schools from conducting or requiring participation in an active shooter drill for students in grades kindergarten through five.
• Authorize schools that offer any grades kindergarten through five to conduct active shooter drills for employees, personnel and any other school staff.
• Replace language that would authorize schools to conduct active shooter simulations, restrict the time and participation of such simulations, and establish a process for students in grades nine through 12 to voluntarily participate with a prohibition on conducting active shooter simulations on school property, except for tactical training exercises conducted by law enforcement agencies, and to comply with certain provisions of the Act.
• Prohibit any crisis drills conducted by a public or private school from including an active shooter simulation as defined in the Act.
• Remove standards and requirements for active shooter drills and replace with language:
  • Requiring the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) to adopt guidelines for best practices to conduct active shooter drills.
  • Requiring such guidelines to contain, at a minimum, certain guidance.
  • Requiring the governing body of a school district or accredited nonpublic school to adopt policies related to active shooter drills.
  • Requiring the governing body of a school district or accredited nonpublic school to annually review the efficacy and effect of active shooter drills and the impact of such drills on the safety and mental health of students, teachers and other school personnel and staff.
  • Stating that the Act would not require the conduct of active shooter drills in a manner that would conflict with the guidelines published by KSDE.

The bill, as amended, was passed by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 10, on a vote of 38-1 and referred to the House Committee on Education on Wednesday, March 11.

SB 271, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, would change the household gross income eligibility requirement for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) from 250.0 percent of the 2008 federal poverty level to 250.0 percent of the current federal poverty income guidelines, with coverage subject to appropriation of funds and eligibility requirements. The bill also would require the Secretary of KDHE to adopt rules and regulations to establish a premium by sliding-fee scale that charges per family, and to provide coverage for an eligible child at the time of renewal if a family is eligible for coverage and pays all delinquent premiums. The House Committee of the Whole passed the bill, as amended, on Thursday, March 12, on a vote of 119-0.

SB 334 would provide education levels for instructors at nursing schools as a requirement for state approval. The bill would require, in addition to other requirements in continuing law, that faculty at a school seeking approval from the Kansas State Board of Nursing as a school for professional nurses or as a school for practical nurses possess a nursing degree awarded by a state or nationally accredited school of nursing approved by the Board that is at least one level more advanced than the degree awarded by the program in which they are teaching. The bill would prohibit the Board from requiring additional or more advanced credentials for such faculty. The bill would allow the Board to grant an exemption for this requirement to a school facing hardships in hiring faculty. The bill was passed favorably out of committee by the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development on March 10.

SB 339, as amended by the Senate Committee on Education, would establish minimum requirements for physical activity in public schools and include such time in the calculations of a school’s school term for purposes of statutory compliance. The bill would require all public school districts to provide a minimum of 30 minutes of daily organized recess as well as 60 minutes of moderate physical activity for grades kindergarten through eight and a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate physical activity for grades nine through 12. The bill also would direct the State Board of Education to establish a Kansas State Fitness Test. The Senate Committee of the Whole amended the bill to:

• Add a definition of recess to mean the regularly scheduled time during the school day when students may engage in supervised unstructured play, physical activity or social interaction with other students and would not include time in physical education class.
• Remove requirements for grades K-12 regarding moderate physical activity requirements.
• Remove the definition of moderate physical activity.
• Replace the term “physical activity” with “recess” in the prohibition against limiting or withholding said activity from a student as punishment.
• Begin the minimum recess requirements and their inclusion in the calculation of a school day during the 2027-2028 school year.

The bill, as amended, was passed on Tuesday, March 10, on a vote of 24-15 and referred to the House Committee on Education on Wednesday, March 11.

SB 366, as passed by the Senate Committee of the Whole, would have designated bridge number 008-B0854, which connects northbound I-135 to southbound 1-235 in Sedgwick County, as the Don Snyder Memorial Bridge. The House Committee on Transportation passed House Substitute (Sub.) for SB 366 on Wednesday, March 11, which would add a prohibition in the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways on use of a mobile telephone in a school zone when a reduced speed limit is enforced or in a road construction zone while workers are present (school or work zone) and signs are posted at the beginning of the road construction zone alerting drivers to such workers. Holding a mobile telephone would constitute a rebuttable presumption of a violation. The original provisions were removed from the bill. (Note: The House Committee of the Whole subsequently passed the bill on Tuesday, March 27, on a vote of 116-7.)

 SB 368, as amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole, would enact the Health Care Sharing Ministries Tax Deduction Act, providing a subtraction modification for taxpayers for qualified health care sharing expenses and amounts of qualified health care share received by taxpayers. The subtraction modification for health care sharing expenses could not exceed $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a married couple filing a joint return. Qualifying health care sharing expenses would be those amounts paid for the taxpayer and their spouse or dependent for contributions for medical expenses and administrative fees of the health care sharing ministry. Qualifying health care share received would be the amount received as a member of a health care sharing ministry to assist with a medical expense. The bill was passed by the House Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 10, on a vote of 87-36. (Note: The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on Monday, March 16.)

SB 430, as amended by the House Committee on Health and Human Services, would permit licensed physical therapists to perform certain capillary blood tests. The bill would allow physical therapists to perform point-of-care laboratory testing that are classified by CMS as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived tests. The bill would allow point-of-care testing of lactate and blood glucose tests only by physical therapists for the purpose of obtaining information related to muscle metabolism, exercise tolerance or rehabilitation status. The House Committee of the Whole passed the bill, as amended, on Thursday, March 12, on a vote of 101-18.

SB 441 would enact the Applied Behavior Analysis Services in School Act and require school districts to adopt policies to allow for the provision of medically necessary behavioral health services, as established in the Act, in schools for students with autism spectrum disorder. The bill was passed favorably out of committee by the Senate Committee on Education on Tuesday, March 10.