26 Min Read
Jan 28, 2026
By
Linda J. Sheppard, J.D., Valentina Blanchard, M.P.H., M.S.W.,Katy Young
Legislators returned Tuesday, Jan. 20, after Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and moved quickly on committee business. Discussions covered agency updates, the SNAP payment error rate, the school lunch program, human services budgets, in-school mental health services and elementary school recess.
This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Kansas Legislature the week of Jan. 19.
Health at the Capitol is a weekly summary providing highlights of the Kansas legislative session, with a specific focus on health policy related issues. Sign up here to receive these summaries and more, and also follow KHI on Facebook, X, LinkedIn and Instagram . Previous editions of Health at the Capitol can be found on our ARCHIVE PAGE.
On Friday, Jan. 23, Gov. Laura Kelly announced the award of $1,496,970 to 20 community-based domestic violence programs in 19 counties across the state. The grants, which ranged from $51,091 to $166,354, allow these programs to provide support to survivors of domestic violence and their families with emergency shelter, 24/7 confidential call and text hotlines, transportation and other specialized services. The grants are funded through the federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and administered by an office of the Administration for Children and Families in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Also on Jan. 23, the Governor announced the inaugural Annual Report of the Kansas Office of Early Childhood (KOEC) was submitted to the Legislature. This first report provides an update on progress toward transitioning all the state’s early childhood programs to KOEC by July 1, 2026, and outlines recommendations for KOEC’s first year, including strategic planning, internal organization, field-facing systems communications, and collaboration across the early childhood system.
The Committee met on Tuesday, Jan. 20, to hear a presentation from Nathan Fawson, Chief Executive Officer of Southeast Kansas Mental Health Center (SEKMHC) on the center’s role as the community mental health provider for a six-county rural region and its evolution under the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) model. Fawson described SEKMHC’s expanded crisis, therapy, psychiatric, substance use and school-based services. He described efforts to deliver integrated “whole person” care by adding primary care and dental services.
Discussion focused on the sustainability of integrated care under current CCBHC payment rules (Fawson said recent direction from the state to stop billing certain primary care services under the CCBHC prospective payment system has created financial challenges and increased the need to pursue FQHC look-alike status or alternative partnerships); access and outcomes associated with the CCBHC model (reduced wait times for therapy and psychiatry, expanded crisis response capacity and high rates of crisis diversion from hospitalization); and what would happen if FQHC look-alike status is not approved (center may need to discontinue delivering primary care services).
On Wednesday, Jan. 21, the Committee held a hearing on House Bill (HB) 2436, which would provide immunity from criminal prosecution for individuals who render aid, including administering an emergency opioid antagonist, to someone in need of medical assistance as a result of the use of a controlled substance. The provisions of the bill would apply to the administration of expired emergency opioid antagonists, such as expired intranasal naloxone up to 10 years past its expiration date. The bill would also clarify Good Samaritan protections and define emergency opioid antagonists to include U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved intranasal products, even if expired within the specified timeframe.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents generally argued that HB 2436 would save lives and reduce waste. They emphasized that naloxone remains effective past its labeled expiration date, that discarding expired supply forces agencies and community programs to re-buy costly product and that expanding lawful use would increase “naloxone saturation” so doses are more available when an overdose occurs. Neutral testimony was submitted by the Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, who indicated that the bill should not impact pharmacy practice in Kansas. Opponent testimony was submitted by a representative of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, who argued that there is not enough scientific evidence on the use of expired opioid antagonists and urged the committee to focus on solutions that expand access to in-date antagonists. Committee members asked about the typical naloxone expiration timeframe and whether the bill’s 10-year limit was appropriate (a representative of the Kansas Peace Officers Association said that expiration is typically about two years, but he is satisfied that the 10-year limit was appropriate.)
The Committee also heard a presentation from Secretary Laura Howard, Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), similar to her presentation to the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare on Jan. 13. Committee members directed questions to Sec. Howard regarding nursing facility survey backlogs and workforce shortages (she acknowledged challenges remain, described recent hiring and restructuring efforts and said KDADS continues to evaluate additional options, including use of other professional disciplines); the Community Support Waiver timeline and scope (the waiver will not include residential services, is targeted to go live by Oct. 1, and is currently entering the public notice and review process at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services); and contract staffing costs at state hospitals (Deputy Secretary Scott Brunner said they’re projected to request the same amount of funding as last fiscal year; however, while progress has been made, a gap between what was appropriated versus what they actually need is still present).
On Thursday, Jan. 22, the Committee heard a presentation from Inspector General Steve Anderson, similar to his presentation to the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare on Jan. 20 (see below). During the presentation, he noted an audit of the Medicaid pregnant women eligibility group identified 62 individuals who appear to have fraudulently applied. Committee members asked questions regarding whether the 62 women were from rural areas (many were in Wichita and Wyandotte County); whether it was possible these were application or administrative errors versus fraud (the 62 were believed to be fraud, while other older-age enrollments included errors); how the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) determines pregnancy-related fraud (claim reviews, medical record requests and provider confirmation, including instances of negative pregnancy tests or no confirming visits); whether the state can require proof of pregnancy (CMS requires acceptance of self-attestation unless there is contrary information, but staff may request additional information when circumstances raise doubt).
The Committee met on Jan. 20 and heard a presentation from Inspector General Steven Anderson about OIG’s expanded responsibilities and current workload. Anderson noted that while the Legislature approved funding last year to add nine FTE positions, those funds have not yet been received, limiting the office’s ability to expand audits and investigations. He outlined several ongoing and interim audits, including a Department for Children and Families (DCF)/Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) data-sharing audit to reduce Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) error rates, an audit of the Medicaid pregnant women eligibility group that identified 62 individuals who appear to have fraudulently applied, a review of pharmacy dispensing fees for over-the-counter (OTC) medications, and a follow-up audit of home- and community-based services (HCBS) waivers.
Committee members directed questions to Anderson regarding whether abuse by prescribers or pharmacies is being investigation (OIG is reviewing prescribing patterns and potential hotspots); whether there are technology software tools available to detect anomalies (such tools could significantly improve efficiency but would not replace staffing needs); and investigative capacity and staffing concerns (the office is operating with eight fewer staff than authorized).
The Committee met on Wednesday, Jan. 21, and heard a presentation from Kerrie Lonard, Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate (OCA), who reported the office received 377 formal complaints in calendar year 2025 involving 491 children, representing a 60 percent increase from 2024. She stated that agency conduct continues to be the most common area of concern and noted that individual complaints often involve multiple issue categories, including judicial process concerns and guardian ad litem representation. Lonard outlined OCA’s priority recommendations, including exploring access to crisis respite centers for foster youth, monitoring implementation of 2025 HB 2075 related to 24/7 DCF access for law enforcement referrals, and encouraging standardized workforce training and competency requirements. Committee members asked why complaints increased by 60 percent in 2025 (Lonard attributed the increase to greater public awareness through outreach and continued interest in system improvement) and about access to crisis respite centers (foster families currently can’t access crisis respite centers because those services are expected to be provided through the foster care system).
The Committee also heard a presentation from Haely Ordoyne, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, who described the ombudsman’s role as advocating for residents of adult care homes by bringing forward resident concerns and working toward resolutions consistent with resident preferences, emphasizing that resident consent is required before proceeding with complaint investigations. Ordoyne discussed complaint trends, resolution rates and systemic issues, including staffing shortages, reliance on agency staff and differences in regulatory oversight between federally regulated nursing facilities and state-licensed residential care settings. Committee members asked which long-term care facilities fall under the ombudsman’s jurisdiction (the program covers skilled nursing facilities, assisted living, home pluses and residential care communities, but not independent living or nursing facilities for mental health).
The Committee met again on Thursday, Jan. 22, and heard a presentation from Sec. Laura Howard focused on DCF’s prevention and protection work, which includes child and family well-being services that range from prevention and family supports to foster care, adoption and independent living. She emphasized the state’s increased focus on front-end prevention to reduce removals and reported that since referrals to Family First prevention supports began in 2019, DCF data show that about 90 percent of children served remain safely at home and do not enter foster care. She reported the state currently has just over 5,400 youths in foster care, representing roughly a 25 percent reduction since 2019. Howard updated the committee on progress on the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS), which is projected to launch in November 2028. Howard also provided an update on Governor Kelly’s January 2025 executive order (EO) related to preserving Social Security/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits for eligible youth in foster care rather than using those benefits to offset foster care costs and reported more than 600 Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts have been established for youth in foster care since the EO was issued. Committee members asked about ideas DCF has to improve the foster care system (Sec. Howard emphasized preventing entry through stronger family supports and described strategies for youth already in care, including expanding therapeutic foster care for higher-needs youth and adding a Medicaid-funded “behavior intervention” service delivered by trained non-professionals to address behavioral challenges, with particular attention to placement instability among older youth) and inquired about how children exit foster care (just over half of youth are reintegrated with families; others exit through adoption or age out via independent living.)
The Committee also requested an update on SNAP, including the payment error rate and federal data-sharing requests. Deputy Sec. Tanya Keys reported that the agency is working to reduce the SNAP payment error rate to less than 6 percent to avoid penalties under upcoming federal policy changes. Sec. Howard reported that approximately 186,000 Kansans receive SNAP benefits, totaling about $427 million annually, and explained that starting in federal fiscal year 2028 states could owe 5 to 15 percent of benefit costs depending on their error rate (zero if under 6 percent), with potential exposure as high as roughly $62 million annually at high error rates. Howard also updated the committee on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) notice in the Federal Register directing states to submit personal information on SNAP recipients, which DCF believed exceeded federal law. Several states have filed suit, (not including Kansas), and the case is still pending, but paused, after the USDA indicated it would issue a revised notice. She reported that DCF is currently working through the appeal process and awaiting revised federal guidance but noted the agency’s concern is legal liability for releasing large volumes of applicant/beneficiary household data outside allowable purposes.
On Wednesday, Jan. 21, the Committee heard a presentation from Sara Hortenstine, Executive Director, Kansas State Child Death Review Board (SCDRB), on findings from the Board’s 2025 Annual Report. Hortenstine explained that child deaths resulting from abuse or neglect declined steadily from 2019 through 2022 but increased by more than 180 percent in 2023. Over the past five reporting years, 35 children died because of child abuse homicide. She also reported that 80 percent of these cases involved caregivers with current or prior involvement with DCF, and 63 percent of caregivers had a documented history of substance abuse. In 17 percent of cases, the decedent or a sibling had previously been removed from the home, and 17 percent of cases involved an open DCF case at the time of death. Overall, 73 percent of children who died by homicide had prior child protective services involvement.
Based on these findings, the SCDRB concluded that additional child welfare system improvements are needed in Kansas and issued 35 public policy recommendations, including five priority recommendations:
Committee members asked questions about policies and practices governing placement decisions involving substance-using parents and caregivers (Hortenstine pointed to the need for more training on how to evaluate and screen substance-using parents); what is done to help parents resolve their substance-use or other issues (there is need for more staff in the child welfare system to ensure the safety and well-being of Kansas children, and Adrian’s Law now requires law enforcement and child protective services to actually see the child to make sure they’re safe when there are reports of abuse or neglect); and the timetable for investigating child deaths (the SCDRB is alerted of a child’s death when the death certificate is filed and an autopsy is completed. The Board starts requesting records on the child’s death almost immediately, but it sometimes takes six months to a year before those investigations are complete and we have the final reports that the Board can use to do a comprehensive deep dive into that child’s situation).
The Committee then heard a presentation on the work of the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight, which met four times during 2025. Key topics discussed throughout the year included police protective custody, mandatory reporting, family preservation and case management outcomes, Title IV-E funding, the CARE program, permanency planning, workforce capacity, and mental health services for foster youth. The Committee’s recommendations included further study of the CARE program appeal procedures, advancing legislation related to parent notification in abuse and neglect investigations, and requesting additional reporting on substance use treatment availability and outcomes for youth in care.
The Committee met on Tuesday, Jan. 20 and received a presentation regarding a July 2025 audit conducted by Legislative Post Audit (LPA) that examined whether the number of students counted as eligible for free lunch, which is used to calculate Kansas at-risk education funding (funding provided to school districts for students identified as at-risk), accurately reflects true eligibility. The audit found that while approximately 80 percent of free-lunch students are directly certified, a review estimated 54 to 72 percent of applicants were likely ineligible based on tax and wage data, though ineligibility does not imply fraud. After accounting for students who may have been eligible but did not apply, the audit estimated Kansas may have overpaid $38 to $53 million in at-risk funding in the 2023-24 school year. The LPA representative outlined several limitations, including federal restrictions on verification, timing alignment between applications and annual income data, and the fact that eligibility determinations are spread across multiple agencies and school districts. The audit recommended the Legislature consider whether free-lunch counts remain an appropriate measure for allocating at-risk funding. Committee members asked questions regarding the 30-operating-day carryover period into the next school year (LPA representative stated students may continue receiving free lunch while eligibility is reestablished) and community eligibility versus direct certification (community eligibility allows all students in a school to receive free lunch, but many eligible schools do not participate due to financial and programmatic requirements).
The Committee heard a presentation from Frank Harwood, Deputy Commissioner, Kansas State Department of Education, who provided context on federal requirements and administrative constraints within the National School Lunch Program. Harwood explained that Medicaid became a basis for direct certification beginning in the 2022-2023 school year, which drove the increase in direct certification from roughly 40 percent to 80 percent, mainly shifting families from application-based eligibility rather than increasing overall free-lunch participation. Harwood reviewed federal verification requirements, sharing that districts must make initial eligibility determinations based solely on application information, may verify only 3 percent of applications, and cannot independently verify income beyond documentation provided by families. He noted that verification is based on applications on file as of Oct. 1, while at-risk funding is based solely on eligibility as of Sept. 20, meaning changes later in the year do not affect at-risk allocations.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether Kansas could impose additional verification tied to at-risk funding (Harwood stated it cannot add verification requirements within the federal lunch program and would need a separate, state-funded system to do so) and how Kansas compares to other states’ at-risk funding models (other states use a variety of measures, including free lunch, free and reduced lunch, direct certification only or census poverty data).
On Thursday, Jan. 22, the Committee heard an overview of KanCare managed care rate-setting from Medicaid Director Christine Osterlund and KDHE’s contract actuarial firm, CBIZ Optumas. In response to committee questions about non-utilizers, Osterlund explained that capitation (or per person) rates are set by actuaries under federal requirements to be fair and protect access to care. The actuary said rate setting accounts for some members not using services in a given year. Based on recent KanCare data, about five percent of members do not use a service in a year. The actuary noted that state payments to health plans and health plan medical spending have been close (within 1 percent) in the years reviewed. Committee members asked questions regarding prior authorization and how it operates under managed care (Osterlund explained that the state sets benefit and prior authorization policy and the MCOs implement those policies) and whether other states use direct primary care models, which are an alternative health care model where patients pay a flat membership fee for unrestricted access to their primary care physician (actuary has heard of it in other states and offered to research how other states structure it and the pros and cons).
The Committee also heard from Dr. Carla Whiteside-Hicks, Director of Economic and Employment Services, DCF, who provided an overview of how Kansans apply for benefits; how the Kansas Eligibility Enforcement System (KEES) supports shared eligibility determination and master-level data across programs and agencies; and the verification and data exchange tools used to confirm identity, income and eligibility factors that vary by program. She distinguished payment errors from fraud, explaining that fraud is intentional misrepresentation, while many payment errors arise from allowable verification practices (e.g., client statement for rent) or income changes occurring between application and review points that are not automatically captured. She noted DCF is exploring technology options to receive more timely wage-change notifications between eligibility checkpoints.
Committee members asked questions regarding language access for applications and investigations (Whiteside-Hicks stated DCF uses a language line for applicant interviews and she will follow up on whether investigators are multilingual); whether specific immigration verification systems can interface with KEES (she said the IRS can, while SAVE is accessed by logging into the Department of Homeland Security system and is used at application and recertification); and why error rates persist if information is verified (for example, DCF formerly relied on client-stated rent amounts that can conflict with a lease during quality control review, and wage increases between application and interim reporting that are not required to be reported and are not automatically flagged). After the discussion, Rep. Susan Humphries requested a bill be introduced to transfer DCF SNAP fraud inspections and auditors to the Attorney General/Inspector General.
On Wednesday, Jan. 21, the Committee received an update from Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt regarding Kansas Department of Insurance (KDOI) regulatory highlights. She also referred to House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 5013, which was adopted by the House during the 2025 session, which asks Congress to give state insurance regulators authority over Medicare Advantage plans. The resolution would urge Congress to pass legislation that would allow states to enforce their own marketing and consumer disclosure laws and regulations on Medicare Advantage plans. HCR 5013 is set for hearing in the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on Jan. 26. She also stated that KDOI would be proposing a bill to expand the coverage of MRI and other diagnostic imaging breast cancer detection methods to match what is covered by the State Employee Health Plan.
On Tuesday, Jan. 20, the Committee reviewed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and 2027 budget summary for DCF, the Governor’s recommendations for DCF for FY 2026 and 2027, and a report comparing the Governor’s recommendations to the recommendations of the Special Committee on State Budget.
The Committee continued its hearing on the DCF budget on Wednesday, Jan. 21, with public testimony submitted by ten organizations in support of DCF’s budget requests.
On Thursday, Jan. 22, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2420, which would prohibit any school-based mental health service for a student, unless the student’s parent or guardian provides consent prior to the service. Notification would be required through direct verbal and written communication that outlines the service, and the parent or guardian provides consent through a written or electronic signature to authorize the service. If any school district employee violates provisions of the bill, the school district would be liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for each violation. The bill defines school-based mental health services as “any program, intervention or strategy applied in a school setting that is specifically designed to influence a student’s emotional, behavioral or social functioning.”
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents stated that the bill reinforces the principle that parents have primary responsibility and authority over decisions that affect their child’s education, health and well-being, and ensures that school-based mental health services are provided transparently, with full parental knowledge and written consent. Committee members asked questions regarding what happens if a student reports that a parent is being abusive (Rep. Megan Steele stated that teachers and school staff are mandatory reporters and taking that action is an emergency service rather than continual mental health support) and whether the bill would require parents to be notified when a counselor is invited into a classroom (Rep. Steele said no).
Neutral conferees pointed to several existing Kansas statutes that already establish when parental consent is required and when it is not, particularly in situations involving mental health crises or immediate safety concerns and expressed concerns that HB 2420 would create potential confusion for mental health professionals and schools that are already operating under established Kansas law.
Opponents argued the bill is duplicative and redundant since K.S.A. 77-6287, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, already protects parents and requires school-based providers to obtain parental consent for ongoing behavioral health treatment. They also expressed concerns that the bill does not account for “real-world circumstances” that require immediate intervention for urgent mental health situations when parents cannot be reached immediately, which may limit the response of school professionals to students who are emotional or distressed and also argued the bill creates additional barriers for students seeking mental health support that could discourage them from asking for help when needed. Opponents also argued that the definition of school-based mental health services in the bill is overly broad and should be revised to ensure that routine classroom management and de-escalation practices are not included. Finally, they asserted that the civil penalty included in the bill could have a chilling effect on school professionals who may not provide needed services in a timely manner because of concerns that their actions could later be viewed as requiring written parental consent.
On Thursday, Jan. 22, the Committee held a hearing on SB 339, which would require school districts to provide at least 30 minutes of daily recess time for students in kindergarten through grade five for each school day that exceeds five hours in duration. The bill would also state that school districts should consider providing at least 60 minutes of recess each school day.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents argued that recess is part of the school experience that supports children’s mental, emotional and physical well-being. They also asserted that regular recess improves attention and focus when students are in class, develops their social and emotional skills, reduces stress and anxiety, and improves overall behavior in school. One proponent noted that the bill would bring Kansas in line with states like Arkansas, Illinois and Washington that have already adopted similar policies. Opponents argued that local school boards are in the best position to determine instructional time and daily schedules that fit their unique circumstances and that this bill would remove this decision making from the local school.
Committee members asked about the current Kansas State Board of Education policy on recess (Beryl New, Legislative Liaison, Kansas State Board of Education, stated that the current policy is 30 minutes per day and that up to 15 minutes in the morning and up to 15 minutes in the afternoon can count as instructional time. It is not a mandate); and what it would mean if a school district wanted to offer more recess time (New stated that they would be restricted from doing that because it would count against their instructional time in the school term).
On Thursday and Friday, Jan. 22 and 23, the Subcommittee reviewed the FY 2026 and 2027 budget summaries, the Governor’s recommendations, and the Special Committee on State Budget comparison reports for the Office of the Child Advocate, DCF and KDHE-Health. Read all reports.
The Joint Committee met Friday, Jan. 23, to receive updates on long-term care oversight, Medicaid and managed care operations, workforce and capacity constraints, and emerging state policy considerations related to artificial intelligence in health care.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
The Committee heard testimony highlighting systemic issues affecting residents of adult care homes, including staffing shortages, reliance on contract and agency staff, and outdated staffing ratios that may not reflect current resident acuity. Additional concerns included facility-initiated discharges, particularly in state-licensed-only settings that lack appeal rights and mandatory Ombudsman notification; variation in memory care training standards; medication management practices; and limited transparency related to ownership and financial structures.
The Office of the Inspector General reported an increase in fraud, waste and abuse complaints and provided an overview of ongoing audit activity. Audit findings are shared with agencies to identify systemic issues and support corrective action, with additional investigation pursued as warranted.
The MCOs provided updates on member experience, provider relations and operational performance under KanCare 3.0. Presenters reported improvements in claims processing timelines, call center responsiveness, provider network size and satisfaction survey results. Committee members sought clarification on survey methodologies, provider/network growth trends, and access challenges, including dental services.
KDHE Sec. Janet Stanek updated the Committee on Kansas’ CMS-funded Rural Health Transformation Program funding, emphasizing the funding’s restricted use, reimbursement structure and extensive federal reporting requirements. All proposed initiatives were approved, focusing on prevention, primary care access, workforce development, value-based care, and data infrastructure. Sec. Stanek emphasized the need to demonstrate measurable outcomes to maintain funding.
State Medicaid Director Christine Osterlund outlined anticipated federal policy changes affecting eligibility reviews, immigration status determinations, hospital directed payments, retroactive eligibility and prior authorization. She highlighted uncertainty related to pending CMS guidance and explained the need for one-time system investments to meet new federal requirements.
KDADS leadership presented budget and operational updates across aging, disability and behavioral health programs. Updates included funding priorities for HCBS waivers, capital and staffing needs at state hospitals and continued reliance on contract staffing due to persistent workforce shortages. Survey and certification leadership described efforts to reduce inspection backlogs through expanded recruitment, noting challenges related to compensation, training and travel demands. Behavioral health updates included participation in a multi-state technical assistance initiative supporting Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) and progress toward an Institution for Mental Diseases/Serious Mental Illness 1115 waiver.
The Committee received a presentation on the Kansas Mental Health Consultation and Resource Network, including KS Kids MAP and Kansas Connecting Communities, which provide provider-facing psychiatric consultation, care coordination, and training to support pediatric and perinatal mental health care in primary care settings. Presenters reported that the programs have expanded access to timely care, particularly in rural areas.
Expert testimony addressed the growing use of artificial intelligence in health care, including administrative, clinical and consumer-facing applications. Presenters outlined emerging legal and policy challenges related to AI-driven chatbots and decision-support tools, particularly in mental health contexts, and described limitations of existing legal frameworks related to duty of care and accountability.
Before adjourning, Committee members discussed SB 327, which would remove the requirement that the Joint Committee meet when the Legislature is in regular session. The Joint Committee would still be required to meet at least once in January and once in April but would not be required to meet while the Legislature is in session. The committee would continue to maintain two consecutive meeting days in the third and fourth quarters.
The Kansas Health Institute supports effective policymaking through nonpartisan research, education and engagement. KHI believes evidence-based information, objective analysis and civil dialogue enable policy leaders to be champions for a healthier Kansas. Established in 1995 with a multiyear grant from the Kansas Health Foundation, KHI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization based in Topeka.
