20 Min Read
Feb 04, 2026
By
Linda J. Sheppard, J.D., Valentina Blanchard, M.P.H., M.S.W.,Katy Young
During week 3, legislators continued to work at a fast pace on various health-related issues, including the scope of practice of naturopathic doctors and optometrists, COVID-19 testing and treatment by pharmacists, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, regulation of electronic cigarettes, and oversight of Rural Health Transformation Program funds.
This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Kansas Legislature the week of Jan. 26.
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 Monday, Jan. 26, the Committee took final action on House Bill (HB) 2436, which would provide immunity from criminal prosecution for individuals who render aid, including administering an expired (up to 10 years) emergency opioid antagonist, to someone in need of medical assistance as a result of the use of a controlled substance. With no questions or discussion, the bill was passed favorably out of committee.
The Committee also worked 2025 HB 2218, which would amend the definition of psilocybin (a naturally occurring substance found in over 200 species of mushrooms and known for its hallucinogenic effects) to exempt certain pharmaceutical compositions of crystalline polymorph psilocybin and move those compositions to Schedule IV of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act. The bill would only take effect upon approval of the specific pharmaceutical product by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and subsequent certification by the Kansas Attorney General.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether FDA approval would automatically make the drug legal in Kanas (a representative of the Revisor’s Office stated no); if research is currently underway on the drug (FDA clinical trials are ongoing); and if growing mushrooms at home is legal under Kansas law (no). Chair Carpenter offered a technical amendment updating statutory references from 2024 to 2025 to reflect the bill carrying over from the prior calendar year and the bill was passed favorably out of committee, as amended.
On Tuesday, Jan. 27, the Committee held a hearing on 2025 HB 2366, which would expand the scope of practice for naturopathic doctors to include ordering and performing physical examinations, ordering diagnostic imaging, and prescribing and administering certain drugs, supplements and controlled substances, while prohibiting surgery, general anesthesia, obstetrics, and opioids and narcotics. The bill would also establish new prescribing requirements, clarify recordkeeping standards, modify licensure renewal provisions, expand disciplinary authority of the Board of Healing Arts and amend statutory definitions related to practitioners and minor office procedures.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents generally argued that the bill would modernize naturopathic practice, improve patient access, particularly in rural areas, and better align statutory authority with naturopathic education and training. Opponents generally argued that the bill blurs the distinction between naturopathic and conventional medicine and also lacks adequate safeguards and expanded malpractice coverage. They also noted differences in training standards.
Committee members asked proponents questions regarding whether pharmacology training is adequate for expanded prescribing authority (proponent stated naturopathic education includes extensive pharmacology and clinical training); why malpractice requirements are not included in the bill (proponent supported amending the bill to include malpractice requirements); how many states allow similar scope of practice (proponent reported 26 jurisdictions license naturopathic doctors, most with broader prescriptive authority than proposed in the bill); whether naturopaths serve Medicare and Medicaid patients (proponent stated they are not currently recognized Medicare providers and are not included in Kansas Medicaid); whether proponents would accept physician supervision for prescribing (proponent said independent prescribing is necessary due to philosophical and practical differences and cited lack of success with supervision models in other states); and whether the Kansas Medical Society would ever support independent prescribing authority (KMS representative said no).
On Thursday, Jan. 29, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Jeffrey Burns, Co-Director, University of Kansas Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (KU ADRC). Dr. Burns provided an overview of Alzheimer’s in Kansas, noting that Kansas faces a significant and growing public health challenge, with more than 54,000 Kansans currently living with Alzheimer’s disease and approximately 90,000 unpaid caregivers, contributing to $589 million in Medicare costs annually. He proposed a statewide brain health care model focused on earlier detection and emphasized that sustainable state investment in clinical infrastructure would be needed to expand the model, support prevention efforts and reduce long-term health care costs.
Committee members asked questions regarding the most difficult part of implementing the model (Dr. Burns noted that in addition to funding, the challenges of changing primary care workflows, educating providers and building the necessary infrastructure); whether people should be routinely screened at a certain age (not yet for asymptomatic individuals but that may change as preventive treatments develop); what policy changes would help support the model (better reimbursement for cognitive testing, chronic care management and caregiver support); and whether the committee is being asked to act this session (a funding proposal is still being developed, but is expected to be requested this year).
The Committee also held a hearing on 2025 HB 2157, which would add COVID-19 to the list of conditions for which pharmacists can provide point-of-care testing and treatment. Other conditions already within the scope of practice for pharmacists include influenza (flu), streptococcal pharyngitis (strep) and urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents stated the bill would improve timely access to care and emphasized that pharmacists have previously provided these services under federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act authority. Opponents expressed concerns about scope of practice expansion, patient safety, lack of sufficient malpractice coverage, and whether a statewide protocol could ultimately allow treatment of higher-risk patients.
Committee members asked questions regarding insurance coverage for services provided (proponent said the bill would not require insurance to pay for testing); the treatment protocol (protocol would be developed with physicians); whether protocols exist within the PREP Act (yes, but the PREP Act expires in 2029 but could be rescinded at any time); whether pharmacists are part of the health care stabilization fund (Revisor said no); and whether the bill would improve access to care in rural areas for high-risk individuals (KMS representative stated that any protocol developed would likely recommend the patient see a physician to manage care, which would make this bill unnecessary).
On Tuesday, Jan. 27, the Committee took final action on Senate Bill (SB) 327, which would remove the requirement that the Robert G. (Bob) Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight meet in specific months. The bill was amended to shift specified meeting months to quarterly requirements, and the first and second quarter meetings would be for one day only, while the third and fourth quarter meetings would remain as two-day meetings. The bill was passed favorably out of committee, as amended.
On Wednesday, Jan. 28, the Committee held a hearing on SB 328, which would allow pharmacists to distribute epinephrine delivery systems to schools for inclusions in emergency medicine kits and update statutory definitions, allowing for newer FDA-approved delivery methods including nasal epinephrine.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents asserted the bill would improve student safety by modernizing statutory language and emphasized that it aligns Kansas law with current science, empowers responders, such as teachers and coaches, who may hesitate to use needles, and protects school budgets by avoiding restrictive language that could limit competition and increase costs. No neutral or opponent testimony was submitted. Committee members asked how the cost of nasal epinephrine compares to auto-injectors and a representative of the Kansas School Nurses Organization stated that the manufacturer of nasal epinephrine has a program for schools and is generally less expensive than EpiPens for consumers.
The Committee also discussed SB 322, which would remove the authority of the State Board of Pharmacy to expand, by rules and regulations, the categories of individuals who may access the Kansas prescription monitoring program database (K-TRACS). The Committee noted that the bill originated in the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations and agreed to review the Joint Committee’s minutes and documents prior to working the bill.
On Thursday, the Committee held a hearing on 2025 HB 2223, which would amend statutes governing optometry scope of practice and credentialing. The bill specifies procedures included and excluded from optometry practice, removes certain drug definitions and updates continuing education requirements and the Board of Examiner’s authority. HB 2223 passed the House last year with a 97-24 vote.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents stated the bill would modernize optometry statues to reflect advancements in education and technology, improve workforce retention and increase access to care. A representative of the Kansas Optometric Association (KOA) also reported on conversations held since last year’s hearing, including proposed amendments to create an interprofessional advisory committee, including optometrists performing procedures outlined in the bill, in the Health Care Stabilization Fund and agreement to hold optometrists to the same standard of care for the procedures authorized in the bill. While opponents offered support for the amendments outlined by the proponents, they argued the bill allows non-physicians to independently perform procedures that overlap with the practice of medicine and raised patient safety concerns but also offered support for the amendments outlined by the proponents.
Committee members asked questions regarding the procedures listed in the bill (KOA representative said the listed procedures have not changed from bills previously introduced); what safeguards exist to prevent future additions without agreement (new technologies would be reviewed by the advisory committee and could only be added through rules and regulations if within existing scope); the validity of the safety data cited from other states (KMS representative said they do not dispute the data but emphasized broader concerns about appropriateness of care, diagnosis and follow-up); and whether similar procedures are allowed in other states (Kansas Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons representative said some procedures are allowed elsewhere, but fewer states authorize the full scope identified in the bill).
On Monday, Jan. 26, the Committee heard a presentation on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) from Rebecca Gerhardt , Director of Permanency and Licensing, Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF). Gerhardt explained that the ICPC is a uniform legal agreement adopted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to govern the placement of children across state lines. The compact establishes procedures to ensure that children placed out of state receive the same protections and services they would receive in their home state, clarifies jurisdiction and financial responsibility, and creates a standardized communication process between states. Kansas adopted the ICPC in 1976, and most statutory terminology and provisions have remained unchanged since that time.
Gerhardt described how the ICPC process works in practice, including case manager preparation of placement packets; home studies and background checks conducted by the receiving state; receiving-state approval or denial of the proposed placement; and ongoing supervision and reporting requirements throughout the duration of the placement. She outlined the responsibilities of both sending and receiving states and reviewed timelines associated with different ICPC regulations, including Regulation 2 (standard placements) and Regulation 7 (expedited placements for certain relatives in emergency or dependency situations, with accelerated timelines). Gerhardt also discussed the use of the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise (NIECE) system in Kansas, which facilitates centralized, secure communication between states and is required for all states by 2027 under the federal Family First Prevention Services Act.
The presentation addressed circumstances in which the ICPC applies and does not apply. ICPC governs interstate adoptions, placements in licensed or approved foster homes, court- or agency-ordered placements with relatives or non-related kin, and placements in group homes or residential centers. Gerhardt explained that ICPC may also apply when a court or public child welfare agency seeks to place a child with an out-of-state parent and requests an evaluation of parental fitness or supervision of the placement. However, under a Kansas Court of Appeals decision, ICPC generally does not apply to placements with an out-of-state parent, even following a prior ICPC denial, unless the court specifically orders the ICPC process to proceed. Gerhardt also noted that ICPC does not apply to parent-initiated placements with certain relatives, placements in medical or psychiatric facilities or boarding schools, or placements involving adults. She highlighted Kansas-specific considerations, including a Missouri-Kansas border agreement that allows for expedited kin and non-related kin placements within 60 miles of the state line. Gerhardt also noted that a bill is being introduced to allow Kansas to adopt the updated interstate compact and participate in future rulemaking, while aligning Kansas law with surrounding states that have already adopted the revised compact.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether most interstate placements involve kinship or non-related kin placements (Gerhardt stated most outgoing placements likely involve relatives or non-related kin, though she noted she would need to confirm exact figures and offered to follow up with the committee); whether children experience delays in receiving school and medical records when moving across state lines (educational and medical information is included in the ICPC packet and DCF has not experienced the same delays with interstate transfers that sometimes occur between Kansas school districts); how non-related kin are defined in practice (adults within a child’s extended relational network, such as teachers, coaches, babysitters or other caregivers with an established relationship); whether the 60-day home study timeline under Regulation 2 could be shortened (the timeframe is established by the compact but actual completion times may be shorter); if foster care medical coverage follows children placed out of state (Kansas provides foster care medical coverage to children placed in Kansas and Gerhardt will confirm if other states do the same); whether ICPC applies only to placement decisions and not court jurisdiction (ICPC governs placement, while the sending state retains court jurisdiction until both states concur on closure); why concurrence is required to close an ICPC case (concurrence ensures mutual agreement that supervision is no longer necessary); and how visitation and transportation are handled across state lines (time-limited visits may occur without triggering ICPC requirements with transportation arranged by the sending state, using standard foster care resources).
On Tuesday, Jan. 27, the Committee heard a presentation from Medicaid Inspector General Steve Anderson about the Office of the Inspector General’s expanded responsibilities, current workload and staffing challenges, like his presentations during week 1 and week 2 to various health committees. He also reported preliminary findings for the ongoing performance audit of the home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver program and noted that because required functional assessments were not being completed timely for waiver participants, they may have no longer qualified for the waiver and capitation payments should have been stopped. Committee members asked questions regarding whether people removed from HCBS waivers would end up institutionalized (Anderson said the individuals identified without updated assessments are not using waiver services or are unreachable, indicating they likely do not need that level of care); the types of fraud complaints the office receives (primarily eligibility fraud, but also provider overbilling, identity theft and misuse of Medicaid cards); and who authorizes the audits (the office develops an annual risk-based audit plan but also considers legislative requests).
On Thursday, Jan. 29, the Committee heard a presentation from Christine Osterlund, Deputy Secretary of Agency Integration at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and Kansas State Medicaid Director, on Medicaid data sharing and eligibility verification. Osterlund reviewed the Medicaid electronic data matching processes used at application and renewal and explained that federal rules generally require the agency to attempt electronic verification before requesting documentation. She described Kansas’ income verification approach and the “reasonable compatibility” threshold, including the two-step logic used at renewals (threshold test plus a comparison to previously verified income, with documentation requested if variance exceeds 20 percent). She also described an upcoming change in which Kansas will obtain Equifax wage data through a federal “hub” rather than contracting directly with Equifax, citing significant per-transaction cost reductions and projected savings.
Committee members asked questions regarding self-attestation (Osterlund stated self-attestation is accepted if other information supports it but discrepancies such as returned mail trigger a request for documentation); how unemployment of a parent impacts Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) eligibility for a child (either unemployment or income reduction can move children from CHIP to Medicaid but documentation is required for this shift); whether tips will be counted as income now that they are not taxed (KDHE will seek guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but the assumption is that they would not be counted if not reflected in pay stubs/tax returns); the number of state employees performing eligibility work (about 330 state staff, 120 Conduent staff); why Kansas Medicaid numbers are going down (declines are common with a stable economy and, after the unwinding, Kansas ended below projected enrollment and continues to trend slightly down, but not significantly); and the timeline from application to approval/denial of benefits (family medical averages a little over 20 days; long-term care/elderly and disabled about 32 days; presumptive disability has a 90-day threshold).
The Committee also heard a presentation from Marc Altenbernt, General Counsel, DCF, regarding the Fraud Investigations Unit. Altenbernt noted that a bill proposed during the Welfare Reform Committee meeting on Jan. 22 that would move DCF’s investigators under the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) would not be permitted under federal requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child care, which require the administering agency (DCF) to maintain a dedicated investigative unit. He stated that non-compliance could jeopardize federal funding and create significant financial risks.
Committee members asked questions regarding the differences between DCF’s fraud reporting and OIG claims of much larger fraud and abuse (Altenbernt stated DCF follows a tip-driven investigative process and pursues recovery administratively or refers to law enforcement and has not seen evidence of millions of dollars in fraud) and which cases are referred to the District Attorney (DCF refers cases with evidence sufficient for “beyond a reasonable doubt,” around $5,000 generally).
On Tuesday, Jan. 27, the Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 355, which would regulate the manufacture, wholesale and distribution of electronic cigarettes in Kansas by establishing licensure requirements for electronic cigarette manufacturers and expanding existing provisions of the Kansas Cigarette and Tobacco Products Act to more fully cover electronic cigarettes. The bill would create a new annual manufacturer license with a $500 fee and require the Kansas Department of Revenue to publish licensing information, including lists of entities with suspended or revoked licenses. The bill’s provisions would take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted.
Read testimony submitted by all conferees.
Proponents stated the bill would close regulatory gaps in the electronic cigarette supply chain, improve enforcement and tax compliance, and reduce the availability of illicit and unregulated vape products, particularly those manufactured overseas. They also emphasized that the bill mirrors the existing tobacco licensing framework and would create a more transparent and enforceable system without banning legal products. Opponents argued that the bill would disproportionately harm small, independent businesses by limiting access to products through existing distribution channels, while having limited impact on foreign manufacturers. They also expressed concerns that the proposed licensing structure could consolidate the market in favor of large tobacco companies and reduce consumer access to alternative nicotine products and further stated that electronic cigarette retailers are already subject to taxation and inspection requirements under existing law, including a tax on e-liquid and inspections conducted by the Kansas Alcoholic Beverage Control. A neutral conferee stated a preference for regulation over prohibition and emphasizing transparency around product ingredients.
Committee members asked questions regarding whether the $500 fee would apply per retail location or per manufacturer (proponents clarified the bill would require a single annual license per manufacturer, not per retailer); youth access to unregulated electronic cigarette products manufactured overseas with potentially unknown ingredients (the bill is intended to address unregulated products by strengthening oversight and enforcement); how products with pending FDA approval would be treated and if approval is required for state licensure (only a small number of products have received FDA authorization and SB 355 relies on state licensure rather than federal enforcement alone); how the bill would interact with existing tax and compliance requirements, including the current e-liquid tax (retailers are already subject to taxation and record-keeping requirements and the bill would not change those obligations); whether opponents sell FDA-authorized products and how the bill would affect small, independent businesses (opponents said that most FDA-authorized products are controlled by large tobacco companies and the bill would disadvantage small retailers by limiting access to products through existing distribution channels and accelerating market consolidation); and the contents of disposable products (disposable products are typically manufactured overseas and opponents stated they prefer selling refillable devices with bottled e-liquid).
On Thursday, Jan. 29, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2555, which would require that any grant applications for funding through the federal Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) be reviewed by the Kansas Rural Health Innovation Alliance and then presented to the State Finance Council at a meeting of the Council. The bill would also require information on expenditures through the program to be presented at a Council meeting. Any information provided to the Council would also be required to be presented and provided to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Ways and Means during the regular legislative session and to the Legislative Budget Committee when the Legislature is not in regular session. The bill would require the Governor to designate who would present and provide the information as required.
Sec. Janet Stanek, KDHE, spoke in support of the bill and stated that the bill establishes clear expectations for legislative visibility into the RHTP, including grant applications, expenditures and required reporting associated with this federal funding. She also noted that KDHE supports the bill’s intent to strengthen transparency, accountability and communication between the executive branch and the Legislature regarding this “significant federal investment in rural health across Kansas.” Opponent written-only testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Academy of Family Physicians (KAFP), who noted that KAFP is a member of the Rural Health Innovation Alliance, and expressed concerns that the bill could inadvertently undo all of the time and effort that the Alliance members, KDHE and KDADS had spent on the guidelines approved in the grant.
The Committee members engaged in a discussion with Sec. Stanek regarding the various requirements established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to how the state may implement its approved RHTP plans and priorities, the possibility of changes or adjustments to those plans and the importance of keeping the Legislature as involved as possible, as outlined in the bill.
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.
