Week 4 of the 2026 Session

Week 4 opened the session’s second month, with legislators addressing various health-related issues, including prescribing of non-opioid prescription drugs, Home Plus facilities capacity, background checks for advance practice registered nurses and nurse anesthetists, workforce licensure compacts, the authority of the Kansas State Board of Nursing, student cell phone use, optometrists’ scope of practice, Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility update, foster home licensing and child abuse reporting.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Kansas Legislature the week of Feb. 2.

On Monday, Feb. 2, the Governor’s Office released the monthly revenue report, which showed total tax collections for January of $988.2 million, $12.2 million above the estimate.

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

On Monday, Feb. 2, the Committee held a hearing on House Bill (HB) 2509, which would amend the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act to include all advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in the definition of health care provider, thereby requiring participation in the Health Care Stabilization Fund.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated the bill would add the remaining APRN categories not currently required to participate in the Fund and emphasized the Fund’s role in ensuring access to care, maintaining affordable malpractice coverage and upholding patient protections. Opponents cited concerns about limited insurer participation in the Fund, potential increases in malpractice costs and past difficulties nurse midwives have experienced obtaining coverage when they were added to the Fund. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of the Fund, who stated there are approximately 32 insurers that could potentially write professional liability coverage for APRNs due to their relatively low risk profile and participation in the Fund could lower premiums for APRNS already carrying $1 million in coverage.

Committee members asked questions regarding how surcharge rates are set and whether APRNs would face uniform costs (representative of the Kansas Medical Society stated rates vary based on practice risk and exposure and would likely differ among APRN specialties); whether similar funds exist in other states (fewer than 10 states have similar funds); how many insurers currently write policies for APRNs within the Fund versus outside (two within, five to six outside); and current premium costs (APRNs currently pay approximately $1,300 annually for $1 million in coverage).

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2364, which would prohibit Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the State Employee Health Plan from favoring opioid medications over non-opioid prescription drugs for the treatment of acute pain. The bill would prevent insurers from requiring patients to try opioids first, imposing more restrictive authorization requirements on non-opioids or placing non-opioid medications on higher cost-sharing tiers.

Proponents stated the bill would remove insurance barriers to safer pain management options, reduce unnecessary opioid exposure and empower clinicians to prescribe non-opioid treatments based on medical judgement. There was no opponent or neutral testimony submitted. Committee members asked questions regarding whether the bill applies to private commercial insurance plans (Revisor said no); and whether the bill applies to chronic pain treatment (bill is intended for moderate to severe acute pain).

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2520, which would amend the definition of a Home Plus facility to increase the maximum number of residents from 12 to 16. The bill would allow a residence or facility caring for up to 16 unrelated individuals to continue operating under the Home Plus licensure category, effective July 1, 2026.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated the Home Plus model provides more personal, home-like care, particularly for individuals with dementia, and that rising costs related to staffing, insurance and inflation have made the 12-resident cap increasingly unsustainable and have led some Home Plus facilities to close. Opponents argued that increasing the cap to 16 would undermine the integrity of the Home Plus model by allowing more residents without requiring additional staffing or regulatory safeguards. Neutral conferees stated the Home Plus model fills an important role in the state’s long-term care continuum but raised concerns about life safety requirements, staffing pressures and data isolation.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether additional staff would be added (proponent said staffing is based on resident acuity and that an additional caregiver would be added if capacity increased); whether Home Plus facilities are more prevalent in rural areas (the model is particularly valuable in rural communities that cannot support larger facilities); the occurrence of involuntary discharges (involuntary discharges are rare and typically occur only when residents require a higher level of care); whether increasing capacity would change regulatory oversight (Home Plus is the only adult care category with a fixed resident cap and the bill would not alter other regulatory requirements); whether guardrails such as staffing ratios or transparency requirements could address staffing concerns (Long-Term Care Ombudsman stated she would be open to changes that establish enforceable staffing standards); and whether the Home Plus model could help address care deserts (representative of LeadingAge Kansas stated the model has been one of the fastest-growing options but regulatory clarity is needed).

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2478, which would require APRNs and registered nurse anesthetists to submit fingerprints and undergo state and national criminal history record checks as part of licensure through the Kansas State Board of Nursing. Proponent testimony was presented by a representative of the Kansas State Board of Nursing who stated the bill would codify existing practice and allow the Board to conduct national background checks, improving patient safety and aligning APRN licensure with other nursing licenses. No opponent or neutral testimony was presented.

Committee members asked questions regarding why background checks are conducted by the Board rather than employers (licensure decisions require criminal history review and employers rely on the Board to do the checks before nurses are licensed); whether the FBI requested the statutory change (yes, this was a post audit request from the FBI); and whether national checks are already used for other nurses (they are required under the nurse licensure compact). The Committee closed the hearing and passed the bill favorably out of committee.

On Wednesday, Feb. 4, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2533, which would enact the occupational therapy licensure compact to allow occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants to practice across state lines.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated the compact would reduce barriers to licensure, improve workforce mobility and increase access to occupational therapy services, particularly in rural and underserved areas. There was no opponent or neutral testimony submitted. Committee members asked questions regarding whether the fiscal note indicating one additional full-time equivalent position and approximately $65,500 in costs would be built into the bill (Revisor said compact language typically does not include funding provisions); whether the costs would be paid with State General Fund (SGF) dollars (a representative of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce said the costs would be paid from licensing fee funds, not SGF); and whether background check data sharing would create administrative burdens (recent FBI approval to share data with KBI should expedite processing). The Committee adopted a technical amendment clarifying language related to executive committee delegates and passed the bill favorably out of committee, as amended.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2534, which would enact the respiratory care interstate compact to allow respiratory therapists to practice across state lines.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated the respiratory care compact would mirror the benefits of other health care licensure compacts by improving workforce mobility, increasing access to care and reducing barriers for military families. They also offered several technical amendments to ensure compact language matched language adopted in other states. There was no opponent or neutral testimony submitted. Committee members asked whether licensees would pay fees to both their home state and the compact (the Revisor explained licensees would pay home state licensure fees and may also pay a compact privilege fee). The Committee adopted the proposed technical amendments and passed the bill favorably out of committee, as amended.

On Thursday, Feb. 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2528, which would make changes to the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Kansas State Board of Nursing. The bill would void certain disciplinary actions taken between January 2005 and July 2026 related to non-practice violations; revise definitions of unprofessional conduct; establish new licensure renewal notice requirements and grace periods; limit disciplinary authority related to late renewals; require investigations to be closed within one year; modify fine authority and standards of proof; mandate Senate confirmation of board members; and create protections against retaliation, including a private cause of action.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents stated the bill would distinguish licensure matters related to late renewals and paperwork errors from disciplinary actions, create clearer timelines and standards for investigations, and help retain nurses in the workforce while maintaining accountability for patient safety-related violations. Opponents argued the bill would significantly limit the Board’s disciplinary authority, raise concerns about public protection, create challenges for licensure oversight, does not distinguish between licensure issues and disciplinary matters, and could affect how information is shared with national databases and other states. There was no neutral testimony submitted.

Committee members asked questions regarding how disciplinary actions are reported and the consequences of being labeled unprofessional conduct (proponents said such actions are reportable and can affect future employment); whether nurses are allowed to continue working during investigations (some nurses are able to work while investigations are pending); and how the proposed timelines in the bill would change current practice (defined timelines would improve predictability and fairness).

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

On Monday, Feb. 2, the Committee held a confirmation hearing for Christi Smith, the nominee for Director of the Office of Early Childhood. Committee members asked questions regarding how child care providers might navigate immunization-related concerns and parental preferences (Smith stated child care providers should be transparent with parents, encourage conversations before enrollment and advocate for the health and safety of children in group care and noted that her role is to execute the law as passed); how Kansas’ Office of Early Childhood structure compares to other states (other states’ systems are often fragmented and focused on funding streams, while Kansas has an opportunity to focus on function, eliminate workflow gaps between agencies and reduce fragmentation); and who would have authority to close a child care facility during a communicable disease outbreak (child care providers are business owners who can choose to close or pause operations but Smith also noted she was not yet prepared to describe the full governmental decision-making process). The Committee moved to approve and consent to Smith’s nomination, and it will now move to the full Senate.

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, the Committee worked Senate Bill (SB) 328, which would allow pharmacists to distribute epinephrine delivery systems to schools for inclusion in emergency medicine kits and update statutory definitions, allowing for newer FDA-approved delivery methods including nasal epinephrine. The Committee recommended the bill be passed and placed on the Consent Calendar.

The Committee also worked 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). Sen. Caryn Tyson explained the bill was intended to restrict access to a database that contains extensive and sensitive information and that access should be limited to individuals on an approved list. The Committee recommended the bill be passed and placed on the Consent Calendar.

On Wednesday, Feb. 4, the Committee worked 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. The Committee considered several amendments offered by Sen. William Clifford, who raised concerns about patient safety and the appropriateness of certain procedures within the optometry scope of practice, and then discussed training requirements, standards of care, malpractice risk, the frequency of procedures in practice and how similar issues are handled in other states. An amendment to remove the procedure of laser peripheral iridotomy from the included procedures was adopted.

On Thursday, Feb. 5, the Committee continued working HB 2223, and adopted an amendment requiring temporary data collection and public reporting related to optometry procedures authorized under the bill and also adopted a technical amendment to clarify credentialing requirements and ensure all optometrists performing procedures under the bill would be required to obtain appropriate credentials, either through post-2020 educational training or completion of a certification program, and to ensure consistent application of professional liability and Health Care Stabilization Fund participation requirements. The Committee then passed the bill favorably out of committee, as amended.

The Committee also held a hearing on SB 271, which would permanently update statutes governing CHIP to remove outdated statutory references tying CHIP eligibility to the 2008 federal poverty level, align state law with current federal regulations and eliminate provisions related to waiting periods and lockout periods that are no longer permitted under federal law.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Christine Osterlund, Deputy Secretary of Agency Integration and Medicaid Director, and Heather Braum, Senior Policy Advisor, Kansas Action for Children, stated the bill would correct a longstanding statutory issue that has required annual budget provisos to maintain intended eligibility levels. Committee members asked questions regarding current CHIP enrollment levels and trends (Osterlund reported enrollment has stabilized at approximately 57,000 children); how federal matching rates compare to Medicaid (CHIP receives a higher federal match); and how eligibility, renewals and premium non-payment are handled under current federal rules (children cannot be disenrolled for nonpayment during the 12-month eligibility period). The Committee took no action on the bill.

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

On Monday, Feb. 2, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2524, which would amend the licensure requirements for family foster homes and require the Secretary of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) to grant a license or allow maintenance of an existing license of a family foster home when an applicant meets certain requirements of the bill. These would include an applicant who would otherwise qualify, except there is a resident of the home who was previously a child in the Secretary’s custody, is between 18 and 26 years old, and either maintains a residence in or was legally adopted by someone in that home. The Secretary could grant licenses when the resident is older than 26 but otherwise meets other provisions of the bill. The bill would also create an appeal process allowing applicants or licensees to request the Secretary’s review if a license is denied or not maintained, with the Secretary’s decision being final.

A representative of the Office of Revisor of Statutes explained that current law prohibits DCF from granting or maintaining a family foster home license if the applicant, or an individual residing in or employed by the home, has certain adjudications or convictions, including person felonies, crimes against a person, crimes involving family relationships or children, substantiated abuse or neglect, termination of parental rights, or juvenile adjudications that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. She also explained that the bill would create limited exceptions to these prohibitions. Committee members asked whether similar legislation had been considered previously and about differences between prior iterations and the current bill and the Revisor representative confirmed that related legislation was considered in 2021 HB 2149, portions of which were incorporated into current statute through a conference committee report. Committee members also asked about statutory language related to individuals with infectious or contagious diseases and the Revisor representative stated that language already exists in current law and will follow-up to provide it for the committee.

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.

Proponents, including Kerri Lonard, the Child Advocate, stated that current licensure restrictions can force foster families to choose between maintaining licensure and continuing to provide a home for youth who age out of foster care, particularly youth with juvenile justice involvement or behavioral health needs. They asserted that the bill would support permanency and continuity of care while maintaining existing safety standards. Rebecca Gerhardt, Director of Permanency and Licensing, DCF, testified in support of the bill but requested amendments to clarify the distinction between mandatory continuation of an existing license and discretionary issuance of a new license. There was no opponent or neutral testimony presented.

Committee members asked questions regarding how these potential circumstances are explained to foster parents and whether DCF has been aware of issues in which families are disqualified when a foster child with a juvenile offense ages out of foster care (Gerhardt stated that foster parents are informed of licensure requirements during the licensing process and that DCF was aware of the disqualification issue); and what alternatives are available to children aging out of foster care, including group homes (a representative of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas shared that Kansas has taken steps as a kin-first state, that kinship placements may be considered as next-best alternatives, and that independent living facilities exist throughout the state).

The Committee also worked 2025 Substitute for HB 2132, which passed out of committee on March 7, 2025, but was withdrawn from the Calendar and rereferred to the committee on Jan. 28, 2026. The bill would amend the definition of “neglect” in the Revised Code for Care of Children (CINC Code) and would make changes concerning when the State may remove a child from the child’s home under the CINC Code. The Committee recommended a second substitute bill incorporating provisions replacing the word “shall” with “may” with respect to when a law enforcement officer takes a child under 18 years of age into custody and passed the second substitute bill favorably out of committee.

On Tuesday, Feb. 3, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2557, which would enact the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) by repealing the existing compact language and replacing it with the updated 2007 version.

Proponents, including DCF and the Child Advocate, stated that adopting the revised ICPC would modernize outdated statutory language, improve consistency and timeliness in interstate placements, and reduce delays caused by inconsistent interpretation across states. There was no opponent or neutral testimony presented.

Committee members asked questions regarding how the revised compact would operate prior to adoption by the 35th state and whether Kansas would continue to use existing rules during the transition period (Rebecca Gerhardt, DCF, responded that Kansas would operate under the revised compact language while continuing to rely on existing rules and procedures until the interstate commission is formed and adopts new rules); whether parents are able to visit children placed in other states (placement decisions consider reunification viability and placements creating significant barriers to reintegration are generally avoided when reunification remains an option); and the primary advantage of adopting the revised language (Lonard explained that clear and consistent definitions are critical when working across states and help reduce inconsistent interpretation and delays). The Committee subsequently worked the bill on Feb. 4 and passed it favorably out of committee.

On Wednesday, Feb. 4, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2589, which would prohibit the Secretary of DCF from accepting anonymous reports of child abuse or neglect, require the Secretary to inform anonymous reporters of this prohibition and other pertinent information regarding reporting child abuse and neglect, and allow law enforcement agencies to accept anonymous reports of child abuse or neglect.

Proponents, including Rep. Timothy Johnson, Rep. David Buehler and DCF, stated that unsubstantiated and anonymous claims can contribute to false or retaliatory reports, misuse of public resources, and disproportionate impacts on minority families. The positive impacts of the bill include improved information about the child’s family, safety and well-being, and the opportunity to follow-up with the reporter if needed. Tanya Keys, Deputy Secretary, DCF, testified in support of the bill but raised concerns about the bill’s prohibition on transmitting reports. She suggested that technical clarification or amendments may be needed to ensure that DCF can continue to transmit information to law enforcement when necessary to address child safety concerns.

Neutral testimony was provided by Lonard and a representative of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police (KACP). Lonard stated that 30 states allow some form of anonymous reporting and also expressed support for amendments suggested by DCF. She further recommended an amendment to include a data reporting requirement for DCF, and potentially law enforcement, to evaluate the impact of the policy change, including referrals to law enforcement and any correlation with child safety outcomes. The KACP representative raised concerns about limiting the use of anonymous information, noting that anonymous tips can still have investigatory value and may be important in identifying potential child safety concerns. He described how such information is currently used in law enforcement practice and questioned how confidentiality provisions related to reporter information would apply to law enforcement records. He also cautioned against fully eliminating anonymous reporting pathways and encouraged further consideration of the bill language to ensure law enforcement retains the ability to act on information necessary to protect children.

Committee members asked questions regarding the annual volume of hotline calls, whether false or retaliatory reports are tracked, and whether reports are tracked by individual children. Keys explained that approximately 70,000 reports of child abuse or neglect are received annually, that reports can be duplicated to avoid opening multiple cases for the same situation, and that approximately 53 percent of reports are assigned for investigation. She stated that DCF does not currently categorize reports by motive, such as custody disputes, but does use a framework to identify types of abuse.

House Committee on Education
(Rep. Susan Estes, Chair)

On Friday, Feb. 6, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2421, which would prohibit students that are attending public elementary and secondary schools, as well as accredited nonpublic schools, from using or accessing personal electronic communication devices during normal school hours, including in the classroom, passing periods and lunch time. However, the bill would outline exceptions to this policy if the device is required for a student’s individualized education program or “504 plan.” The bill would require that all personal electronic communication devices be turned off and securely locked or stowed away in a secure lockable pouch, phone locker or other inaccessible location. The bill would prohibit school district employees from privately or directly communicating with any student with social media for official school purposes. However, the bill would allow a school district or governing authority to approve a social media platform for official school purposes, except for communicating with students.

Proponents, including Rep. Kristey Williams and Rep. Angela Martinez, stated the bill allows students to gain an education without the interference of digital devices, will improve student academic outcomes and their long-term mental health, and will restore classrooms as places for learning, focus and healthy social development. Opponents argued that many school districts have already implemented cell phone restrictions tailored to the needs of their schools and communities and this bill removes local control from those districts and school boards. They also argued that the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on school districts by requiring them to provide secure and inaccessible storage such as locked phone pouches or phone lockers.

Neutral testimony was presented by students who agree that restrictions on phones are needed but object to the level of restriction stated in the bill because some students need access to their phones before the end of the school day to manage after school job responsibilities or are concerned about receiving timely notice of family emergencies. Dr. Frank Harwood, Kansas State Department of Education, reported that the Board of Education conducted a survey to determine how many school districts have already implemented cell phone policies and received a response from about 90 percent of the districts. He stated the full results of that survey will be shared with the Committee during the week of Feb. 9 but highlighted that most districts reported they already have a district-wide policy with some differences based on grade, with more restrictive policies for lower grades, and some districts allowing students to access their phones during lunch or passing periods. About a quarter of them do not have specific storage requirements but just prohibit the students from using their phones during class periods.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether the bill applies to students over the age of 18 or who are emancipated (representative of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes stated the bill makes no distinction for minors versus over 18 but the policy applies to the school building and the students in class during normal school hours); and how many districts provide electronic devices, such as computers or IPads for student use (Dr. Harwood stated that a district-owned device survey was recently completed and the results of that survey will be presented to the Board later this month and can also be shared with the Committee at that time).

Other Bills With Action During Week 4

HB 2420, as amended, would prohibit school districts from providing any school-based mental health service to a student without first notifying and obtaining written consent from a student’s parent or the person acting as parent, and would impose a civil penalty for violations. The bill defines “school-based mental health service” as programs, interventions or strategies to influence or address a student’s emotional, behavioral or social functioning, excluding universal interventions that are provided to multiple students and one-time emergency or initial intervention. The bill was passed, as amended, by the House Committee on Education on Feb. 3.

HB 2489 would require the State Board of Education to develop guidance for school districts for age-appropriate instruction on the prevention of abuse and addiction to fentanyl and other opioids. Each local school district would be required to develop fentanyl abuse programs based on the guidance received from the State Board. The bill would also require each school district to maintain a stock supply of naloxone and require each school district to establish policies and procedures for its use. The bill would also allow the Attorney General to award grants to school districts for the purchase of stock supplies of naloxone. A hearing was held in the House Committee on Education on Feb. 5.

HB 2551 would enact the Kansas Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization Act and would require a pharmacy services administrative organization (PSAO) that negotiates with a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) or a third-party payer on behalf of a pharmacy in Kansas to obtain a license from the Department of Insurance before operating. A PSAO would be required to provide a written disclosure of ownership to the Department prior to licensure and to any independent pharmacy, PBM or third-party payer before entering into a contract. The bill would also establish requirements for contracts between PSAOs and independent pharmacies. A hearing was held in the House Committee on Insurance on Feb. 2.

SB 330 would create the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorizations Act and would become a part of the Health Maintenance Organization Act. Starting no later than Jan. 1, 2027, a utilization review entity would accept and respond to prior authorization requests under a pharmacy benefit through a secure electronic transmission and use the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs script standard for electronic prior authorization transactions. The bill would also limit which procedures are not subject to prior authorization. A utilization review entity could not retroactively deny prior authorizations for a covered health care service unless the prior authorization was based on fraudulent information provided by an enrollee or the enrollee’s health care provider. The bill also details the appeal rights for prior authorization requests. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance on Feb. 4.

SB 368 would enact the Health Care Sharing Ministries Tax Deduction Act that would allow taxpayers to subtract the amount of contributions to a health care sharing ministry from income for Kansas income tax purposes beginning in tax year 2027. The bill includes definitions of a health care sharing ministry, qualified health care share received, and qualified health care sharing expenses. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation on Feb. 5.

SB 390 would require, beginning with school year 2027-2028, that no school district that participates in a food service program would be able to serve as part of a free or reduced-priced meal any of the following food additives: brominated vegetable oil potassium bromate, propylparaben, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole, titanium dioxide, red 3, red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, blue 1, blue 2 or green 3. During a food facility inspection as required by K.S.A. 65-688, the school would have to verify that the facility does not serve any food that contains the prohibited additives. If a school cannot make this certification, the school would be required to submit a corrective action plan to the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) within 30 days of the inspection. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on Feb. 5.

SB 409 would prohibit cost-sharing requirements for diagnostic or supplemental breast examinations for every individual or group health insurance policy, medical service plan, contract, hospital service corporation contract, hospital and medical service corporation contract, fraternal benefit society or health maintenance organization that provides coverage for accident and health services that is delivered, issued for delivery, amended or renewed on or before Jan. 1, 2027. The bill specifies that a Health Savings Account (HSA) qualified health insurance policy would be exempt from any prohibitions on cost-sharing requirements for a covered benefit required under any general or special law, except that this exemption would not apply to coverage pertaining to preventive care required under certain federal law regarding HSA-qualified health insurance policies. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance on Feb. 2.

SB 414 would expand the types of facilities eligible to receive funding from the Evidence-Based Programs fund of the Department of Corrections. Under current law, the Secretary of Corrections may enter into memorandums of agreement with other cabinet agencies to provide up to $2.0 million annually from the account for juvenile crisis intervention services provided by a licensed juvenile crisis intervention center. The bill would expand eligibility for this funding to include other residential facilities licensed by DCF or the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) that have a program purpose of behavioral health crisis intervention for juveniles. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 3.

SB 428 would require the Secretary for DCF and the Secretary of KDHE to execute a memorandum of agreement or other data-sharing instrument upon written request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The bill would require the Secretaries to comply with written data requests from these agencies. A hearing was held in the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency on Feb. 3.