Week 6 of the 2026 Session

During Week 6, committees met during the first two days of the week to work bills and pass them to the full House and Senate before Turnaround Day on Feb. 19. Bills sent to the floor dealt with scope of practice for pharmacists and physician assistants, scheduling of controlled substances, provider multistate compacts, updates to eligibility for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, permanency procedures for young children, a new abuse and neglect registry, and public reporting requirements for 340B hospitals. Turnaround Day is the legislative deadline that sets the last day for consideration of non-exempt bills in the chamber of origin. Bills that are passed by the chamber of origin or are those that were sponsored by, referred to or acted upon by an exempt committee (House and Senate Federal and State Affairs, Senate Ways and Means, Senate Assessment and Taxation, House Appropriations, House Taxation and House Calendar and Printing) remain in play for the second half of the session.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Kansas Legislature the week of Feb. 16.

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

On Monday, Feb. 16, the Committee held a hearing on House Bill (HB) 2718, which would create a right for a resident of an adult care home to use the resident’s pharmacy of choice without being charged a fee or financial penalty for such choice. The bill would apply regardless of the medication distribution system used by the facility and would prohibit charging a fee, providing a financial incentive or imposing a disincentive related to pharmacy selection. 

 Read testimony submitted by all conferees. 

 Proponent testimony was provided by Haely Ordoyne, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, who stated the bill was recommended by the Robert G. (Bob) Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight and the 2025 Special Committee on Health and Social Services. She reported that her office had received complaints that private-pay residents were being charged between $150 and $300 per month if they chose a pharmacy other than the facility’s preferred pharmacy, sometimes labeled as an administrative, setup or medication distribution fee. She stated the fees were not charged by the pharmacy itself and appeared disproportionate to repackaging costs, which pharmacies indicated would typically be much lower. 

Opponent testimony was provided by a representative of LeadingAge Kansas, who stated the organization supports resident rights and choice but raised concerns regarding regulatory compliance and operational impacts. LeadingAge expressed concern that multiple packaging systems and delivery methods could increase complexity, risk and administrative burden, and stated the majority of surveyed providers do not charge such fees. 

Written-only neutral testimony, submitted by representatives of Attica Long Term Care and the Kansas Pharmacists Association, raised concerns regarding Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) compliance standards, packaging and delivery requirements, restrictions on repackaging medications and the operational responsibilities of facilities, and encouraged clarifying language to ensure any chosen pharmacy meets applicable long-term care standards. 

The Committee then worked 2025 HB 2250. The Committee removed the contents of the bill and recommended a substitute bill incorporating the provisions of 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. Substitute for HB 2250 was then passed favorably out of committee and subsequently passed the House on a vote of 120-1 on Feb. 19. 

The Committee also took final action on several bills, including: 

HB 2676 would create the Pharmacist Practice Authority Act and would permit a pharmacist to initiate therapy for a condition consisting of medications and durable medical equipment; (1) if the condition does not require a new diagnosis; (2) is minor and generally self-limiting; (3) has a test that is used to guide diagnosis or clinical decision-making that is waived under the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; or (4) in the professional judgment of a pharmacist, constitutes a patient emergency. 

The Committee amended the bill to: 

• Exclude controlled substances except for a medication prescribed for the treatment of opioid use disorder or for medication-assisted treatment;
• Specify that a patient emergency that would warrant the initiation of therapy would threaten the health or safety of the patient if the prescription is not immediately dispensed, and that only the sufficient quantity would be provided until the patient is able to consult with their personal physician or primary care provider; 
• Specify that pharmacists could dispense a one-time emergency refill of a non-controlled prescription drug for up to a 90-day supply when no refills remain and, in the pharmacist’s professional judgment, continuation of therapy is necessary to prevent interruption of care; and 
• Require pharmacists who independently initiate therapy to meet professional liability insurance requirements in statute on and after Jan. 1, 2028.

The bill was passed favorably out of committee, as amended, and subsequently passed the House on a vote of 95-27 on Feb. 19.  

HB 2702 would amend the Physician Assistant Licensure Act to provide for criminal record checks, update terminology to include physician associates, clarify collaboration and supervision requirements, modify practice agreement provisions and provide for revocation of a physician assistant license under certain circumstances. The Committee adopted a technical amendment to align prescribing language with changes made elsewhere in the bill and then passed it favorably out of committee as amended. The bill subsequently passed the House on a vote of 120-2 on Feb. 19.  

HB 2740 would adopt the compounding standards established by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) for sterile, nonsterile and radiopharmaceutical preparations and would become part of the state’s Pharmacy Act. The bill would remove the requirement for the Board of Pharmacy to adopt rules and regulations governing proper compounding practices and distribution of compounded drugs by pharmacists, and pharmacies but would retain the Board’s authority to adopt rules and regulations related to compounding and to establish waivers from USP standards. The bill was passed favorably out of committee and subsequently passed the House on a vote of 122-0 on Feb. 19. 

HB 2765 would amend the Uniform Controlled Substances Act by adding and removing certain substances in Schedules I, III and IV and make conforming changes to the criminal code, including updating the definition of fentanyl-related controlled substances and adding certain substances, including 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), to Schedule I. The bill was passed favorably out of Committee but was stricken from the House calendar on Feb. 19.  

HB 2587 would permit licensed private psychiatric hospitals that utilize the services of pharmacists to maintain an emergency medication kit under the supervision of a prescriber and pharmacist for pharmaceutical emergencies. The bill would allow controlled substances in the kit subject to limitation by a pharmaceutical committee and require compliance with the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The Committee amended the bill to clarify that the medication kits would align with those used in state hospitals and transferred certain inspection responsibilities from the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to reduce fiscal impact. The bill was passed favorably out of committee as amended and was subsequently passed by the House on a vote of 106-10 on Feb. 19.

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

On Monday, Feb. 16, the Committee worked Senate Bill (SB) 431, which would allow a pharmacy to employ certain remote workers to engage in the remote practice of pharmacy. The bill would define “remote practice of pharmacy” as practice conducted at any location other than the employing pharmacy and would establish conditions for remote work, including notice requirements, record retention, a written policy and procedures manual, training requirements for pharmacy interns and technicians and prohibitions on handling, compounding, dispensing or labeling drugs outside of a licensed pharmacy. The Committee passed the bill favorably out of committee, and it was subsequently passed by the Senate on a vote of 40-0 on Feb. 18 and introduced in the House on Feb. 19.  

The Committee also held a hearing on SB 497, which would amend the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act to add mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), kratom’s primary alkaloids, to Schedule I and amend the criminal code definition of fentanyl-related controlled substances to make corresponding changes. The bill would also make conforming amendments to the definition of “fentanyl-related controlled substance” in the criminal code. 

Read testimony submitted by all conferees. 

Proponents, including Sen. Jeff Klemp and representatives of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Kansas Office of the Attorney General, stated that 7-OH is a potent substance that acts on opioid receptors, has high abuse potential, has no recognized medical use and can lead to addiction and concerns with youth access. Opponents, including a representative of the American Kratom Association (AKA), argued there is a distinction between natural kratom leaf and synthetic or concentrated 7-OH products and argued that the latter should be addressed separately. There was no neutral testimony presented.  

Committee members asked questions regarding whether cited overdose deaths involved only kratom-related substances (a KBI representative said many cases involved polysubstance use); whether Narcan would work in cases of 7-OH overdose (a representative of Clinical Reference Laboratory stated Narcan could be effective); whether 7-OH has been approved for medical use in the United States (a representative of AKA said it has not); how dosage is determined for 7-OH products (an AKA representative said federal law requires labeled serving sizes based on safety data); and how kratom and 7-OH products can be distinguished in retail settings (an AKA representative said labeling and testing can distinguish between products). 

The Committee subsequently worked SB 497 on Feb. 18 and passed it favorably out of committee, but it was withdrawn from the Senate calendar on Feb. 19 and referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on Feb. 19. Ways and Means is an exempt committee, so the bill can still be considered after Turnaround. 

The Committee also worked SB 271, which would permanently update statutes governing the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (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. The Committee amended the bill to change the premium structure from $50 per family to a sliding scale premium charged per child and to provide coverage to pregnant Kansas children on verification of pregnancy and clarify that if a family is otherwise eligible and pays delinquent premiums, coverage may be renewed. It passed favorably out of committee, as amended. On Feb. 18, the Senate amended the bill to change the sliding scale premium to be charged per family, instead of per child, and passed it on a vote of 40-0.

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

On Monday, Feb. 16, the Committee continued the hearing on HB 2601, which would establish a statutory child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the Secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and provide procedures for notice, administrative hearings, appeals and expungement. 

Read testimony submitted by all conferees.  

Opponent testimony was provided by Tanya Keys, Deputy Secretary, DCF, who stated that DCF supports codifying a central registry in statute but expressed concerns regarding three provisions. First, she opposed the bill’s 12-month appeal period, noting that the current appeals process proceeds through the Office of Administrative Hearings, State Appeals Committee, district court and appellate court. Second, she raised concerns about language allowing a district or county attorney to trigger registry placement at the time of petition filing in a Child in Need of Care (CINC) case, which may occur before an investigation is complete. Third, she opposed automatic expungement after three years and recommended codifying existing regulatory criteria instead. 

The Committee worked the bill and amended it to: 

• Allow an individual to appeal a decision to be placed on the Registry within 30 days;
• Change the reference to “alleged perpetrator” to “has been alleged to have abused or neglected a child;”
• Provide that the county or district attorney transmit information regarding a petition to the Secretary so that the Secretary may place the individual on the Registry;
• Allow, rather than require, the Secretary to expunge the name of an individual on the Registry when all criteria have been met;
• Provide criteria for the Secretary to consider when granting expungement;
• Require that after July 1, 2027, any existing rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary concerning any child abuse and neglect registry be considered null, void, and unenforceable; and 
• Make technical amendments.

The bill was passed favorably out of committee, as amended, and passed by the House on a vote of 116-0 on Feb. 19.  

The Committee also continued the hearing on HB 2734, which would amend the Revised Code for Care of Children to require expedited permanency procedures for children under 2 years of age at the time a CINC petition is filed. 

Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Susan Humphries, who referenced the Jan. 21 presentation of the Kansas State Child Death Review Board annual report, and stated that infants and toddlers are particularly vulnerable because they are fully dependent on caregivers and unable to advocate for themselves. She also stated that while reintegration remains the primary goal when a child is removed from the home, children under 2 should not experience repeated removals and extended uncertainty. She noted that recent legislation has focused on older youth in foster care, but this bill addresses the distinct needs of infants and toddlers by establishing a requirement that children under 2 at the time of petition achieve permanency within 12 months.  

Other proponents encouraged the Committee to examine court bottlenecks contributing to delayed permanency, to consider factors such as paternity establishment and the Indian Child Welfare Act, and to consider the need for adequate fiscal and service supports if expedited timelines are implemented.  

Opponents stated the bill accelerates permanency timelines without creating protections for families who are wrongfully accused or for cases involving disputed evidence; is unnecessary because DCF achieves permanency within 12 months of removal for 33 percent of cases and the current statewide average for reintegration is 12 months from removal; and includes provisions requiring the Secretary to show cause for termination that are not appropriate because DCF is not considered a party to CINC cases. They also suggested the Committee should consider the length of time necessary to successfully address substance abuse and mental illness because it is common for initial evaluations or appointments to take weeks or months to obtain, particularly in rural areas, and the deadlines create unnecessary risks of wrongful referral for termination of rights when there is insufficient evidence or create a safety risk to a vulnerable child by premature reintegration.  

Neutral testimony was provided by Deputy Sec. Keys, who expressed appreciation for the focus on timely permanency but stated that the requirement that children under 2 achieve permanency within 12 months could affect Title IV-E eligibility reviews, noting DCF must document “reasonable efforts” findings in court journal entries to draw down federal foster care funds, and that the bill would add an additional reasonable-efforts review component related to achieving permanency within the new timeframe.  

Committee members asked questions regarding whether the state has the necessary resources to fund the requirements of the bill (Rep. Humphries said “yes,” and that the proposal doesn’t change funding and resourcing); if the bill addresses sibling placement (the Revisor representative stated the bill only applies to a child under 2 years of age at the time of petition); whether the bill could create inequities across counties, particularly by placing additional strain on county-based guardian ad litem services and court resources (Kerrie Lonard, Child Advocate, said that this is a valid concern and stated that increasing the frequency of hearings and expediting timelines would require additional work not only from child welfare agencies but also from attorneys and court teams, which are already stretched thin).  

The Committee then worked HB 2734 and amended the bill to: 

• Remove the requirement for the Secretary to provide a final report to the Legislature; 
• Replace references to “permanent home” with “permanent placement;”
• Replace the term “reunification” with “reintegration;”
• Replace the term “guardian” with “custodian;”
• Modify language concerning all children in a household of a child of a petition being included in such petition; and
• Require all parties to the proceedings to show good cause for not terminating parental rights. 

The bill, as amended, was passed favorably out of committee but was stricken from the House Calendar by Rule 1507 on Feb. 19.  

The Committee then worked HB 2589, which would prohibit the Secretary for DCF from accepting or assigning anonymous reports of child abuse or neglect and would require the Secretary to inform anonymous reporters of such prohibition. The Committee amended the bill to: 

• Remove the section of the bill that would have provided for the confidentiality of reporter information in law enforcement records;
• Remove language that would have made false reports of child abuse or neglect a class B misdemeanor; and
• Add language to require the Secretary to submit areport on data concerning reports made and received by DCF to certain legislative committees, beginning in 2027.

The bill was then passed favorably out of committee, as amended, and was passed by the House on a vote of 116-0 on Feb. 19.  

The Committee then worked HB 2639, which would change the name of “Juvenile Crisis Intervention Centers” to “Juvenile Stabilization Centers” and modify the intake criteria for the centers to be based upon a child in need of stabilization who is likely to cause harm to themself or others.  The bill would also provide that the Secretary of the Department of Corrections enter into memorandums of agreement with other cabinet agencies to provide funding, not to exceed $2 million annually, from the Evidence-Based Programs Account (EBPA) of the State General Fund. The Committee amended the bill to: 

• Reinstate the definition of “behavioral health crisis” in the CINC Code and Juvenile Code; 
• Remove language that would have allowed law enforcement to take a child into custody when such officer reasonably believes that the child is in need of stabilization; 
• Reinstate references to a “child experiencing a behavioral health crisis” throughout the bill;
• Modify language concerning how long and how frequently a juvenile may be admitted to a juvenile stabilization center; 
• Modify the services that are provided by juvenile stabilization centers;
• Remove language concerning annual funding of juvenile stabilization centers; 
• Modify the definition of “cross-over youth;”
• Remove language that would have modified the definition of “behavioral health crisis” in law concerning parental consent for minors receiving healthcare at school; 
• Modify the amount of money to be transferred from the EBPA to DCF’s Special Revenue Fund for juvenile stabilization services from $2 million to $4 million;
• Remove language that would have required the court approve an override function of the detention risk assessment tool in certain circumstances; and
• Add language allowing law enforcement to assist with the safe transportation of a juvenile to an appropriate placement when necessary. 

The bill was passed favorably out of committee, as amended. On Feb. 19, the House further amended the bill to specify the $4 million transfer from the EBPA to the DCF Special Revenue Fund would occur on July 1, 2027 and July 1, 2028, in addition to July 1, 2026. The bill passed on a vote of 116-0.

House Committee on Insurance
(Rep. William Sutton, Chair)

On Monday, Feb. 16, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2550, which, starting Jan. 1, 2027, would require each hospital participating in the federal 340B drug pricing program to provide an annual report to the Kansas Department of Insurance (KDOI) that would be posted on KDOI’s website. The report would include, at a minimum, how the hospital uses savings from the participation in the 340B program to benefit the hospital’s community through programs and services; annual estimated savings from the 340B program comparing the acquisition price of drugs under 340B to group purchasing organization pricing; a comparison of the hospital’s estimated savings under 340B to the total drug expenditures; and a description of the hospital’s internal review and oversight of 340B that satisfies federal program rules and guide compliance. The bill also requires KDOI to name a pricing source to be utilized when a group purchasing organization pricing is not available for a drug under the 340B program.  

Read testimony submitted by all conferees. 

Proponents stated the bill will enhance transparency and accountability in the operation of the 340B program, ensure that the 340B program appropriately serves patients, and shed light on how 340B revenues are used and whether they meaningfully lower patient costs. Opponents argued that the bill would impose reporting requirements on 340B hospitals in Kansas that are unnecessary and duplicative of existing federal oversight, will have a disproportionate impact on small and rural hospitals that are already struggling to find staff and will divert critical resources from patient care. There was no neutral testimony presented. On Feb. 19, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee and referred to the Committee on Interstate Cooperation but is dead for this session.