Week 7 of the 2025 Session

After a brief break following Turnaround Day, legislators returned to the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb. 25, and held a number of informational hearings on health-related topics, including the Medicaid program, intellectual and developmental disabilities, juvenile justice and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, and conducted hearings on bills related to credentialing, reorganization of the public assistance statutes, undocumented immigrants’ access to in-state tuition, and creation of the Office of Early Childhood.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Legislature the week of Feb. 24.

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

On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Committee heard a presentation on the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline from Drew Adkins, Behavioral Health Commissioner, Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS).

• The Lifeline is currently being answered by five call centers across the state.
• Since the launch of the Lifeline in 2022, Kansas has handled over 47,000 in-state calls, with an answer rate consistently above 85 percent, exceeding the national average in most months, but lower than the state goal of 90 percent or higher.
• Text and chat services are still expanding, with the state working to increase in-state capacity rather than relying on national backup centers.
• Workforce shortages remain a challenge, and efforts are underway to improve recruitment and training for crisis counselors.
• The 988 Coordinating Council, which advises KDADS on the delivery of services, future enhancements and budget distributions, made a recommendation to the Legislature to change the 988 funding mechanism to rollover funding.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether 988 counselors receive standardized training (a representative of HealthSource Integrated Solutions, one of the call centers, stated that all counselors complete national training, including at least eight role-play exercises, with additional in-house training conducted at call centers); the average call length (HealthSource representative stated that the average is about 26 minutes); whether call center employees are working remotely (HealthSource representative stated it depends on the center, with some working at the center and some in a hybrid role); whether quality assurance measures are in place (HealthSource representative stated that at least three percent of calls and one percent of texts and chats are reviewed for quality control, with additional national metrics monitoring performance for measures such as answer rate); whether funding from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or other federal agencies supports 988 (HealthSource representative stated that federal funding supports specific sub-networks, such as the Veterans Crisis Line, but does not impact Kansas’ 988 funding); whether calls are always answered by a live person within two minutes (Adkins stated that calls are initially greeted by an automated prompt but are then answered by a live crisis counselor); whether there is follow-up for abandoned calls (Adkins stated that follow-up is not possible due to the anonymous nature of the service); whether there is coordination between 911 and 988 (HealthSource representative stated that all 911 call centers in Kansas have a direct transfer option to 988 for non-medical crisis calls, but further improvements in collaboration are needed).

Adkins then provided an overview of the Mental Health Intervention Team (MHIT) program, which supports behavioral health services in schools.

• Currently, over 130 schools participate, employing more than 240 school-based liaisons who connect students to mental health providers.
• Since 2018, the program has served more than 15,000 students and has demonstrated success in improving attendance, behavior and academic performance.
• The state provides funding for school-based liaisons, with 65 percent of the funding retained by school districts and 35 percent allocated to mental health providers.
• A recent expansion has allowed private schools to participate, with 21 qualified private schools now involved.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether MHIT services are funded through state or federal sources (Adkins stated that the program is entirely funded by state general funds and does not receive federal matching funds); whether Medicaid or private insurance is billed for services provided through MHIT (Adkins stated that services coordinated by school-based liaisons are funded by the program, but students may be referred to external providers who bill insurance separately); whether medication management is provided in schools (Adkins stated that medication services are available through community providers but are not administered in schools); whether school-based liaisons work in multiple schools (Adkins stated that liaisons may be assigned to multiple buildings within a district based on need and funding); and whether concerns about long-term funding have affected participation (Adkins stated that some school districts have hesitated to join due to uncertainty about the program’s future, but a legislative proposal is being considered to establish MHIT in state law).

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

On Tuesday, Feb. 25, the Committee held a confirmation hearing for the reappointment of Steve Anderson as the Medicaid Inspector General. Anderson, who was originally appointed in 2021 and reappointed by Attorney General Kris Kobach, provided testimony on his office’s oversight efforts, audit findings and ongoing investigations related to Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse. Committee members questioned Anderson on the expansion of his office’s authority in proposed House Bill (HB) 2217, potential oversight of Managed Care Organization (MCO) contracts and challenges in addressing Medicaid eligibility fraud. Anderson emphasized the need for increased engagement with his office in legislative decision-making and better integration with oversight committees. Following discussion, the Committee recommended Anderson’s reappointment be confirmed by the Senate.

On Wednesday, Feb. 26, the Committee held an appointment hearing for Maureen Mahoney, a member of the University of Kansas Hospital Authority Board. Mahoney spoke about the role of the Board in guiding the hospital’s strategic direction and the hospital’s expanding role in Kansas and Missouri. The Committee took no action on Mahoney’s appointment following the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2039, which would amend statutes relating to home health agencies to clarify the definition of “home health agency” for the purposes of credentialing. The bill would exempt from the definition entities that are not reimbursed by Medicare Part A and only provide services of persons licensed or certified under the Physical Therapy Practice Act and Occupational Therapy Practice Act and persons licensed as speech-language pathologists. The bill passed the House on Feb. 19 on a vote of 119‒0.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative from Fox Rehabilitation, which is a Medicare Part B provider and is seeking statutory clarification through this bill to expand outpatient services to older adults at home in Kansas. Committee members asked questions regarding why Fox Rehabilitation should be excluded from the home health agency definition (Fox representative stated they do not provide nursing services and operate under Medicare Part B, which differs from the traditional home health model that falls under Medicare Part A); potential financial impacts on patients, noting that home health services under Medicare Advantage have no cost-sharing, while outpatient therapy typically has co-pays (Fox representative stated that patients receiving outpatient therapy under Part B have deductibles, but the therapy model focuses on long-term functional goals rather than short-term medical stabilization); and whether Fox bills directly or through Medicare Part B (Fox stated that all therapists are individually credentialed with Medicare and bill directly to Medicare Part B). Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of Phoenix Home Care and Hospice, and no opponent or neutral testimony was submitted. The Committee took no action on the bill following the hearing.

On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Committee held a brief hearing on HB 2027, which, as amended by the House Committee on Welfare Reform, would reorganize subsections within the public assistance statute (K.S.A. 39-709) pertaining to eligibility requirements for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the child care subsidy program; general requirements related to drug screenings and convictions; assignment of support rights to the Secretary for the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and limited power of attorney; and provisions related to fraud investigations. The bill, as amended, was passed by the House on Feb. 11 on a vote of 88‒35. No proponent, opponent or neutral testimony was submitted. The Revisor was asked whether the strikeouts in the bill were due to content being moved, rather than removed, and it was confirmed that no content was eliminated. The Committee took no action on the bill following the hearing.

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

On Wednesday, Feb. 26, the Committee heard informational presentations on 2016 Senate Bill (SB) 367 and its impact on the Kansas child welfare system and juvenile justice. The bill, which aimed to reduce juvenile detention, improve community-based alternatives and reinvest savings into evidence-based interventions, included limitations on juvenile detention, required risk assessments for placement, probation length caps and funding allocations for evidence-based community programs. Subsequent legislative actions to address gaps, such as 2017 Senate Bill (SB) 42 and 2023 HB 2021, were passed to provide additional oversight and intervention measures. Presenters included representatives from the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Kansas Legislative Research Department, DCF, the 18th Judicial District Court, Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), EmberHope, O’Connell Children’s Shelter, KVC Kansas, Children’s Alliance of Kansas and Compass Behavioral Health. Written-only comments were submitted by representatives of Cornerstones of Care, St. Francis Ministries and the Garden City Police Department. The presenters noted that while the bill successfully reduced out-of-home placements, unintended consequences emerged, particularly for crossover youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

Challenges and Impact on Child Welfare

• Juvenile Offender Placement Issues: Concerns were raised from judges and child welfare professionals about limited placement options for juveniles with serious offenses. The current system primarily offers probation or placement in a juvenile correctional facility, with little flexibility for youth who need structured intervention but do not meet the criteria for higher-level confinement. A judge noted that some juveniles with firearm offenses or repeated violations are placed back into the community with limited intervention, depending on sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion.
• Strain on the Foster Care System: With restrictions on detention, more juvenile offenders are being placed in foster homes or residential facilities, often alongside children in care due to abuse and neglect. This has resulted in increased safety concerns for foster families, staff and other youth. Case management providers described instances where youth returned to their placements within hours of being arrested for violent or destructive behavior, creating instability and limiting the ability of case workers to focus on long-term permanency planning.
• Limited Community-Based Services: While funds were intended to be reinvested in community interventions, gaps in mental health, substance use disorder treatment and behavioral support services persist, particularly in rural areas. Behavioral health providers explained that youth who would benefit from intensive services often face long wait times for placement in therapeutic settings, increasing the likelihood of repeat offenses or placement disruptions.
• Placement Instability and Staff Safety: Many youth in the system experience frequent placement moves, sometimes exceeding 40 different placements. This instability is disruptive and can worsen behavioral challenges. Staff working in residential and foster care settings report facing increased risks due to youth exhibiting violent behaviors, with limited resources available for crisis intervention or de-escalation training.

 Legislative Proposals Under Consideration

Two bills introduced this session seek to address these challenges:

• HB 2325 would authorize judges to commit juvenile offenders to detention for technical violations of probation and increase the cumulative detention limit for juvenile offenders from 45 days to a maximum of 90 days over the course of their case. The bill would remove the requirement that a chronic offender be considered high risk in order to be sentenced to a correctional facility and would require juvenile offenders alleged to have possessed or used a firearm during the commission of an offense to be placed directly in a juvenile detention facility. The bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs on Feb. 18 and then rereferred to Corrections and Juvenile Justice on Feb. 25.
• HB 2329 would increase the number of juveniles eligible for out-of-home placements and reinstitute the “case management” level of supervision, in which a juvenile is placed in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections for out-of-home placement. The Secretary would be required to contract for at least 40 non-foster home beds to accommodate these placements. Additionally, the bill would require the Secretary to pay for all expenses associated with out-of-home placements, up to $10.0 million per year from the Evidence-Based Programs account of the State General Fund. The bill was withdrawn from Corrections and Juvenile Justice and referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs on Feb. 18 and then referred to Corrections and Juvenile Justice on Feb. 20. (A hearing was held on Monday, March 3. Look for additional details in our Week 8 recap).

Committee members discussed potential reforms, including increased judicial discretion, expanded evidence-based interventions and additional funding for specialized placements. They also expressed interest in further reviewing the effectiveness of 2016 SB 367 and possible legislative adjustments to address unintended consequences while maintaining the bill’s original intent of rehabilitation over incarceration.

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

On Tuesday, Feb. 25, the Committee received presentations on the Kansas Medicaid Program from Bobbie Graff-Hendrixson, Deputy Medicaid Director, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and Sheena Schmidt, Senior Analyst and Strategy Team Leader, Kansas Health Institute (KHI). Graff-Hendrixson outlined the structure of KanCare, which is overseen by KDHE in partnership with KDADS to provide managed care and long-term services. KanCare is jointly funded, with 62 percent of costs covered by the federal government and 38 percent by the state, while the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has a higher federal match rate (73.31 percent). Medicaid eligibility includes low-income children, caretakers, elderly individuals and people with disabilities, and Kansas cannot cap enrollment since it is an entitlement program. Graff-Hendrixson also discussed Kansas’ seamless Medicaid-CHIP system, recent KanCare 3.0 contract updates and a $17.0 million federal grant aimed at improving maternal health care access in underserved areas. Schmidt presented KanCare enrollment trends and expenditures, noting that Medicaid enrollment peaked during COVID-19 but declined following federal eligibility redeterminations. She explained that 90.2 percent of Medicaid spending goes through Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), with older adults and people with disabilities accounting for the highest costs. Kansas uses State Plan Amendments (SPA) and waivers to modify Medicaid services, including the waiver for home and community based services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), which currently has 4,370 individuals on the waiting list.

Committee members asked questions regarding the state’s financial responsibility if Medicaid expansion occurred, and the cost if the federal government removes the enhanced match rate for expansion (Schmidt stated that the federal government currently covers 90 percent of expansion costs, and additional cost analyses, including of the impact of any federal policy changes, will be released later this year by KHI); how Kansas determines provider reimbursement rates and whether increases impact federal matching funds (Graff-Hendrixson and Schmidt stated that the MCOs have to pay more when provider rates increase and the state requests additional federal funding to accommodate increases, but Kansas is still responsible for its share of the total cost); whether lower-than-expected Medicaid enrollment results in unused budgeted funds (a representative of the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) stated that Medicaid case load estimates are updated throughout the year and excess funds are removed, or lapsed, from the budget); Medicaid eligibility requirements for seniors entering nursing homes (Graff-Hendrixson stated that they must exhaust nearly all personal assets, with a $2,000 individual asset limit); whether Medicaid recipients have plan choices (Graff-Hendrixson stated that recipients are able to choose from among three MCOs); and upcoming maternal health efforts (Graff-Hendrixson stated the state will be focusing on rural maternity deserts and workforce infrastructure).

House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice
(Rep. Bob Lewis, Chair)

On Wednesday, Feb. 26, the Committee heard a presentation from a representative of KLRD regarding the 2025 Interim Committee report of the J. Russell Jennings Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight. The Joint Committee convened on Nov. 18‒19, 2024, to discuss probation, post-release and parole supervision funding mechanisms, as well as to receive reports on juvenile community services, mental health initiatives and correctional facility conditions. They also reviewed potential juvenile offender registry reforms and sentencing guidelines. On Nov. 20, the Joint Committee members toured juvenile correctional facilities in Johnson County, including a youth crisis stabilization center, substance use treatment facility and juvenile detention center.

The Joint Committee approved several recommendations, including requesting that:

• The Senate Committee on Judiciary and the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice hold informational hearings on the provisions regarding juveniles in the Kansas Offender Registration Act.
• The Legislature consider legislation that funds enhancements to incarceration mental health services.
• The Senate Committee on Judiciary and the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice review the statutory requirements and future funding of the Evidence-Based Programs Account to consider if changes are needed to ensure access to these funds by more youth-related organizations.
• KDOC continue to study opening a nursery at the Topeka Correctional Facility.

House Committee on Social Services Budget
(Rep. David Buehler, Chair)

 On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Committee held an informational hearing on services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and heard presentations from representatives of KDADS, the Disability Rights Center and InterHab regarding the definition of an intellectual/developmental disability (examples included intellectual disability that is mild, moderate, severe or profound, autism, epilepsy/seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome), a brief history of services for Kansans with I/DD, the Kansas I/DD service system, community developmental disability organizations, challenges to the I/DD system, the future of I/DD services and a description of the community support waiver.

Committee members asked questions regarding how many individuals on the waitlist need services today versus those who will need services in the future (KDADS has been working with the University of Kansas on a study that is in the final stages of completion that will provide significant information about the waitlist population, including their demographics and expectations); where Kansas ranks among surrounding states for community-based services (InterHab representative stated that Kansas excels  with some services but is behind in others, for example, Missouri has invested heavily in these systems in the last few years); when direct support professionals last received a pay or wage increase that has been maintained (representative of KDADS stated it was three years ago); and the average hourly wage for direct support professionals (InterHab representative stated it is around $15 an hour, plus benefits).

Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs
(Sen. Mike Thompson, Chair)

 On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Committee held a hearing on SB 254, which would prohibit unauthorized immigrants from receiving state or local public benefits in Kansas, with some federal exceptions. Anyone over 18 applying for public benefits would be required to prove they are either a U.S. citizen, permanent resident or lawfully present immigrant. State and local agencies would be required to verify an applicant’s immigration status through the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. The bill includes reduced college tuition rates as a public benefit that unauthorized immigrants could not receive, while excluding driver’s licenses and identification cards from the definition of public benefits. The bill also requires verification of the immigration status of any person who is not a citizen or national of United States who is charged with a crime. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that the person is a flight risk if they are determined to be unlawfully present in the U.S.

Proponent testimony was provided by Attorney General Kris Kobach, who stated two reasons for the bill – “it is good public policy that will save the State hundreds of millions of dollars; and (2) Kansas is currently violating two federal statutes.” Kobach stated that public benefits for undocumented immigrants cost the state $603.1 million annually and that existing federal law, popularly known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, prohibits states from providing public benefits to undocumented immigrants. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, Kansas InterFaith Action, Kansas County Commissioners Association, American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, Kansas National Education Association, El Centro and New Frontiers, who stressed the importance of allowing immigrant students, regardless of their status, to continue their education and the contributions they make to Kansas’ postsecondary institutions and their communities. Opponents also expressed concerns about the challenges for cities and counties to enforce the potential restrictions in the bill and the constitutionality of presuming undocumented individuals are flight risks. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by more than 100 organizations and private citizens. Written-only neutral testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Bail Agents Association, who expressed concern that the bill appears to imply that bail can be denied to non-citizens, and a representative of the Kansas Association of Counties, who expressed concerns regarding how counties would implement and enforce the proposed law. Committee members asked questions regarding which public benefits are or are not subject to the bill (Kobach referred the Committee to portions of his written testimony that provided the federal definition of public benefits); whether children of immigrants who attend and graduate from Kansas high schools would be affected by the bill (yes); whether the $603.1 million referred to in testimony includes the cost of K-12 public education (yes); the source of the cost data (Federation for American Immigration Reform 2023 Cost Study); which other states have passed legislation similar to this bill (Kobach referred to Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee); and why the bill is needed if this prohibition is already in federal law (the bill would repeal K.S.A. 76-731a, which was enacted by the Legislature in 2004, that offers in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants). There were no questions for the opponents and the Committee took no action on the bill.

House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development
(Rep. Sean Tarwater, Chair)

 On Tuesday, Feb. 25, the Committee held an informational hearing related to child care and heard from representatives of Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Child Care Training Opportunities (KCCTO), KDHE, Kansas Head Start Association and Kansas Children’s Cabinet & Trust Fund. The presentations focused on training and technical assistance made available to child care providers, findings from a workforce study that focused on the level of education for providers (including their interest in additional training), the regulatory requirements for establishing in-home child care, child care wages and benefits, and staff turnover; the benefits of home visiting and Head Start, including healthy babies, early learning and support for families; the functions, responsibilities and goals of the state’s Child Care Licensing (CCL) Program; the features and goals of the Child Care and Development Fund program, including providing assistance to low-income families in obtaining child care to work or attend training or education; the need for a unified system of early childhood governance; and how federal funds provided for child care during the pandemic were spent.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether the workforce survey was completed by private day care providers or group day care providers (KCCTO representative stated survey data was from day care centers and family child care providers); whether private day care providers are more concerned about the difficulty of complying with licensing regulations (among the 6,000 responses to the survey, respondents generally stated that regulations were not the biggest barrier for them); where the potential workforce is coming from (KCCTO has an Early Childhood pathway in high schools across the state that gives students experience working with young children and also provides health and safety training to those students); how many child care licenses are revoked each year (KDHE representative stated he did not have that information but estimated it was in the single digits because they work with providers to address any regulatory issues); if there is data regarding child care need compared to capacity (Child Care Aware of Kansas produces a supply and demand report which compares KDHE’s licensed slots and compares that to demand by county); and the age when Early Head Start begins (Kansas Head Start representative stated Early Head Start enrolls and serves pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers, but programs are designed to meet the specific needs of communities).

On Thursday, Feb. 27, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2294, which would establish the Kansas Office of Early Childhood within the Executive Branch. The office would be administered under the direction and supervision of the Executive Director of Early Childhood. The Director would be appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Existing early childhood programs currently housed within DCF, the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE), Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund and KDHE would be transferred to the new agency, which would include the Division of Child Care, the Division of Home Visitation, the Division of Head Start Collaboration and the Children’s Cabinet. All duties, responsibilities, requirements and powers of the agency and the Director would be provided for in the bill and new funds would be created for agency operations. An interagency transition team would be appointed by the Governor on or after July 1, 2025, with the full transition to the consolidated agency to be completed by July 1, 2026. The bill also would extensively amend current child care statutes and requirements for child care homes and centers, including changes to required staff and provider qualifications and training, licensing and data system requirements, and facility requirements. The development and operation of pilot programs designed to increase the availability or capacity of child care facilities in the state would be authorized by the Secretary of KDHE and after July 1, 2026, by the Executive Director of Early Childhood. The bill also would update regulations for youth development programs and school-age programs.

Proponent testimony was provided by Zach Vincent, Director for Government Affairs – Education Policy in the Office of the Governor, Sen. Tory Marie Blew and representatives of UnitedWE, the Kansas Chamber, Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce, Boys & Girls Club Kansas Alliance, Kansas State Alliance of YMCAs, Kansas Action for Children and ChildCare Aware of Kansas. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by Sen. Pat Pettey, DCF Secretary Laura Howard, KDHE Secretary Janet Stanek, Rep. Laura Williams and one private citizen, and representatives of KDHE, the Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund, Salina Chamber of Commerce, AdventHealth, Kansas Children’s Service League, LeadingAge Kansas, Aligned, Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Top Early Learning Centers, Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, Kansas City Kansas Chamber of Commerce, The Family Conservancy and the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund. Proponents generally stated that reform and consolidation of the various child care agencies is a step toward improving access to child care and affordability, which is a major issue for the business community and everyday Kansans. Some proponents also encouraged the Committee to consider amendments to the bill related to child care licensing, the definition of “child care facility” and a reduction in the number of required professional development hours. Chair Tarwater noted that the bill being considered was a compromise product according to the parties that were involved last year, and there is no further negotiation on the bill.

Opponent testimony was provided by a private citizen, and written-only opponent testimony was submitted by a private citizen, who argued that definitions in the bill would “allow full-time unregulated care,” a lack of “competent supervision” and compromise the quality of care. Written-only neutral testimony was submitted by representatives of M.E.T.L., Thrive Allen County/Thrive Kansas, and the Kansas Children’s Service League, who expressed support for consolidating and streamlining the delivery of child care services and the need for a unified place for early childhood providers to collaborate, but also expressed concerns regarding the provisions of the bill that impact training requirements and other child care policies.

 Committee members asked questions regarding how the bill differs from 2024 legislation that passed the House on a vote of 110‒10 but was not acted upon by the Senate (representative of Office of Revisor of Statutes said this bill includes a reference to youth development centers that replaces references to drop-in centers, does not include a tax credit provision, and includes a new section that transfers employees and their benefits from existing agencies to the new agency); how many FTEs will be transferred to the new agency and how many new FTEs are anticipated (representative of the Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund stated that current FTEs of the separate agencies will be transferred and the only new FTE would be the new executive director); why there wouldn’t be efficiencies created by the consolidation (Children’s Cabinet representative stated transition team needs time to bring everything together before it can identify potential efficiencies, which are expected); who does the new executive director report to (Vincent stated this will be a non-cabinet agency and would not report directly to the Governor, and Tarwater stated that the position serves at the will of the Governor and could be replaced if their performance was unsatisfactory); which budget would the agency fall under (Office of Revisor stated they would be requesting their own budget but they will follow-up to confirm this); and the cost for the pilot program provided for in the bill  (Vincent stated no fiscal cost is expected because the pilot is just associated with new licensure categories to fill a gap in the standards for family home providers). The Committee took no action on the bill following the close of the hearing.

Senate Committee on Judiciary
(Sen. Kellie Warren, Chair)

On Thursday, Feb. 28, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2062, as amended by the House Committee of the Whole, which would make amendments to law regarding child support guidelines to require the guidelines to consider the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother. The bill would require determination of child support to be calculated from the date of conception of the child. The bill also would limit the maximum amount of child support to the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother, excluding any costs related to an elective abortion, and would define the terms “elective abortion” and “unborn child.”

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansans for Life and Kansas Family Voice, and written-only proponent testimony was submitted a representative of the Kansas Catholic Conference, who stated that the bill would address some financial concerns of women facing unexpected pregnancies and ensure that courts make provisions for health care costs. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Loud Light Civic Action and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, and written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the ACLU of Kansas and Mainstream and 30 private citizens. Opponents generally said the bill aims to establish legal personhood for fetuses, would put fetal rights above the health and rights of pregnant women and is a step toward restricting access to forms of reproductive health care, including abortion, which are protected by the Kansas Constitution.

Committee members asked questions regarding how the date of conception would be determined (Kansas Family Voice representative stated that the pregnancy-related expenses would begin when a doctor determines that the woman is pregnant and an approximate date of conception); how judges would interpret the meaning of pregnancy-related expenses (Kansas Family Voice representative said the definition of these expenses would be determined by the courts and should not be mandated or defined in the bill); whether the proponent would be open to amending the bill to change the term “date of conception” to date the pregnancy is determined or date of a positive pregnancy determination (Kansas Family Voice representative would need to see the actual language but the date of conception already appears in Kansas law); whether the bill is an attempt to insert the concept of fetal personhood into state law (Kansas Family Voice representative said recognition of an unborn child being allowed to be a trust beneficiary and being recognized as a victim of a crime already exists in Kansas law, and K.S.A. 65-6732 states that human life begins at fertilization); and whether Kansas law already addresses a situation where it is later determined that a man is not the father of the child (Kansas Family Voice representative said this situation is likely already addressed in child support law). The Committee took no action on the bill following the close of the hearing.