Week 8 of the 2025 Session

During Week 8, legislators returned to a full schedule of bill hearings and working bills, including bills related to rural emergency hospitals, codification of the Mental Health Intervention Team Program, an update of the eligibility requirements for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, provider workforce compacts, funding for local health departments, and permanency hearings for children in foster care.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Legislature the week of March 3.

On Monday, March 3, the Governor’s Office released the monthly revenue report, which showed total tax collections for February of $548.2 million, which was $121.9 million, or 28.6 percent, above the estimate. Through February, the state’s tax revenue of $6.3 billion is $179 million above estimates and $71 million above the same period in fiscal year 2024.

On March 6, Speaker of the House Dan Hawkins announced the formation of the Select Committee on Government Oversight, which is tasked with monitoring and ensuring “proper functioning, transparency and accountability of government agencies, programs and regulations.”  The 13-member committee, composed of nine Republicans and four Democrats, will be chaired by Rep. Kristey Williams and will meet on the call of the chair or when directed by the Speaker. Hawkins stated that the “committee’s work will help ensure that public funds are used efficiently and that government actions align with the best interests of the citizens of Kansas.”

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

On Monday, March 3, the Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 82, which was passed by the Senate on a vote of 40-0 on Feb. 19. The bill would require the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) to provide a physical waiver to any rural emergency hospitals that meet the criteria contained in the bill, allowing them to transition up to ten beds from swing beds to skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds. Eligible hospitals would be required to be registered rural emergency hospitals and to have been registered hospitals before being registered rural emergency hospitals. Eligible hospitals also would be required to have previously provided SNF treatments or swing beds. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Hospital Association and LeadingAge Kansas, who stated the bill is necessary to ensure rural communities retain access to skilled nursing facility beds. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of KDADS, and written-only neutral testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Neutral conferees provided clarification on the regulatory framework and potential limitations of the bill and noted it would only impact costs if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approves the newly created entity to be certified to provide Medicare and Medicaid services. There was no opponent testimony and no questions asked by the Committee. The Committee subsequently amended the bill on Wednesday, March 5, to change the effective date to upon publication in the Kansas Register and passed it favorably out of Committee, as amended. SB 82 is a companion bill to House Bill (HB) 2249, which was passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 122–0 and referred to the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee on Feb. 26.

The Committee then held a hearing on SB 88, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 40–0. The bill would amend K.S.A. 75-7306 to require the state long-term care ombudsman and regional ombudsmen to receive training in dementia care. The bill specifies training topics, including effective communication with dementia patients, recognizing behavioral symptoms and strategies for preventing resident safety risks such as wandering. Proponent testimony was provided by Haely Ordoyne, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, representatives of the Alzheimer’s Association, the Kansas Health Care Association and Kansas Center for Assisted Living and four private citizens. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by six private citizens. Proponents generally stated that the bill would ensure ombudsmen are properly trained to advocate for residents with dementia in long-term care facilities and that the required training already exists and can be provided at no cost. Ordoyne suggested some additional language for the bill focusing on the needs and rights of long-term residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia and also to note that the training proposed in the bill would be in addition to 36 hours of federally required training governed and enforced by the Administration for Community Living by direction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided.

Committee members asked questions regarding the duration and frequency of ombudsman training (proponents stated the initial training lasts about 1.5 hours, with ongoing annual training options available); the role of the ombudsman in investigating complaints (Ordoyne clarified that the role is to advocate for resident rights but not to conduct investigations or enforce regulations); and whether the bill’s language should be adjusted to allow for evolving training standards (Ordoyne recommended amendments to make the required topics more flexible rather than fixed in statute). The Committee took no action immediately following the close of the hearing but subsequently passed the bill favorably out of Committee on March 6.

The Committee also held a hearing on Substitute (Sub.) for SB 193, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 40–0. The bill would amend the Statewide Opioid Antagonist Protocol (established by 2017 HB 2217) by exempting law enforcement agencies from the Protocol’s requirement to utilize a physician medical director or licensed pharmacist unless the agency was electing to use an emergency opioid antagonist dispensed or furnished pursuant to the Protocol. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of the three law enforcement associations (Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, Kansas Sheriff’s Association and Kansas Peace Officers Association), who stated that small law enforcement agencies often struggle to find a physician willing to serve as a medical advisor for opioid antagonist programs. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided. Committee members asked questions regarding differences in definitions between the bill and HB 2159 (Revisor clarified that there were differences in language due to previous amendments but that Sub. for SB 193 reflects the original statute’s wording); whether the lack of a grant program in Sub. for SB 193 would impact first responders (proponent stated that while additional funding would be beneficial, many agencies currently purchase opioid antagonists from their own budgets); and whether the bill needed amendments to align with HB 2159 (Revisor and proponent suggested minor wording adjustments to maintain consistency between the two bills). The Committee took no action immediately following the hearing but subsequently amended the bill to take effect upon publication in the Kansas Register and passed it favorably out of Committee on Wednesday, March 5.

The Committee also worked HB 2159, which would exempt law enforcement agencies from certain requirements of the State Board of Pharmacy’s statewide emergency opioid antagonist protocol and create the Emergency Opioid Antagonists Assistance Grant Program and Fund. (The Committee had previously amended the bill and passed it out of Committee on Feb. 17.) The Committee further amended the bill to delete the provisions to establish the Program and Fund and to make a technical amendment and passed it favorably out of Committee, as further amended.

On Tuesday, March 4, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2236, which would create the Mental Health Intervention Team (MHIT) Program Act under KDADS, codifying the program in statute. The program, which has operated under a budget proviso since 2018, facilitates partnerships between school districts and mental health providers to expand behavioral health services for students. The bill would establish definitions, authorize KDADS to approve providers and create funding mechanisms for schools and mental health providers. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of KDADS, the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas (ACMHCK), Wyandot Behavioral Health Network (WBHN), Family Service & Guidance Center, COMCARE of Sedgwick County, High Plains Mental Health Center, Children First, Kansas Catholic Conference, Kansas Association of School Boards, Children’s Alliance of Kansas, the Kansas National Education Association, and three private citizens. Written-only testimony was submitted by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Kansas Mental Health Coalition, Community Care Network of Kansas, Kansas Action for Children and Children’s Mercy Hospital. Proponents generally stated that the program has expanded to serve over 130 schools, improved access to mental health care and demonstrated positive outcomes, such as increased school attendance and academic performance. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided.

Committee members asked questions regarding the impact of the program on school counselors (proponents explained that school counselors and mental health professionals work collaboratively, allowing counselors to focus on their educational responsibilities while licensed therapists handle clinical interventions); whether the program provides 24/7 crisis care (ACMHCK stated that community mental health centers are required to provide crisis services at all times, and mobile crisis response teams are available); how students are referred to the program (WBHN stated that typically, school social workers identify students in need, consult with MHIT therapists, and engage families, as parental consent is required for services); whether funds would be better spent on in-person services or telehealth options (private citizen strongly supported in-person therapy, stating that face-to-face interactions are more effective than telehealth); and if private schools should receive funding (proponents stated that all Kansas students should have access to mental health services, and that Catholic and other private schools often lack in-house counselors). The Committee took no action immediately following the hearing but subsequently passed the bill favorably out of Committee on March 6.

The Committee then worked HB 2217, which was previously amended and passed favorably out of Committee on Feb. 17 but was then referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs and referred back to the Committee again on Feb. 27. The bill, as amended, would expand the scope of the Inspector General within the Office of the Attorney General to include the audit, investigation and performance review of all state cash, food and health assistance programs. The Committee again passed it favorably out of Committee.

On Wednesday, March 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2386, which updates the eligibility requirements for the state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The bill would:

• Update income eligibility requirements, eliminating references to outdated 2008 federal poverty income guidelines.
• Remove the waiting period requirement of at least eight months for newly enrolled participants with family income over 200 percent of the federal poverty level who previously had private insurance.
• Eliminate the provision that deems a child ineligible for coverage due to non-payment of premiums by the family.
• Maintain CHIP as a capitated managed care program for children age 0–19 with benefit levels consistent with federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) requirements.
• Require KDHE to ensure program sustainability based on available federal and state appropriations, allowing income eligibility adjustments if funding is insufficient.
• Retain cost-sharing measures, including a sliding fee scale based on family income.
• Reaffirm eligibility restrictions to U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted immigrants, requiring satisfactory documentation.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of KDHE and Kansas Action for Children. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Community Care Network of Kansas, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, the Kansas Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics, the REACH Healthcare Foundation, Oral Health Kansas and Children’s Mercy Hospital. Proponents stated the bill aligns Kansas law with federal regulations and ensures continued access to CHIP coverage for eligible children. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided. Committee members asked questions regarding the current federal poverty level for eligibility (proponents stated it is approximately $80,000 for a family of four under the 250 percent threshold); how many families this change would impact (proponents stated it would primarily benefit those just above Medicaid eligibility); and whether this change had been previously addressed through temporary budget provisions (proponents confirmed it has been handled through annual provisos). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on SB 126, which would enact the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense, the Kansas Adjutant General’s Department, the Kansas Academy of Physician Associates and the Kansas Chamber. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and the Military Officers Association of America. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided, and the Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2250, which would increase the annual assessment on hospital providers to 6.0 percent (up from 3.0 percent) of each hospital’s net inpatient and outpatient operating revenue, as determined by the Healthcare Access Improvement Panel, for the hospital’s fiscal year occurring three years prior to the assessment year. The bill also would add provisions to add the assessment for critical access hospitals and rural emergency hospitals with revenues above a threshold determined by the Panel. In addition, the bill would allow KDHE to take legal action, including penalties, for non-payment of the assessment. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas Hospital Association, who stated that the provider assessment program is a critical source of funding for Kansas hospitals, generating significant federal matching funds for Medicaid reimbursement and the increase would allow hospitals to maximize federal dollars without increasing state general fund expenditures. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Salina Regional Health Center, Ascension Via Christi and CommonSpirit. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided. Committee members asked questions regarding how much additional funding the increase would generate (proponents estimated nearly $200 million in additional federal funds); how critical access hospitals would be affected (proponents explained that only hospitals above a certain revenue threshold would contribute); and whether the assessment is at risk due to federal policy changes (proponents stated that while federal discussions are ongoing, the bill is structured to maximize available funding under current rules). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2397, which would amend K.S.A. 65-242 to increase the minimum statutory distribution amount to local health departments (LHDs) from $7,000 to $12,000, with additional funds distributed based on the county population and total available state financial assistance. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of KDHE and the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments. Written-only testimony was submitted by Kansas Action for Children, Grant County Health Department, McPherson County Health Department, SEK Multi-County Health Department and Barber County Community Health Department. Proponents stated that LHDs, especially in rural areas, rely on these funds and that setting a statutory minimum would eliminate the need for yearly budget provisos. Committee members asked whether the bill would negatively affect larger counties (proponents stated it maintains the current funding formula and does not reduce funding for urban areas) and took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2399, which would establish the Advanced Universal Newborn Screening Program to be administered by KDHE. The bill would update the current Newborn Screening Program to remove specific listed conditions and instead include all conditions determined and identified by the Secretary of KDHE in accordance with the bill. The bill would specify the conditions could include, but not be limited to, conditions listed in the recommended Uniform Screening Panel issued by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bill would include an annual transfer of up to $5.0 million from the Health Maintenance Organization privilege fee into the Kansas Newborn Screening Fund. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of KDHE and Kansas Action for Children (KAC) and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities and a private citizen. The KAC representative suggested removal of the program’s budget cap in statute entirely, stating that this would allow the program to allocate additional funds as needed without needing to return to the Legislature to request additional increases. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided. Committee members asked questions regarding whether additional providers, such as midwives, should be explicitly included in the bill (proponents stated they already work with midwives but were open to clarifying language) and whether insurance companies contribute to the screening fund (proponents confirmed that funding comes from a medical assistance fee fund, not direct insurance billing). The Committee took no action on the bill following the close of the hearing.

On Thursday, March 6, the Committee held a hearing on SB 175, which was passed, as amended, by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 40–0. The bill would amend the Athletic Trainers Licensure Act to amend the definition of “athletic training,” provide a licensure exemption, make changes to the application for licensure as an athletic trainer, and technical amendments. The bill would expand the definition to include prevention, wellness promotion, risk management, emergency care and rehabilitation of injury and illness. It would also establish reciprocity provisions, allowing out-of-state athletic trainers to practice temporarily in Kansas when accompanying a sports team. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Athletic Trainer Society and OrthoKansas LMH Health, who stated the bill modernizes the practice act to align with current education requirements, ensures athletic trainers can work to their full extent and facilitates hiring athletic trainers for military programs at Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley. A previous opponent, the Kansas Physical Therapy Association, worked with proponents to refine the bill’s language, leading to a consensus amendment. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas Chiropractic Association, who raised concerns about an exemption allowing out-of-state trainers to operate in Kansas without licensure. Committee members asked questions regarding whether a similar bill was introduced last year (proponents clarified that last year’s bill focused on concussion education); whether the bill was part of an interstate compact (it is not); whether the definition change would allow athletic trainers to expand their practice into military and corporate settings (proponents confirmed it would); and whether out-of-state trainers should be exempt from licensure (proponents are working with stakeholders on this issue for future regulatory updates). The Committee then suspended the rules and passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also worked SB 126 (see hearing summary above on Wednesday, March 5), removed the contents of SB 126 and recommended a substitute bill incorporating the provisions of HB 2386; HB 2399, as amended; HB 2397; and HB 2250 (see hearing summaries above). The Committee then passed House Sub. for SB 126 favorably out of Committee.

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

On Tuesday, March 4, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2069, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 14 on a vote of 119–0. The bill, as amended, would enact the School Psychologist Compact to facilitate the interstate practice of school psychology in educational or school settings. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Adjutant General’s Department and the Kansas Chamber. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided. The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing but on Wednesday, March 5, inserted the contents of HB 2070 (see summary below) into HB 2069 and passed it favorably out of Committee, as amended.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2070, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 14 on a vote of 119–0. The bill, as amended, would enact the Dietician Compact to facilitate the interstate practice of dietetics with the goal of improving public access to dietetics services and achieve a number of objectives that reduce administrative burden while increasing availability of licensed dietitians as well as cooperation among state licensing bodies. (As of Feb. 5, 2025, the Compact has been enacted in four states: Alabama, Nebraska, Ohio and Tennessee, and is being considered in 15 states, including Kansas. The Compact will become active once it is enacted by seven states.) Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Adjutant General’s Department and the Kansas Chamber and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, LeadingAge Kansas, KDADS, Kansas Hospital Association and the American Telemedicine Association Action. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by a practicing dietician, who expressed concerns regarding a potential loophole that could allow individuals to work without confirming work eligibility. Proponents clarified that individuals must be licensed in their home state, which requires work authorization, making such concerns unlikely. The Committee took no action on the bill following the close of the hearing.

The Committee then worked HB 2027, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 11 on a vote of 88–35. The bill, as amended, would reorganize subsections within the public assistance statute, K.S.A. 39-709, pertaining to eligibility requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Child Care Subsidy Program. The bill also would move existing language within the subsection on the Medical Assistance Program (KanCare) that pertains to the subjects of the newly reorganized sections to the corresponding sections. The Committee passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

On Wednesday, March 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2075, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 19 on a vote of 119–0. The bill would amend law in the Revised Kansas Code for the Care of Children concerning the time by which a permanency hearing for a child in the custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) must be held. The bill would require such hearings be held within nine months of a child’s removal from the home and would require subsequent hearings be held every six months thereafter. Current law requires a permanency hearing be held within 12 months of removal, and every 12 months thereafter. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of DCF, and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Office of the Child Advocate, Children’s Alliance of Kansas and the Kansas Children’s Service League. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided. Committee members asked questions regarding the financial impact of the bill (DCF representative estimated potential savings of $7 million, including $4.8 million in state general funds, based on the assumption that half of the children in foster care would experience two fewer months in care) and whether DCF supported the amendment requiring hearings every six months instead of nine (DCF confirmed its agreement with the amendment). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing but on Monday, March 10, amended the bill to make technical changes and passed it favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2219, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 122–0. The bill would the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact to facilitate the interstate practice of physician assistants (PAs) with the goal of improving public access to medical services and achieving a number of objectives that reduce administrative burden while increasing availability of licensed PAs as well as cooperation among member state licensing bodies. Proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Kansas Adjutant General’s Office, the Kansas Chamber, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Defense. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided. The Committee then inserted the contents of HB 2219 into HB 2068 (related to enacting the Cosmetologist Licensure Compact) and passed HB 2068 favorably out of Committee, as amended.

On Thursday, March 6, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2307, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 122–0. The bill, as amended, would transfer the authority over the prenatal and postnatal diagnosed conditions awareness programs from KDHE to the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities (KCDD), create the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Program Fund, and direct a one-time $25,000 transfer to the Fund. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of KCDD, Kansans for Life and the Disability Rights Center of Kansas. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Kansas Catholic Conference and Kansas Family Voice. No opponent or neutral testimony was provided. Committee members asked questions regarding whether the proposed transfer would impact state spending (KCDD stated that while KDHE did not receive direct appropriations for the program in the past, KCDD plans to match the $25,000 allocation to expand outreach and services) and whether KCDD helps families navigate intellectual and developmental disabilities waiver programs and other resources (KCDD confirmed that they provide assistance with waiver applications, financial planning and community resource navigation). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

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

On Monday, March 3, the Committee worked House Bill 2132, which would modify the definition of neglect and prohibit the removal of a child from a child’s home solely due to a lack of financial resources. The bill would require facts of imminent harm due to a lack of financial resources and demonstration of more than one fact of the lack of financial resources. The bill also would permit the court to consider the participation of parents in services when determining whether a child would be removed from the child’s home. Committee members posed questions regarding whether “reasonable suspicion” is a stronger or weaker standard than “likelihood of harm” (Revisor explained that reasonable suspicion is based on specific facts, making it a slightly higher threshold than likelihood of harm) and how police and social workers interpret these terms in practice (law enforcement representatives and DCF officials shared their perspectives on the terminology and its impact on decision-making in child welfare cases). The Committee continued to work the bill on Wednesday, March 5, and posed questions regarding whether law enforcement would have clear guidelines under the new standard (law enforcement representatives supported the consistency with the neglect definition) and whether the delay in implementation would allow agencies sufficient time to adjust (DCF confirmed that policies could be updated earlier but agreed the timeline was reasonable). The Committee then recommended a substitute bill incorporating the following amendments and passed Sub. for HB 2132 favorably out of Committee.

• Modify the definition of neglect and update references to the modified definition throughout the bill.
• Replace certain references to imminent harm with substantial risk of serious harm.
• Remove and replace certain factors that may be used to demonstrate serious harm in a petition requesting removal of a child from the home.
• Specify that including serious harm to the child in a petition may be evidence that the harm outweighs the harm associated with removal.
• Clarify that singular facts demonstrating harm in a petition that would prohibit a child’s removal may co-occur with community or family poverty.

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

On Tuesday, March 4, the Committee heard a presentation on Medicaid finances from a representative of the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD), with additional input from Christine Osterlund, Deputy Secretary of Agency Integration and State Medicaid Director. The presentation provided an overview of Medicaid funding, the role of managed care organizations (MCOs), provider reimbursement and cost drivers within the system, including the following points:

• Medicaid financing relies on capitation payments to the MCOs on a per-member, per-month basis, with rates depending on eligibility categories known as rate cells. The Medicaid program includes 34 rate cells, which categorize enrollees based on eligibility factors such as age, disability and income.
• Medicaid enrollment peaked during the pandemic but has since declined due to federal eligibility redeterminations. However, overall expenditures continue to rise due to increased reimbursement rates, provider assessments and federal policy changes.
• Children represent the majority (60 percent) of enrollees but account for only 20 percent of Medicaid spending, while long-term care residents and individuals with disabilities account for 80 percent of total costs.
• Kansas currently contracts with three MCOs, who are required to meet network adequacy standards to provide sufficient provider access.
• MCOs receive capitation payments and, in turn, negotiate reimbursement rates with health care providers. The state sets a minimum payment level for providers, but MCOs may offer higher rates in areas with provider shortages.
• A key factor affecting Medicaid costs is the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), which fluctuates annually based on the state’s per capita income. The recent FMAP adjustment resulted in a $30 million increase in the state’s share of Medicaid costs.

Committee members asked questions regarding how MCO contracts are determined and why Kansas has three MCOs (KLRD and Osterlund explained that three MCOs are chosen based on population size to ensure financial viability and member choice; two would be the minimum, but three are preferred to avoid risks if one exits the state); how many employees work on Medicaid oversight at KDHE (approximately 600 employees work on health care finance, with over 300 handling eligibility processing); how Medicaid recipients choose an MCO (members can self-select an MCO, but if they do not, they are auto-assigned based on past enrollment, family member enrollment or a round-robin process); whether a public report card for MCO performance is available (KDHE is developing a public-facing data bureau to provide transparency on MCO performance); whether MCOs delay provider payments or deny claims (MCOs are required to process claims in a timely manner, but providers can raise grievances and penalties exist if MCOs do not meet contract standards); whether provider reimbursement rates can be publicly accessed (minimum state-mandated rates are available, but MCO-specific rates are not public); the financial impact of Medicaid expansion (the federal government covers 90 percent of expansion costs, and an additional 5 percent FMAP incentive is available for new expansion states); how Medicaid unwinding affected enrollment (KDHE worked to transition individuals losing Medicaid eligibility to other coverage options such as CHIP or Healthcare.gov plans); whether Medicaid expansion would reduce health care deserts (increased Medicaid coverage could incentivize more providers to accept Medicaid patients, potentially reducing service gaps); and how income eligibility levels are determined (for parents or caretakers, eligibility is set at 39 percent of the federal poverty level, with different thresholds for other categories).

Following the presentation, Chair Awerkamp announced there would be additional informational hearings on Medicaid cross-check procedures and potential legislative reviews of MCO processes.

On Thursday, March 6, the Committee held a hearing on SB 79, which was amended and passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 29–11. The bill, as amended, would direct DCF to request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to exclude candy and soft drinks from the definition of eligible foods for the SNAP program. If the waiver is granted, the bill would require DCF to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with SNAP benefits. If denied, DCF would be required to request such waiver annually until it is granted. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Fuel True Independent Energy and Convenience, DCF, Kansas Action for Children, the Kansas Chamber and Kansas Appleseed. No neutral testimony was provided. The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on SB 85, which was amended and passed by the Senate on Feb 19 on a vote of 30–10. The bill, as amended, would require DCF to enter into data-matching agreements with specified agencies to receive and review information from state and federal agencies for the purpose of verifying food assistance program eligibility and publish certain findings of noncompliance and fraud investigations on the DCF website. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project, who stated the bill would improve program integrity and reduce fraud. Opponent testimony was provided by a representative of Kansas Appleseed and written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of DCF, Kansas Action for Children, Harvesters and the Kansas Food Bank. Committee members asked questions regarding data supporting claims of fraud (proponent cited national U.S. Department of Agriculture reports estimating that fraud accounts for approximately seven percent of SNAP expenditures, amounting to $400–$500 million annually); how the bill aligns with efforts to protect the “truly needy” receiving food assistance (proponent stated that eligibility requirements ensure benefits go to those who qualify, and this bill would help verify ongoing eligibility); whether the income threshold for food assistance is realistic (proponent stated the income limits are set by federal policy and must be followed); what portion of the estimated seven percent fraud rate is due to individuals versus retailers (proponent did not have an exact figure but estimated that individual fraud accounts for less than 1 percent of total SNAP expenditures); what the fiscal impact of implementing the bill would be (the fiscal note estimates that it would require hiring 113 additional employees to comply with the bill’s requirements); whether the existing Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) could be used to implement this bill (DCF representative confirmed that the CCWIS system is for child welfare and may not be suitable for eligibility verification for food assistance); how long it would take to train staff on any new system required by the bill (DCF representative stated that training new eligibility workers takes approximately one year, citing a current effort to train 60 career navigators to assume additional eligibility-related duties); and what impact federal funding cuts would have on the ability to implement the bill (DCF representative stated that potential federal reductions in TANF funding and other assistance programs would create financial constraints and could limit their ability to comply with new mandates without additional state funding).

Chair Awerkamp announced that the Committee would be taking a field trip to the DCF office on Tuesday, March 11, to observe eligibility verification processes and will have a discussion on cross-check procedures.

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

On Monday, March 3, the Committee worked HB 2325, which would authorize judges to commit juvenile offenders to detention for technical violations of probation. The bill also would 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. Committee members posed several questions regarding what qualifies as a technical violation of probation (Revisor stated that failure to comply with probation terms without committing a new offense) and whether a 10-year-old could be sentenced under this bill (Revisor stated that the bill applies to juvenile offenders age 10–19). The Committee amended the bill to:

• Decrease to 24 months from 36 months the maximum alternative, direct sentence to a juvenile correctional facility the court may sentence a juvenile adjudicated of a crime that would be a felony if committed by an adult and found to have possessed or used a firearm during the commission of such offense.
• Authorize the court to order direct placement of chronic offenders to a juvenile correctional facility if such offenders are assessed to be moderate-risk in addition to high-risk.
• Remove a provision including a technical violation as a reason for a court to commit a juvenile to detention and maintain current law.
• Clarify language regarding the override function of the detention risk assessment in a juvenile intake and assessment center.

The Committee then worked HB 2329, which 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 the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) for out-of-home placement. KDOC would be required to contract for at least 40 non-foster home beds to accommodate these placements. Additionally, the bill would require KDOC 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 Committee amended the bill to:

• Limit the number of beds in a youth residential facility to not more than 15 beds in a single facility.
• Direct KDOC to contract for no more than 45 beds in youth residential facilities.
• Direct KDOC to contract no less than 35 beds from no less than 40 beds in youth residential facilities.
• Direct the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee to monitor the impact and effectiveness of youth residential facilities.
• Inserted the contents of amended HB 2325.

The Committee then passed HB 2329, as amended, favorably out of Committee.

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

On Wednesday, March 5, the Committee worked SB 254, which would prohibit unauthorized immigrants from receiving state or local public benefits in Kansas, with some federal exceptions. Anyone over age 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 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 would modify pretrial release procedures and would create a rebuttable presumption that unauthorized immigrants are flight risks when considering bail. The Committee amended several of the pretrial release procedures provisions of the bill and passed it favorably out of Committee, as amended.

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

On Wednesday, March 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2392, which would allow a school for professional or practical nurses to qualify as an approved school if the school’s faculty possess a nursing or directly related medical degree awarded by a state or nationally accredited school of nursing or medical school approved by the Board of Nursing that is at least one level more advanced than the degree awarded by the program in which they are teaching. The bill would prohibit requiring additional or more advanced credentials for faculty. The bill also would update the definition of an “approved long-term provider” — a person, organization or institution that is responsible for the development, administration and evaluation of continuing nursing education programs and offerings — to add “that has been approved as qualified by the” Board of Nursing.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of LeadingAge Kansas, who stated the bill would address the shortage of nursing professionals by modifying the Kansas Nurse Practice Act for faculty requirements. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Chamber. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by a representative of Johnson County Community College and written-only neutral testimony was submitted by a representative of the Board of Nursing. Committee members asked questions regarding whether the instructors are required to have actual experience in the work that is the subject of their degree (LeadingAge representative stated that the bill only speaks to the educational requirements but there are provisions in the Nurse Practice Act and in regulations that speak to experience requirements); whether colleges will still be allowed to hire master’s degree level instructors (LeadingAge representative stated that they can, this just provides flexibility for colleges that are struggling to find instructors); whether instructors without training in curriculum development or teaching would be authorized to teach under the bill (LeadingAge representative said yes but the Nurse Practice Act would require them to have a certain number of clinical hours and there also are opportunities in nursing school to gain teaching experience or training); and whether an instructor could step in and teach an established curriculum (LeadingAge representative stated it would be up to the college to determine whether that was allowed). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.