Week 9 of the 2025 Session

During Week 9, with First Adjournment less than three weeks away, the Senate Ways and Means Committee approved its version of the budget bill. Legislators continued to conduct bill hearings and work bills that were still active after Turnaround, including those related to licensing and scope of practice for health care providers, the right to try individualized health care treatments, the authority of public health officials, the process for the procurement of managed care organization services for KanCare, and data-matching for determining eligibility for public assistance programs.

This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues addressed by the Legislature the week of March 10.

House Actions

Senate Bill (SB) 88, which would amend the Long-term Care Ombudsman Act to require the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman to include Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia training in the prescribed and provided training, as specified in the bill. The bill would require the training to:

• Address the needs and rights of long-term care residents with dementia.
• Include strategies to care for and address the specific issues encountered by such residents.
• Include a list of specific topics to be addressed in such training.

Passed on Wednesday, March 12, on a vote of 121-1.

SB 175, as amended, 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 make technical amendments. The term “athletic training” would mean:

• The practice of injury prevention, physical evaluation, emergency care and referral or physical reconditioning relating to athletic activity including, but not limited to, sports participation, exercise, fitness training, strength and conditioning work, recreational physical activities and competitive athletics. This encompasses wellness promotion, risk management, immediate or emergency care, examination, assessment and therapeutic intervention, or rehabilitation of athletic injury and illness.
• Making clinical decisions to determine if consultation or referrals are necessary, health care administration, professional responsibility, performance of athletic training research and educating and consulting with the public regarding safe participation in athletic activities and proper training methods.

Passed on Wednesday, March 12, on a vote of 121-1.

Senate Actions

House Bill (HB) 2027, as amended, would reorganize subsections within the public assistance statute (K.S.A. 39-709) pertaining to eligibility requirements for the cash assistance program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF), the food assistance program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), and the child care subsidy program; general requirements related to drug screenings and convictions; assignment of support rights to the Secretary of the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) and limited power of attorney; and provisions related to fraud investigations. The bill also would move existing language within the subsection on the medical assistance program (Medicaid or KanCare) that pertains to the subjects of the newly reorganized sections to the corresponding subsections. Passed on Wednesday, March 12, on a vote of 31-8.

HB 2062, as amended, would make amendments to law regarding child support guidelines established by the Kansas Supreme Court to require the guidelines to consider the direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses of the mother. The bill also would allow a personal exemption for any unborn child for the purposes of income taxation. The bill would require determination of the child support to be calculated from the date of conception of the child, and accruing interest would be determined by the current statutory rate. Passed on Wednesday, March 12, on a vote of 30-9.

Committee Actions

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

On Monday, March 10, the Committee worked SB 250, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 36-4 and would create the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act. The bill would authorize a manufacturer operating in an eligible facility to make available individualized treatments and allow individuals with life-threatening or severely debilitating illnesses to request an individualized investigational drug, biologic product, or device from such manufacturers (referred to as “investigational treatment products”). The bill would define terms used in the Act, address requirements for informed consent for investigational treatments, manufacturer requirements, and liability exemptions; and clarify insurance and health coverage pursuant to the Act. The Committee amended the bill to:

• Clarify that the witness to the patient’s written, informed consent must be an individual who is unaffiliated with the patient’s physician or the physician’s place of business.
• Remove the attestation that the patient concurs with the patient’s physician that all currently approved and conventionally recognized treatments are unlikely to prolong the patient’s life in the definition of “written, informed consent.”
• Clarify that a patient’s estate may be held liable for any outstanding debt related to the treatment or lack of insurance due to the treatment if the patient dies during treatment.

The Committee then passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of Committee.

On Tuesday, March 11, the Committee worked Substitute for SB 67, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 36-4 and would amend law regarding certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA) to expand certain independent prescription authority to align the scope of practice more closely to an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). The bill would amend law pertaining to a CRNA’s authority to:

• Grant independent prescription authority to prescribe durable medical equipment and prescribe, procure and administer any drug consistent with a CRNA’s education and qualifications.
• Clarify that the prescription, procurement or administration of an anesthetic agent is prohibited unless upon the order of a physician or dentist requesting anesthesia or analgesia care.
• Require controlled substances to be prescribed, procured or administered in accordance with the Uniform Controlled Substance Act.
• Prohibit the performance or induction of an abortion or the prescription, procurement or administration of drugs for an abortion.

The bill would prohibit a CRNA from dispensing drugs but would allow a CRNA to request, receive and sign for professional samples and to distribute such samples to patients. The Committee passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

The Committee then worked Substitute for SB 29, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 28-12 and would amend the role of a county or joint board of health or local health officer to be one that may recommend against public gatherings when necessary for the control of infectious or contagious disease. Current law states the county or joint board of health or local health officer is authorized to prohibit public gatherings when necessary. The Committee amended the bill to:

• Require the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to have probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, regarding any action that is intended to exclude, isolate, quarantine or otherwise restrict the movement of people within Kansas when the Secretary seeks to prevent the introduction or spread of an infectious or contagious disease within Kansas.
• Permit the filing of a civil action in a district court by any aggrieved party of an action undertaken by the Secretary or others designated to act regarding the health of the people of Kansas as set forth in K.S.A. 65-101 through 65-129f:
  • Require a hearing within 72 hours while leaving any isolation or quarantine orders in place pending a hearing.
  • Establish the judicial review standard as strict scrutiny.
• Remove the requirement that a local health officer or the Secretary may order any sheriff, deputy sheriff or other law enforcement officer to assist in the execution or enforcement of any order.

The Committee then passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also worked HB 2368, which would enact the Anesthesiologist Assistant Licensure Act, which would add the regulation and licensure of anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) under the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts. The bill would make related definitions, create license types, specify requirements and restrictions for licenses and licensees, and set maximum fees for licensure. The bill also would include provisions related to violations of the Act. The State Board of Healing Arts would be authorized to adopt rules and regulations as necessary to implement the Act. The Anesthesiologist Assistant Council would be established as detailed in the bill to advise the Board in carrying out the provisions of the Act. A proposed amendment to delay new AA training programs until Jan. 1, 2033, and limit student opportunities to those from programs established before 2020 in Kansas and Missouri until 2028, intended to address concerns about competition for clinical training slots between AAs and CRNAs, failed and the bill failed to pass out of Committee.

On Wednesday, March 12, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2223, which would amend the optometry law regarding the scope of practice for optometrists to allow the use of medical devices; allow administering, prescribing or dispensing of pharmaceutical drugs; and allow specified procedures and treatments. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Optometric Association, Northeastern State University Oklahoma College of Optometry, the American Optometric Student Association, the Kansas Chamber and a practicing optometrist. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas and the Pittsburg Area Chamber of Commerce and six private citizens. Proponents stated that optometrists are already trained in these procedures and are allowed to practice them in twelve other states and that the bill would expand access to care, keep optometrists in Kansas and reduce patient wait times. Opponent testimony was provided by Sen. Bill Clifford, representatives of the Kansas Medical Society, the Kansas Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons, and a private citizen, who stated that allowing optometrists to perform these procedures would lower the standard of care and expressed concerns regarding the lack of necessary experience and supervised practice to manage complications. Neutral testimony provided by a representative of the Kansas Board of Healing Arts and written-only neutral testimony submitted by a representative of the Kansas Board of Examiners in Optometry addressed malpractice coverage, the absence of clear definitions for medical devices and whether optometrists should be required to participate in the Healthcare Stabilization Fund if their scope of practice is expanded.

Committee members asked questions regarding how many optometry schools exist in Kansas (proponents stated there are currently none, which affects workforce retention); how complications from laser procedures compare when performed by optometrists and ophthalmologists (opponents cited studies and cases where optometrists had caused harm due to lack of surgical residency training); and whether this bill would impact training requirements (opponents expressed concern that optometrists would not undergo the same rigorous training as ophthalmologists, potentially leading to patient safety risks). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing but on Thursday, March 13, passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

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

On Tuesday, March 11, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2284, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 120-3 and would require the Department of Administration (DOA) to adopt written policies regarding the negotiated procurement of contracted Medicaid services provided by managed care organizations (MCOs). The bill would require the written policies to include the following:

• Prohibition on the destruction of records, including evaluation documents, which would be in compliance with the Kansas Open Records Act.
• Adoption of a tiebreak procedure if part of the evaluation process used to make award recommendations involves scoring by individuals or committees.
• Requirement to be transparent with the Legislature during each step of the procurement process to the fullest extent permitted by state law.
• An appeals process overseen and adjudicated by an appeals committee. The committee would oversee and adjudicate appeals in accordance with the policies adopted by the DOA.

Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Will Carpenter, who stated that he and many members of the Robert G. (Bob) Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight see the need for oversight of the process of selecting MCOs. No opponent or neutral testimony was submitted. The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 13 and passed it favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2249, which was passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 122-0 and would add provisions that would become part of and supplemental to the Rural Emergency Hospital Act. The bill would authorize the Secretary for the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS), upon application by a rural emergency hospital (REH) and compliance with certain requirements, to grant a physical environment waiver for existing nursing facilities to an REH to provide skilled nursing facility care. The bill would authorize the Secretary to grant a waiver to the REH to transition a maximum of 10 swing beds to skilled nursing facility beds if it met the following requirements:

• Licensed as a REH under the Act.
• Licensed as a hospital immediately prior to licensure as a REH.
• During licensure as a hospital, the REH provided skilled nursing facility services or critical access hospital swing beds to patients for a minimum of one year without an immediate jeopardy finding.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of LeadingAge Kansas and the Kansas Hospital Association who stated that the bill preserves access to short-term skilled nursing care in rural areas. Neutral testimony was provided by representatives of KDADS, and written-only neutral testimony was submitted by a representative of KDHE. The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 13, made technical amendments, and passed it favorably out of Committee, as amended.

The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2280, which was passed by the House on Feb. 19 on a vote of 119-0 and would amend law regarding emergency medical services (EMS) and EMS providers to clarify authorized activities of paramedics, advanced emergency medical technicians (advanced EMTs), emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and emergency medical responders; reduce operational service requirements for non-emergency ambulance services; and require entities placing automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for use within the state to register with the Emergency Medical Services Board. The bill would amend definitions in law regarding EMS as follows:

• Update the definition of “advance practice registered nurse” to refer to individuals licensed and with the authority to prescribe drugs as provided in the definition within the Kansas Nurse Practice Act.
• Create a definition of “qualified healthcare provider,” which would mean a physician, a physician assistant when authorized by a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse or a professional nurse when authorized by a physician.

The bill also would amend language regarding the authorized activities of paramedics, advanced EMTs, and EMTs to specify that such activities would be authorized after successfully completing an approved course of instruction, local specialized device training and competency validation, and when ordered by medical protocols or upon the order of a qualified health care provider.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas EMS Association (KEMSA) and the Emergency Medical Services Board and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Mid-America Regional Council Emergency Rescue and TECHS EMS. Proponents stated that the bill aligns EMS regulations with current practice, expands business opportunities for non-emergency transport services and creates a unified AED registry for better emergency response. No opponent or neutral testimony was submitted. Committee members asked questions regarding whether Kansas lags behind other states in AED registration (proponents stated that Kansas is mid-range, but this bill would improve tracking); the costs associated with the AED registration software (proponents stated that it is free and integrates with 911 systems); and whether failure to register an AED affects civil liability protection (proponents acknowledged concerns but stated that registration enhances public access and emergency response). The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 12 and amended it to:

• Add a definition of “public place” and limit the requirement to register AEDs to persons or entities placing AEDs in such public places.
• Remove the requirement that an AED be registered for a person or entity that owns, leases, possesses or otherwise controls such device to be afforded civil liability protection.
• Amend current law that allows any county with a population of 30,000 or less to operate a ground vehicle providing interfacility transfers with one person who is a qualified health care provider if the driver of the vehicle is certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation to apply the provision to the operation of ground vehicles providing ambulance services.

The Committee then passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also worked HB 2307, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 122-0 and would transfer the authorization and oversight of prenatally and postnatally diagnosed conditions awareness programs from KDHE to the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities, create the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Programs Fund, and direct a one-time $25,000 transfer from the State General Fund to the new fund on July 1, 2025. The Committee passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

On Wednesday, March 12, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2311, which was amended and passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 86-37 and would create law in the Kansas Revised Code for the Care of Children prohibiting the Secretary for DCF from adopting, implementing or enforcing certain policies with respect to who can be considered for selection as out-of-home or adoptive placement, custody, or appointment as permanent or SOUL custodian for a child in need of care. Policies that would be prohibited would include any that:

• Require a person to affirm, accept or support any governmental policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that may conflict with the person’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.
• Prohibit selection, appointment or licensure, if otherwise eligible, of a person because of such person’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity or intent to guide or instruct a child consistent with such beliefs.

The bill would specify that nothing could be construed to prohibit the Secretary from considering the religious or moral beliefs of a child or the child’s biological family or community, including beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, in relation to those persons who are being considered for out-of-home or adoptive placement, custody or appointment when determining what placement is in the best interests of the child. The bill would allow a person aggrieved by a violation of the proscribed conduct in the bill to recover actual damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorney fees from DCF, but would prohibit actions from being brought against an entity that contracts with DCF.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the First Amendment Partnership and three private citizens and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Kansas Family Voice and the Kansas Catholic Conference and three private citizens, who stated the bill would expand the pool of foster and adoptive families and prevent discrimination. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansas Interfaith Action, Equality Kansas, Loud Light Civic Action and three private citizens and written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Trust Women, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, American Atheists and Mainstream and 16 private citizens. Opponents stated the bill could harm LGBTQ+ children and could lead to lawsuits against DCF for allowing placements that are not in a child’s best interest. No neutral testimony was provided.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether Kansas currently has policies that bar foster families based on religious beliefs (opponents stated that no such policies exist in Kansas) and whether this bill would increase foster home availability (proponents stated that it would remove barriers for religious families who want to foster or adopt). The Committee took no action following the close of the hearing.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2365, which was passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 121-2 and would establish the South Central Regional Mental Health Hospital (South Central) as well as a fund, update the catchment areas for the state hospitals, rename “Parsons State Hospital and Training Center” to “Parsons State Hospital,” and make technical and conforming amendments in statute. The bill would provide that South Central would follow the same rules and regulations as other state hospitals. South Central would be established in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas and would be for the surrounding regional area to expand access to mental health beds in south-central Kansas. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Mental Health Coalition and KDADS and written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Associations for Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, and Kansas Peace Officers. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided.

Committee members asked questions regarding funding for the hospital’s operations (KDADS stated that construction funding is secured, and an operational budget will be proposed for fiscal year 2027); whether the new hospital would reduce strain on existing facilities (proponents stated that it would ease capacity issues at Osawatomie and Larned State Hospitals); and how the state plans to address staffing shortages (KDADS is working on recruitment strategies, including partnerships with local universities). The Committee subsequently worked the bill on March 13, made technical amendments and passed it favorably out of Committee, as amended.

On Thursday, March 13, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2335, which was passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 123-0 and would amend the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act to add certain maternity centers to the definition of “health care provider.” The bill would require a maternity center participating in the Health Care Stabilization Fund to have accreditation by the Commission for the Accreditation of Birth Centers and meet the licensure definition for maternity center in K.S.A. 65-503. Under this licensure definition, a maternity center is a facility that provides delivery services for normal, uncomplicated pregnancies but does not include a medical care facility, as defined by K.S.A. 65-425.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of New Birth Company, who stated the bill is a necessary technical fix to ensure maternity centers can access liability insurance. There was no opponent or neutral testimony provided. Committee members asked questions regarding why the bill had not passed in previous years (proponent stated that prior versions were caught in unrelated policy disputes) and whether adding maternity centers to the fund would encourage new centers to open (proponent stated that it would make Kansas a more viable place for maternity centers to operate).

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

On Monday, March 10, the Committee received a presentation on mandated reporting from Tanya Keys, Deputy Secretary of DCF, supported by representatives of the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) and the Kansas Children’s Service League. The presentation covered state laws, statistics, training for mandated reporters and issues related to anonymous reporting. Key takeaways included:

• In FY 2024, 70,940 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect were received by DCF, with 68 percent coming from mandated reporters and 42 percent of these reports coming from educators.
• Of those reports, 49.7 percent were assigned for further investigation, with 6.7 percent of cases coming from anonymous reporters. Ninety-five percent of assigned cases were unsubstantiated.
• Sixty-five percent of reports were made online, 30 percent by phone and 5 percent via fax.
• Top sources of reports: Education (28.8%), Social Services (17.2%) and Law Enforcement/Legal (12.7%). Four percent of reports (3,135 cases) came from parents, some of which may be related to custody disputes.
• Ninety-eight trainings were provided to over 3,000 mandated reporters statewide, funded by federal adoption incentive funds and Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) funds.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the challenges associated with mandated reporting, including the frequency of duplicate reports, the role of reporting in custody disputes and the broader impact on families when a report is made. Committee members discussed the potential implications of high reporting volumes and how they might affect resource allocation and case prioritization. Training for mandated reporters was another key area of discussion. The Kansas Children’s Service League (KCSL), in partnership with DCF, provides free, statewide training to help professionals recognize signs of abuse, understand reporting requirements and support families. The training also aims to help reporters distinguish between poverty and neglect to ensure that families receive the most appropriate assistance. The Committee also heard testimony from a parent with firsthand experience with the child welfare system, who described the challenges families may face following a report. She shared concerns about meeting multiple requirements, such as treatment programs, employment obligations and court appearances, and discussed the potential role of supportive interventions, such as “Mommy and Me” programs, in helping families navigate these challenges.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether Catholic priests are still exempt from mandatory reporting (KLRD stated that Kansas does not require clergy to report abuse, however a bill in the House Committee on Judiciary would mandate clergy reporting except for confessional privilege); if there is national data comparing reports made to those acted on (KLRD did not have data); whether states require reporters to identify themselves while keeping their identity confidential from perpetrators (KLRD stated that 19 states and D.C. require identification); whether a mandated reporter can make an anonymous report (DCF stated that they can, but they receive a verification number, making it unlikely); how many reports are duplicates (DCF did not have a specific number but stated that it is common, especially in sexual and physical abuse cases); whether teachers and other mandated reports are fearful of job consequences when reporting (KCSL stated yes, mandated reporters face a $1,000 fine or six months in jail for failing to report); if excessive reporting dilutes resources (DCF stated this is possible since 94 percent of cases were unsubstantiated); if social workers can report on families already in care (DCF stated yes); how many investigators DCF has (300 field investigators and 88 call center staff); and if DCF can investigate new information without a new report (DCF stated that they can conduct “preliminary inquiries” on new information before deciding if a full investigation is needed).

On Wednesday, Mar. 12, the Committee heard presentations from Joy Meadows Foster Care Community, Radical Life and Safe Families for Children, focusing on support systems for foster families and at-risk families.

Joy Meadows Foster Care Community

Joy Meadows provides housing, therapy and community support for foster families and has served over 7,000 children and families. The organization partners with churches to create care communities, which they have found significantly increase foster family retention. While many foster families stop fostering within 10 months, 93 percent of those supported by Joy Meadows remain active after three years. The organization is expanding to Sedgwick County due to high foster care needs; however, Joy Meadows has twice been denied a state sales tax exemption. Representatives of the organization requested legislative support to advocate for tax exemption to help sustain and expand their services.

Radical Life

Radical Life supports families at risk of foster care involvement by addressing poverty, employment and social isolation. Their six-month program helps families navigate mental health, financial literacy and parenting skills, reducing the likelihood of children entering foster care. Representatives emphasized the importance of community support in preventing child removals, noting that families often lack strong social networks. Program highlights included:

• Participants paid off over $70,000 in debt, including payday loans and court fines.
• Employment income increased by $18,000 per household on average, with participants maintaining stable jobs.
• Seventy-three percent of participants on parole or probation graduated early, demonstrating improved stability.
• Five participants completed their GEDs, and five others graduated from college.

Safe Families for Children

Safe Families for Children prevents child welfare involvement by offering temporary hosting services for children while parents address crises such as homelessness, mental health challenges and job loss. Unlike foster care, parents voluntarily seek help, and Safe Families focuses on keeping children with their biological families whenever possible. The program has 60 active host families in Kansas, with an 85 percent retention rate. Volunteers host children for short-term stays (from a few days to months) while parents work toward stability.

Committee members asked questions regarding where Radical Life operates (representatives stated they rent space in a church in Lyon County and serve 15 families at a time); if Radical Life helps participants find jobs (representatives stated they do through partnerships with local workforce organizations); if there are eligibility requirements for Radical Life’s program (representatives stated that participants must be clean and sober for six months, have stable housing, have children and not be on the registered sex offenders list); whether Radial life works with parents seeking reintegration of children (representatives stated they partner with DCF and foster care providers to help parents navigate and fulfill case plans); what happens if a child cannot return home after Safe Families’ intervention (representatives stated that in these cases DCF takes custody); and how Safe Families is funded (representatives stated primarily through state general funds, with some private donations)

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

On Thursday, March 13, the Committee worked SB 79, which was passed by the Senate on Feb. 19 on a vote of 29-11 and would direct the Secretary for 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 SNAP. If the waiver is granted, the bill would require the Secretary to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with SNAP benefits. If defined, the Secretary would be required to request such a waiver annually until it is granted. The Committee passed the bill favorably out of Committee.

The Committee also worked SB 85, which was passed by the House on Feb. 19 on a vote of 30-10 and would require the Secretary for 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. Representatives from DCF, KDHE and the Medicaid Inspector General’s office were present to answer questions.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether more frequent verification of certain eligibility factors would increase administrative workload without significantly improving fraud detection (KDHE and DCF officials responded that more frequent checks would add costs and slow processing times, potentially leading to federal financial sanctions); why some eligibility verifications, such as death records, were being proposed as monthly rather than daily (DCF officials stated they currently receive this data daily from KDHE and use it promptly, making monthly checks unnecessary and less efficient); the frequency of data matching and how discrepancies are handled (DCF explained that quarterly verifications via the Kansas Department of Labor and Equifax already provide accurate updates and that requiring monthly checks would create more manual work without substantially improving fraud prevention); whether monthly reviews would adequately address fraudulent EBT transactions (DCF clarified that EBT transactions are already reviewed daily, and adding a monthly check would not enhance fraud detection); how often records related to incarceration status are verified (DCF responded they receive incarceration records daily and adjust benefits accordingly, making semi-monthly checks redundant); whether lowering the reporting threshold from $3,500 to $3,000 for lottery winnings would be beneficial (DCF stated they currently receive monthly reports from the Kansas Lottery and that modifying the threshold would require system adjustments but would not significantly affect program integrity); and whether obtaining federal data sources (Housing and Urban Development, Social Security, National Directory of New Hires, FBI felony records) would be feasible (state officials explained that some of these agreements are already in place but expanding them would require costly system upgrades and additional staff time). Committee members requested additional information on the cost and feasibility of integrating automated verification systems and will potentially continue the data-matching discussion during the week of March 17.

Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance
(Sen. Brenda Dietrich, Chair)

On Tuesday, March 11, the Committee worked HB 2333, which would rename the Kansas Insurance Department as the Kansas Department of Insurance and would remove the requirement for the Senate to confirm the Department of Insurance Assistant Commissioner. (The bill also includes renaming related to the Office of Securities). The Committee amended the bill to be effective upon publication in the Kansas Register and passed it favorably out of Committee.  (HB 2333 was passed by the House on Feb. 20 on a vote of 117-6.)

Senate Committee on Ways and Means
(Sen. Rick Billinger, Chair)

On Monday, March 10, through Thursday, March 13, the Committee worked Substitute for HB 2007, the budget bill passed by the House on Feb. 19 on a vote of 83-36. The Committee created approved adjustments to the 2026 budgets for KDADS and DCF and the 2025 and 2026 budgets for KDHE-Health, including:

Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services

• Add 23.1 million, including $8.5 million State General Funds (SGF), to increase reimbursement rates for intellectual/developmental disability (I/DD) waiver services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.
• Add $12.6 million, including $4.9 million SGF, to add 180 additional slots to the I/DD Waiver for FY 2026. This increases the total number of new slots to 500 for FY 2026.
• Add $10.3 million, including $4.2 million SGF, to raise rates for cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and behavior therapy services on the brain injury waiver from $20.00 to $30.00 per hour for FY 2026.
• Add $2.0 million SGF for senior nutrition funding for FY 2026.
• Add $1.2 million, including $482,993 SGF, and add language directing the agency to increase the Medicaid rate for substance use treatment for adolescents from $206 per day to $375 per day for FY 2026.
• Add $190,000 SGF to develop a comprehensive statewide long-term care resource guide, available in both digital and print format, for FY 2026.
• Delete $6.0 million for one-time grants for community mental health centers for FY 2026.

Kansas Department for Children and Families

• Add $100,000, all from the Children’s Initiative Fund, for the Workforce Registry, for FY 2026.
• Delete $380,748, all from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) interest for software licenses, for FY 2026.
• Delete $90,000 SGF to reimburse clients who report fraudulent payments for the Summer EBT Program for FY 2026. This brings the total to $10,000 SGF for this purpose.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment — Health

• Add $16.2 million, including $4.8 million SGF, for the agency’s contract with Gainwell Technologies (provider for digital and cloud-enabled services) in FY 2025.
• Add $2.5 million to restore the reappropriation for the child care pilot program state partnership with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas in FY 2025.
• Add $50 million, including $20 million SGF, to increase hospital outpatient rates for FY 2026.
• Add $16.7 million, including $5.0 million SGF, for the agency’s contract with Gainwell Technologies for FY 2026.
• Add $96,000 for efforts to control and prevent tuberculosis for FY 2026.
• Add language to create an interim study committee to examine KanCare 3.0, including, but not limited to, the requirements, actions and rules of the agencies administering the program, the execution of the program, and any actuarial and financial concerns and practices for FY 2026.
• Add language to no longer provide continuous eligibility for Medicaid for the parent and caregiver populations.
• Delete $1.0 million, all from ARPA interest, for a Healthcare Upskilling Training Program for FY 2026.
• Delete language requiring the agency to adhere to the MCO contracts as originally agreed upon for FY 2026.

The Committee then created Senate Substitute for Substitute for HB 2007 and passed it favorably out of Committee.

Senate Committee on Government Efficiency
(Sen. Renee Erickson, Chair)

On Monday, March 10, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2101, as amended, which would prohibit cities and counties from adopting an ordinance or enforcing a resolution that establishes or provides for the operation of a guaranteed income program that uses tax revenue unless the Legislature, by an act, expressly consents to and approves of such program. The bill would render any such prohibited ordinance or resolution adopted prior to July 1, 2025, null and void. The bill would define “guaranteed income” to mean a program that is not expressly required by federal law or regulation and provides individuals with regular periodic cash payments. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project who stated that studies of guarantees income programs in other states have shown that guaranteed income is “ineffective, reduces work, and traps people in government dependence.”  He also stated that guaranteed income “did not improve recipients’ health outcomes, food security, or economic wellbeing.”  Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the League of Kansas Municipalities (LKM), Kansas Association of Counties, and Kansas Action for Children, who argued there is evidence that guaranteed income programs improve the lives of families and help them move toward self-sufficiency and that the principle of local control allows communities to make decisions that reflect the will and needs of their citizens. There was no neutral testimony provided.

Committee members asked questions regarding why the bill is needed if no Kansas city is currently enacting a guaranteed income program (proponent stated this type of program is gaining popularity nationally and noted that the Douglas County Community Health Plan for 2025-2029 commits to providing a guaranteed basic income program within the next two to three years, while a representative of the League of Kansas Municipalities stated he doesn’t know whether the idea has “gained much traction” in Lawrence and the bill is not needed and would be an “unnecessary limit on local control”); whether the bill infringes on local control (proponent admitted that is the position of opponents to the bill); whether the United Way or some church organization could create this type of program (proponent stated yes, as long as no tax dollars were being used for the program); and why the House amended the bill to include the need for legislative approval (proponent stated the amendment was made in the “spirit of negotiation” and to gain additional support for the bill). The Committee then closed the hearing on the bill and no further action was taken.

On Tuesday, March 11, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2240, as amended, which would prohibit state agencies, on or after July 1, 2025, from seeking or implementing the following without express consent and approval of the Legislature or the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC):

• A Medicaid state plan, state plan amendment, state demonstration, or waiver under Section 1115 or 1915 of the federal Social Security Act from the federal government that expands coverage to any additional individuals or class of individuals or would increase any cost to the state.
• Certain changes to services for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

The bill would authorize the LCC to approve or deny any such agency requests when the Legislature is not in session or designate a standing committee or special committee to review the request and make recommendations to the LCC. The Revisor noted that the Committee, and subsequently the Senate, had passed SB 161, which contains provisions similar to those in HB 2240, and that the House had passed this bill on Feb. 20 on a vote of 89-34.

Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project, who stated that the bill is designed to ensure that major policy changes in the Medicaid program and other programs, which are major expenditures in the state’s budget, receive direct legislative approval before they take effect, and representatives of InterHab and COF Training Services and two private citizens, who stated the need for legislative oversight to ensure that patients and providers have an opportunity to work with agency officials on proposed changes to the program.

Opponent testimony was provided by KDADS Secretary Laura Howard, Deputy Secretary for Agency Integration and Medicaid Director Christine Osterlund, representatives of the KanCare Advocates Network, Kansas Action for Children, Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities (KCDD), and the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, who expressed concerns about what would constitute an expansion of the program, the bill’s impact on the ability of the state to make changes in a timely manner in response to new federal government rules and mandatory changes and the pending application for the community support waiver, and argued that the Legislature already has oversight of the Medicaid program through the budget process and the Robert G. (Bob) Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight.

Committee members asked questions regarding what impact the bill would have on the wait list (KCDD representative stressed the importance of being able to quickly make the changes required by the Corrective Action Plan from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services so the state can move forward with its application related to the community supports waiver as soon as possible) and the harm of having the Legislature approving the changes being mandated by the federal government (Osterlund stated the challenge is being able to respond to the federal changes in a timely manner, particularly those that are federally mandated, and could potentially lead to a withholding of federal funding if compliance doesn’t occur in a timely manner). The Committee closed the hearing and took no action on the bill.