Weeks 3 and 4 of the 2025 Session

During Weeks 3 and 4, legislators continued to work at a fast pace on various health-related issues. While the budget committees were focused on reviewing and approving budgets for state agencies, other committees were busy with child welfare issues, health care provider compacts, the authority of public health officials, eligibility for public assistance programs and limitations on medical services related to gender transition. Early in Week 4, Gov. Laura Kelly also announced the introduction of her seventh proposal to expand Medicaid and all committees were busy introducing bills leading up to the Feb. 7 deadline for non-exempt committees to introduce bills in chamber.

On Monday, Feb. 3, the Governor’s Office released the monthly revenue report, which showed total tax collections for January of $942.8 million, $15.9 million above the estimate. However, Secretary of Revenue Mark Burghart noted that but for a tax system function on Friday, Jan. 31, which delayed that day’s individual income tax refunds to Feb. 3, total taxes collected would have been close to the amount forecasted for January.

On Thursday, Feb. 6, Gov. Kelly, for the seventh time, announced a proposal to expand Medicaid. The Healthcare Access for Working Kansans (HAWK) Act, which was introduced into both chambers, would expand the program starting on Jan. 1, 2026. The bill also provides that if the federal match rate drops below 90 percent, the program will be phased out over 12 months, requires applicants to be employed, in school, engaged in volunteer work or caring for a dependent child or incapacitated adult, and also establishes a 15-member Rural Health Advisory Committee appointed by the governor to address health issues and make recommendations.

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

On Tuesday, Jan. 28, the Committee held a hearing on House Bill (HB) 2071 (companion bill to Senate Bill (SB) 63, which would enact the Help Not Harm Act. The bill would 1) prohibit health care providers from providing certain treatments to a child who has a perceived gender or perceived sex that is different than the child’s biological sex; 2) prohibit recipients of state funds, including the Kansas Medicaid program and its managed care organizations, from using such funds to provide or subsidize the prohibited treatment; 3) prohibit recipients of state funds for the treatment of children for psychological conditions from prescribing, dispensing or administering medication as defined in the bill, performing surgery or providing a referral to another health care provider for the identified medication or surgery for a child whose perceived gender or perceived sex is inconsistent with the child’s sex; and 4) prohibit the use of state property, facilities or buildings to promote or advocate the use of social transitioning, medication or surgery, except to the extent required by the U.S. Constitution.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Catholic Coalition, American College of Pediatricians, The Heritage Foundation, Family Policy Alliance, Kansas Family Voice and three private citizens. The proponents generally stated the bill would protect minors from procedures used to physically change a child’s gender and expressed concerns with health care providers, the reliability of scientific research, the influence of social media and whether minors fully understand the procedures, risks and long-term impacts of such procedures. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by six private citizens. Opponent testimony was provided by a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union and 14 private citizens. The opponents generally stated the bill would negatively affect the lives of transgender youth and young adults and would prevent parents from making medical decisions for their minor children. Opponents also questioned the constitutionality of the bill. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by hundreds of private citizens. There was no neutral testimony.

On Wednesday, Jan. 29, the Committee amended HB 2071 to allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover actual and punitive, injunctive relief, the cost of the lawsuit and reasonable attorney fees; allow a private cause of action against a health care provider for violation of the Act; and change the effective date to be upon publication in the Kansas Register and passed it favorably out of committee.

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the Committee met to hear presentations on children’s health from representatives of Kansas Action for Children (KAC), Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Community Health Council of Wyandotte County, Kansas Infant Death and SID Network, and the Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The KAC representative highlighted the “coverage gap” —  where low-income parents earning between $11,856 (38 percent of the federal poverty level) and $31,200 (100 percent of the federal poverty level) are ineligible for both Medicaid and federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. She also warned about declining childhood vaccination rates, contributing to the resurgence of diseases like measles and whooping cough, and stressed the importance of maintaining Kansas’s long-standing immunization policies. She cited data showing that childhood immunization efforts have saved over $500 billion in direct costs and $2.7 trillion in societal costs while preventing 1.1 million deaths, and advocated for reducing health care access obstacles, increasing Medicaid provider reimbursements and upholding proven public health policies to improve outcomes for Kansas children and families.

The representative of the Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics discussed concerns about coverage gaps, particularly after the Medicaid unwinding, which resulted in nearly 57,000 Kansas children losing coverage. She also discussed the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on long-term physical and mental health, explaining that trauma can lead to chronic diseases, mental health disorders and reduced life expectancy and encouraged policymakers to invest in early childhood interventions, trauma-informed care and policies that address poverty, food insecurity and housing instability.

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2069, which would establish the School Psychologist Compact. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense, the Adjutant General’s Department, the Kansas Chamber, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Association of School Psychologists, the Kansas Association of School Boards and a military spouse. Proponents generally stated the compact will help address the nationwide shortage of school psychologists, particularly in Kansas, where the ratio of school psychologists to students (1:1,069) falls far short of the recommended 1:500. The Committee amended the bill to make technical corrections and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended.

The Committee also held a hearing on HB 2070, which would establish the Dietitian Compact. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives from the U.S. Department of Defense, the Adjutant General’s Department, the Kansas Chamber, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Kansas Hospital Association, the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, LeadingAge Kansas, and several dieticians. Proponents generally stated that the  compact will expand access to qualified dietitians, particularly in rural and underserved areas, while reducing licensing barriers for military spouses, telehealth providers and relocating professionals. They also emphasized that the compact would streamline licensure, support workforce mobility and improve health care outcomes by ensuring continuous access to nutrition services across state lines. Committee members asked how many states are currently in the compact (four states have passed legislation, 12 state are considering legislation). The Committee amended the bill to correct the definition for “adverse action” and made technical corrections and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended.

On Thursday, Feb. 6, the Committee heard a presentation from Steve Anderson, Medicaid Inspector General, Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, who provided an overview of the role of his office, which is an independent division within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, and noted that his office conducts audits, investigations and performance reviews to prevent, detect and deter fraud, waste and abuse within Medicaid programs, including KanCare, MediKan and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Key findings from recent audits and investigations included:

• MediKan overpayments of $1.6 million were paid to 912 ineligible beneficiaries who exceeded the 12-month program limit. Removing 556 individuals resulted in $1.2 million in savings.
• KanCare managed care organizations received $1.3 million in capitation payments for 25 deceased individuals. The state successfully recouped these funds.
• 2,854 individuals remained on home and community based services Medicaid waivers without receiving services for over a year, costing the state $193 million. Additionally, $8 million was spent on Life Alert services that would have cost only $55,000 under a fee-for-service model.
• Medicaid benefits were paid to individuals who had moved out of Kansas, leading to $1.3 million in unnecessary capitation payments.
• More than 2,000 transitional Medicaid beneficiaries exceeded the 12-month limit, costing the state $16.3 million. A follow-up found 580 individuals were still improperly enrolled, leading to an additional $1.5 million in costs.
• Misclassified nursing homes benefited from reduced bed taxes, resulting in a revenue loss of $87 million. A legislative change corrected this, saving the state an estimated $12 million annually.

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

On Tuesday, Jan. 28, the Committee held a hearing on SB 63, which would enact the Help Not Harm Act (companion bill, HB 2071, described above). Proponent and opponent testimony was provided by representatives who testified on HB 2071 noted above. No neutral testimony was submitted.

On Wednesday, Jan. 29, the Committee worked and amended SB 63, as described above for HB 2071, and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended. The bill was passed by the full Senate on the same day, on a vote of 32‒8, and referred to the House. The bill was then passed by the House on Friday, Jan. 31, on a vote of 83‒35, and presented to the Governor on Wednesday, Feb. 5.

On Thursday, Jan. 30, the Committee held a hearing on SB 31, which would amend several sections of the Kansas Dental Practices Act to enhance patient rights and modify regulations for dental practices including:

• Providing patients with basic details upon request, including their full name, emergency contact information and Kansas state license number.
• Prohibiting dentists and dental service contracts from requiring patients to sign agreements that limit their ability to file complaints with the Kansas Dental Board.
• Allowing dentists to practice under a trade, corporate or association name.
• Eliminating the requirement for dentists to be physically present in offices operating under their name for at least 20 percent of treatment hours.
• Expanding the grounds for disciplinary actions, including fining licenses up to $10,000 for violations.

Proponent testimony was provided by representatives from the Association of Dental Support Organizations, the Kansas Chamber, the Kansas Justice Institute and private practice dentists who argued that eliminating the 20 percent rule will expand access to dental care, particularly in rural areas, and remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on dentists. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Dental Association, Free State Dental and other private practice providers who argued that removing the 20 percent rule will reduce oversight, patient care quality and dentist accountability, leading to corporate-driven dentistry. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of Oral Health Kansas, who shared doubts about whether eliminating the 20 percent rule to open up the market for more dental offices would achieve the goal of increasing access to dental care for underserved communities.

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the Committee held a hearing on SB 3, which amends the Kansas Lay Caregiver Act to require the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to audit hospital compliance with caregiver designation and aftercare procedures. The results of these audits must be reported annually to the Legislature starting in 2026. The bill also repeals the existing section of K.S.A. 65-431a to incorporate these changes. Proponent testimony was provided by a private citizen whose family member was discharged from a hospital without notification to the legal guardian and was discharged to a center without consent. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by AARP Kansas, which supports any efforts to uphold the intent of the Act. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas Hospital Association (KHA), who stated that they see the bill as a duplication to what is already in state and federal statues and has a significant fiscal note.

On Thursday, Feb. 6, the Committee held a hearing on SB 41, which would amend the Healthcare Provider Insurance Availability Act by adding advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), who are licensed and authorized to prescribe drugs, to the definition of health care providers. The bill would require them to maintain professional liability insurance as part of the Health Care Stabilization Fund (HCSF). Proponent testimony was provided by representatives from the Kansas Medical Society, the Kansas Chiropractic Association and a representative of New Birth Company, a KDHE-licensed midwife-led birth center in Kansas City, who generally stated that the bill would provide necessary malpractice protection for APRNs by including more of them in the HCSF, ensuring fair insurance requirements across health care providers. They also emphasized that this change enhances patient safety, supports APRNs’ growing role in health care and addresses financial barriers that limit their practice, particularly in maternity and rural care settings. Opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Kansas Affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the Kansas Advanced Practice Nurses Association and a private citizen, who argued that the bill, as written, imposes financial and regulatory burdens on APRNs by mandating participation in the HCSF without addressing issues such as high malpractice costs, lack of flexible coverage options and limited representation on the HCSF board. They then suggested amending the bill to implement tiered malpractice insurance rates based on scope of practice, to increase insurance competition to lower costs and provide exemptions for APRNs in non-clinical roles, such as academia or administration. They also advocated for adding APRN representation to the HCSF board, allowing temporary licensure flexibility and including freestanding birth centers in the definition of qualified health care providers to support midwifery care and improve access to maternal health services. Neutral testimony was provided by a representative of the HCSF, who stated that Kansas has maintained low malpractice insurance costs through responsible fiscal management over the years and that SB 41 would ensure that APRNs have access to affordable liability insurance and would provide financial protection for patients in malpractice cases.

On Friday, Feb. 7, the Committee held a hearing on SB 29, which would have enacted the Constitutional Right to Health Freedom Act. The bill would have regulated the activities of local health officers related to public health functions and revoked the Secretary of KDHE’s authority to quarantine individuals and impose penalties for violations of the Act. The bill also would have prohibited employers from terminating employees based on their decision to follow isolation or quarantine recommendations or due to their vaccination status, providing a legal course of action for individuals. Additionally, the bill would have revised procedures for reporting infectious diseases and specified conditions under which remote learning for schools can be authorized.

SB 29 is identical to SB 391, which was introduced in the 2024 legislative session, which was passed by the committee of origin but failed to get a hearing in the House committee. Proponent testimony, both oral and written, was provided by over 25 private citizens, who generally argued that the bill is necessary to protect individual rights and limit government overreach in public health decisions. They also expressed concerns about personal freedom and bodily autonomy and highlighted past instances where they believed quarantine polices were misused. Additionally, they expressed skepticism about public health data, particularly regarding tuberculosis (TB) outbreaks, and suggested that issues such as illegal immigration may be contributing to the disease spread rather than a lack of government intervention. Opponent testimony, both oral and written, was provided by representatives from the Immunize Kansas Coalition, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, Kansas Academy of Family Physicians, Kansas Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics, Health Forward Foundation, Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Association of Counties, Kansas Association of Local Health Departments, the Kansas Chamber, KHA, Kansas National Education Association, KDHE, the Lawrence-Douglas County Public Health Department and a private citizen. Opponents generally argued that the bill undermines public health by removing enforcement abilities, making it harder to control the spread of infectious disease, and stated that it could lead to increased disease outbreaks, higher health care costs and increased risks to specific populations like children and immune-compromised individuals. The Kansas Chamber argued that the bill could create unnecessary legal burdens on employers by restricting their ability to implement workplace health policies.

Committee members asked questions regarding whether local health officers are elected (the Revisor clarified that while health boards may be elected, local health officers are appointed); the  contagiousness and current status of TB (KDHE confirmed that TB is contagious and that an outbreak in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties has resulted in multiple cases and two deaths); the impact of the bill on food safety investigations (the Revisor explained the bill would remove KDHE’s authority to designate reportable diseases, potentially eliminating mandatory reporting requirements for foodborne illness outbreaks); whether the bill would change TB control measures (the Revisor stated that while TB-specific statutes remain unchanged, the bill’s removal of quarantine and isolation authority could create legal conflicts requiring court resolution); and how SB 29 would affect public health authority and disease reporting (the Revisor confirmed that without the authority to designate reportable diseases, health care providers would no longer be required to report infectious diseases).

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

On Tuesday, Jan. 27, the Committee heard a presentation from a representative of Casey Family Programs on the Kansas Child Welfare, Reimagined work group that met during the 2024 interim session. The work group was convened by former Rep. Susan Concannon and Rep. Jarrod Ousley to reimagine and redesign parts of the child welfare system over the next three to five years. Core members of the work group included House Majority Leader Chris Croft, Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) Secretary Laura Howard, Child Advocate Kerrie Lonard and former and current Kansas Children’s Alliance executive directors. The full work group included legislators, representatives from the Governor’s office, prosecutors, law enforcement, educators, mental health services providers, foster parents, and youth and parents with lived experience. The work group was split into two subgroups to address prevention and removal and foster care through permanence and tasked with analyzing data, laws and policies to develop a long-term transformational roadmap. Priorities identified by the subgroups include:

• Amending the statutory definition of neglect to exclude poverty as a reason for child maltreatment and family separation and ensuring that children and youth are not placed in foster care because of truancy or to receive mental health services.
• Improving safety and risk decision making and reducing unnecessary family separation by improving cross-systems collaboration, providing trauma-informed training and increasing family engagement by providing prevention services before crisis.
• Reviewing Kansas statutory removal standards, including police protective custody, and ensuring that children are only removed from their home due to imminent danger.
• Enhancing kin-first policies and practices to improve outcomes for children and families.
• Shortening the time children and youth spend in foster care by providing effective services, such as quality family time, and eliminating permanency barriers for reunification, subsidized relative guardianship and adoption.

On Wednesday, Jan. 29, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2075, which would amend the Kansas Code for the Care of Children by shortening the timeline for permanency hearings from 12 months to nine months after a child’s removal from their home, with subsequent hearings required at the same interval. These hearings assess progress toward a permanency plan, which may involve reunification with parents, adoption, legal guardianship or alternative permanent placements for older children. The bill ensures that courts evaluate the state’s efforts in family rehabilitation, practical parenting standards, and preparing older children for adulthood. Additional provisions require thorough justification for continued placements in residential treatment programs and mandate timely action, such as terminating parental rights or appointing a permanent custodian if reintegration is not feasible. The bill also allows courts to issue custody and parenting orders when one parent achieves permanency, incorporating these decisions into civil custody cases for consistency. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Office of the Child Advocate, DCF, Children’s Alliance of Kansas, Family Reunion, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, EmberHope Connections and the Kansas Children’s Service League, who argued that the bill would improve timely permanency for children in foster care, reduce trauma and instability, and enhance judicial oversight to ensure better outcomes for children and families.

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2132, which would modify the definition of “neglect” in Kansas law, limiting it to acts or omissions that result in actual harm rather than a likelihood of harm and clarifying that financial inability alone does not constitute neglect. The bill also strengthens requirements for child removal petitions by mandating proof of imminent harm and ensuring courts consider preventive services and protective orders before ordering temporary custody. Resources shared with the Committee included a 50-state survey on the definition of child neglect from the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) and an analysis of state definitions of child neglect from Casey Family Programs. Committee members asked the Revisor’s Office how the change from “failure” to “refusal” in the definition of neglect would impact cases where parents are unaware of their responsibilities (courts may have to determine intent and knowledge); whether substance abuse alone could be considered neglect (it cannot be the sole factor, but combined with another factor, it can demonstrate imminent harm); how multiple factors such as disability and poverty would be weighed in petitions (if combined, they can be used to argue for removal); and whether specific conditions like an empty refrigerator or lack of a fire extinguisher would still qualify as neglect (current law allows such conditions to be considered, but the bill seeks to clarify and limit removals based on poverty-related factors). Proponent testimony was provided by representatives from Children’s Alliance of Kansas, DCF, KAC, Kansas Appleseed, Kansas Children’s Service League, Kansas Office of the Child Advocate and several private citizens. Proponents generally stated that the bill clarifies the distinction between poverty and neglect, ensuring children are not removed from their homes solely due to financial hardship and emphasizing preventive services over unnecessary out-of-home placements, and highlighted that unnecessary removals cause trauma to children and families, strain limited state resources and disproportionally affect low-income and minority communities. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives from the Johnson County District Attorney’s Office, the Kansas County and District Attorney Association, the Shawnee County District Attorney’s Office, the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, Kansas Sheriffs’ Association, Kansas Peace Officers Association and a judge. Opponents argued that the bill weakens child protection laws by requiring actual harm before intervention, potentially leaving children in dangerous situations. They also contended that changing the definition of neglect raises the burden of proof, making it harder to intervene in cases of substance use, unsanitary living conditions or lack of supervision, ultimately increasing the risk of harm or death to children.

On Friday, Feb. 7, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2175, which would require that notification of a parent’s rights be provided to parents of a child who is the subject of an investigation of abuse or neglect or has been removed from the home by a law enforcement officer. The bill would require an agreement between DCF and the parent of a child when the child is removed from the home during an investigation. The bill also would require DCF to complete a written report when an investigation is closed and would permit a parent to withhold certain information, such as medical and mental health records, unless otherwise ordered by a court. No proponent testimony was provided, but opponent testimony was provided by representatives of several district attorneys’ offices and law enforcement organizations, who argued that the bill places unnecessary burdens on investigations, potentially delaying timely interventions. They also expressed concerns that requiring law enforcement officers to provide parental rights notifications could compromise investigative effectiveness, create logistical challenges with language barriers and inadvertently alert potential offenders. Neutral testimony was provided by representatives from the Child Advocacy Center of Sedgwick County, Children’s Advocacy Centers of Kansas, Children’s Alliance of Kansas, DCF and the Kansas Office of Judicial Administration, who acknowledged the bill’s intent to protect parental rights but raised concerns about potential unintended consequences on child safety and investigative processes. They emphasized that provisions allowing parents to refuse interviews, withhold records or delay access to children could hinder timely interventions and increase risks to child welfare and also suggested amendments to balance parental rights with the need for effective child protection measures.

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

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2015, which would direct the Secretary of DCF to request a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would allow Kansas to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives from the Opportunity Solutions Project, the Foundation for Government Accountability and a private citizen, who stated that restricting SNAP purchases of soda and candy would promote healthier eating habits, reduce taxpayer-funded health care costs associated with obesity and diabetes and align with the program’s original intent of providing nutritional assistance. They also argued that similar restrictions already exist in SNAP and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), that retailers can adapt their systems accordingly and that Kansas has an opportunity to lead a broader movement toward improving public health through nutrition-focused policies. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives from Fuel True — Independent Energy and Convenience, Harvesters Community Food Network, Kansas Food Action Network and the National Confectioners Association, who argued that the bill would create administrative burdens for small retailers, impose unfunded mandates and fail to meaningfully address public health concerns. They also contended that the bill’s definitions of candy and soft drinks are inconsistent, leading to confusion at checkout, and that restricting certain SNAP purchases would not change consumer behavior but could result in fewer retailers accepting SNAP, particularly in rural areas. Additionally, they argued that healthier food options remain unaffordable for many, that SNAP purchases mirror general consumer habits and that existing programs already encourage better nutrition without imposing new restrictions.

The Committee worked HB 2015 on Feb. 6, made a technical correction and passed it favorably out of committee, as amended.

On Thursday, Feb. 6, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2101, which would prohibit cities and counties from implementing guaranteed income programs. The bill defines a guaranteed income program as “a program that provides individuals with a regular periodic cash payment that may be used for any purpose without requiring such individuals to be employed, seek employment or attend employment-related training to receive such funds.” Proponent testimony was provided by a representative from Opportunity Solutions Project, who argued that guaranteed income programs encourage government dependency, reduce workforce participation and fail to improve recipients’ long-term financial well-being. She also cited that studies of these programs have shown negative outcomes, including increased debt, higher spending on non-essential items and no significant improvements in health or food security and warned that these pilot programs serve as a stepping stone for a federally funded universal basic income. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of the League of Kansas Municipalities (oral), the Kanas Association of Counties (written) and KAC (written), who argued that the bill is  unnecessary because no Kansas city currently administers or is considering a guaranteed income program and local governments should retain the flexibility to make decisions tailored to their communities, as protected under Kansas’ constitutional home rule provision. Additionally, they raised concerns about the bill’s broad language potentially impacting existing city-administered programs, such as those funded through federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants. Neutral testimony was submitted by a representative of the Lawrence-Douglas County Public Health Department presenting research and data related to guaranteed income programs throughout the U.S.

House Committee on Federal and State Affairs
(Rep. Tom Kessler, Chair)

On Thursday, Feb. 6, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2104, which would provide that for the purposes of promoting the safety and protection of students and emphasizing how students should respond when encountering a firearm, school districts could provide firearm safety education programs. The Kansas State Board of Education (KSDE) would be required to establish curriculum guidelines for a standardized firearm safety education program. For students enrolled in kindergarten through grade 5, the curriculum would be based on the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program offered by the National Rifle Association and for grades 6‒8, the curriculum would be based on the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program or the Hunger Education in Our Schools Program offered by the Department of Wildlife and Parks. For grades 9‒12, the curriculum would be based on the Hunter Education in Our Schools Program. If a local board of education would elect to provide firearm safety education, the instruction would be required to be in accordance with the guidelines established by KSDE. Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Patrick Penn and representatives of Women for Gun Rights, National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Kansas State Rifle Association. Written-only proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the National Rifle Association of America and Safari Club International. Proponents generally focused on the need for standardized education for firearms to children. Opponent testimony was provided by one private citizen and written-only opponent testimony was submitted by the Kansas Association of School Boards and 41 private citizens. In general, opponents objected to “legislative overreach” into the authority of KSDE and noted that KSDE already has a curriculum for gun safety under the Safe and Secure Schools Act. Neutral testimony was provided by one private citizen.

House Appropriations Committee
(Rep. Troy Waymaster, Chair) 

On Friday, Feb. 7, the Committee reviewed and worked the Social Services Budget Committee reports for fiscal years (FYs) 2025 and 2026 for DCF, the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) and KDHE-Health. The Committee approved the Budget Committee’s recommendations for all three budgets, as adjusted.

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

On Tuesday, Jan. 28, the Committee held a hearing on SB 14, which would establish a system of continuing appropriation where existing appropriations would carry forward into the subsequent fiscal year unless the Legislature adjusts them. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Americans for Prosperity, who stated the bill would limit budget growth and strengthen the position of the Legislature on the budget. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a representative of the Disability Rights Center, who stated the bill would potentially harm disabled persons by limiting funding for social service programs. The representative also asserted that the bill was a violation of Article 2 Section 24 of the Kansas Constitution, which requires specific appropriations. There was no neutral testimony provided. On Wednesday, Jan. 29, the Committee passed the bill favorably out of committee. The Senate passed the bill on Feb. 6 on a vote of 31‒8 and referred it to the House Appropriations Committee.

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the Committee heard a presentation by Scott Brunner, KDADS Deputy Secretary of Hospitals and Facilities, regarding contract staffing. Brunner reported that as of Jan. 1, 2025, the turnover rate at Osawatomie State Hospital (OSH) was 17.0 percent and the vacancy rate was 32.6 percent. The turnover rate at Larned State Hospital (LSH) on the same date was 12.9 percent and the vacancy rate was 36.0 percent. He also reported that for state FY 2025, through December 2024, LSH spent $22.7 million on contract staff and is projecting a total of $43.8 million through the end of FY 2025, more than seven times the amount spent on contract nursing staff in FY 2019. For the same period, OSH spent $8.1 million on contract nursing and is projecting a total spend of $16.4 million for FY 2025, more than 120 times the amount spent in FY 2019. For FYs 2025 and 2026, KDADS requested an additional $11.0 million for OSH to cover contract staffing expenditures. The House Appropriations recommendation was $8.0 million each year, For LSH, KDADS requested $30.2 million for FYs 2025 and 2026 and the House Appropriations recommended $30.0 million for 2025 only and language to prohibit contract staffing expenditures for FY 2027.

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

On Wednesday, Feb. 5, the Committee heard a presentation entitled “Pharmacy 101” by a representative of the Kansas Pharmacists Association, which focused on accessibility to community-based pharmacies, pharmacy closures and pharmacy deserts. The definition of a pharmacy desert is a pharmacy shortage area where the distance to a pharmacy is greater than 10 miles in a rural area, two miles in a suburban area, one mile for urban areas and a half mile in neighborhoods that are low income and have low vehicle ownership. The representative shared the research she conducted for her master’s thesis, which was centered on pharmacy deserts in rural Kansas. Key findings from her study, which was concluded in February 2024, included:

• 210 towns in Kansas met the criteria of a rural pharmacy desert.
• The furthest distance a town was from the nearest pharmacy was Matfield, which is 25 miles from their local pharmacy.
• Of the 63 Governor-designated medically underserved areas in Kansas, a total of 73 percent contained at least one pharmacy desert.
• Approximately 58 percent of the pharmacy deserts in Kansas are located within a medically underserved area.
• Approximately 83 percent of the pharmacy deserts in Kansas are located within a primary care health provider shortage area.
• Over the last decade 52 pharmacies have closed their doors across the state.
• Rural communities commonly experience reduced or no access to other health care professionals and typically the pharmacy is the last health care service available in these communities.

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

On Tuesday, Feb. 4, the Committee held a hearing on SB 79 (similar to HB 2015), which 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. The bill also provides definitions for candy and soft drinks. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project and a private citizen, who asserted that that the bill would return SNAP to its original purpose of helping families access real, nourishing food and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Harvesters and Fuel True — Independent Energy and Convenience, who stated that the bill will not improve health outcomes and may cause convenience stores to stop accepting SNAP and could increase the stigma associated with SNAP use. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Topeka Chamber, Kansas Chamber, Kansas Beverage Association, Kansas Action for Children and DCF.