During Weeks 6 and 7 of the session all legislative committees were very busy taking action on health-related bills leading up to Turnaround Day on Friday, Feb. 23, the last day for bills to be passed out from their original chamber or referred to an “exempt” committee. Exempt committees include House Appropriations, Taxation, Calendar and Printing, and Federal and State Affairs, and Senate Ways and Means, Assessment and Taxation, and Federal and State Affairs. Bills sponsored by those committees prior to the deadline also are exempt. Legislators took a short break and then returned to the Capitol on Wednesday, Feb. 28, to start the second half of the session. This edition of Health at the Capitol looks at health-related policy issues discussed during the sixth and seventh weeks of the session, from Feb. 12-23.
Health at the Capitol is a weekly summary providing highlights of the Kansas legislative session, with a specific focus on health policy related issues. Sign up here to receive these summaries and more, and also follow KHI on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Previous editions of Health at the Capitol can be found on our ARCHIVE PAGE.
On Monday, Feb. 19, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) announced the awarding of new contracts for its Case Management Providers, which provide foster care services. The existing four contractors – TFI, KVC Kansas, Cornerstones of Care, and Saint Francis Ministries – will continue to provide services in most of their existing areas across the state. However, in Sedgwick County, EmberHope will replace Saint Francis Ministries, which will continue to work in the west and northwest parts of the state. The new contracts will be effective on July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2028, with an optional renewal for four additional 12-month periods. The new contracts will set caseload standards for case managers, setting the rate at 12-15 cases of children in foster care or kinship care and eight cases of children in treatment foster care per manager.
On Tuesday, Feb. 20, the House failed to override Gov. Laura Kelly’s January 26 veto of the tax bill, House Bill (HB) 2284. The bill, which included a single-rate 5.25 percent income tax, also would have eliminated the sales tax on food effective April 1.
House Health and Human Services Committee
(Rep. Brenda Landwehr, Chair)
On Monday, Feb. 12, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2751, which would amend current law to permit the Secretary for the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) to place a condition or restriction on a license of providers of disability services; authorize the Secretary to waive a regulatory requirement when health, safety or welfare would not be jeopardized by the waiver; and clarify that the Kansas Administrative Procedures Act and Kansas Judicial Review Act processes apply for all remedies. Providers of disability services include, crisis intervention centers (CICs), residential care facilities, residential and day support facilities, private and public psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric residential treatment facilities, community mental health centers, and other providers of disability services licensed by KDADS. Proponent testimony was provided by Lacey Hunter, Commissioner of Survey, Certification and Credentialing at KDADS, and a representative of Goodwill Industries of Kansas.
The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2750, which would authorize health care workers to provide expedited partner therapy (EPT) to patients who have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. The bill also would specify that a child who is 16 years of age or older may consent to receive EPT when no parent or legal guardian is immediately available. The bill would allow health care providers to prescribe, administer or dispense antimicrobial drugs to the sexual partners of diagnosed patients without the need for the partners’ examination. Health care providers and pharmacists would not be liable for civil damages or subject to disciplinary actions by the State Board of Healing Arts, the Board of Nursing or the State Board of Pharmacy resulting from any act or omission in good faith compliance with the provisions of the bill. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) would be responsible for developing and providing written materials containing information on EPT and related health matters, and also would be responsible for adopting the necessary rules and regulations for administering the bill. Forty-six states have already enacted legislation to support EPT, including Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska. Similar legislation is being considered in Oklahoma this year.
Committee members expressed concerns regarding the potential misuse of EPT, particularly in cases involving minors; the practice of physicians prescribing medication without examining or meeting patients; whether the list of diseases was too broad; and the elimination of civil liability for providers included in the bill. A representative for the Board of Healing Arts, who presented neutral testimony, stated the Board would like more discussion about possible changes to the bill to address these issues.
The Committee then worked HB 2484, which would add Kansas to a Social Work Licensure Compact that would provide interstate social work practice privileges and include multi-state licensing fees. The bill would permit Compact member-states the authority to create a new multi-state license that would allow individuals to practice in all other Compact member-states without obtaining a separate license in those states. The Committee amended the bill to include criminal record history check and fingerprinting procedures for the Act and amended the fees related to multistate licenses under the Compact and then passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of committee.
On Tuesday, Feb. 13, the Committee worked HB 2751 (see description above) and amended the bill to add a definition for “day service provider.” The bill, as amended, was then passed favorably out of committee.
The Committee then worked HB 2750 (see description above) and amended the bill to (1) narrow the focus of reportable sexually transmitted diseases to chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis; (2) require health care providers to record the name, date of birth, and sex of the patient’s sexual partner; and (3) limit Expedited Partner Therapy to patients and partners age 18 and above. The bill, as amended, was then passed favorably out of committee.
The Committee then worked HB 2669, which would create the Mental Health Intervention Team (MHIT) Program Act by making changes to the program that has operated with budget provisos from year to year since 2018. The program would be moved from the Kansas State Department of Education to the KDADS and would require KDADS to hire a Program Manager and necessary supplement staff to oversee, coordinate and fund the program. The bill also would increase the amount of the Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) pass-through grant from 33 percent to 50 percent. The bill would require reports to be submitted semi-annually and annually to the Legislature regarding the program data and outcomes. The bill also would create the MHIT Program Fund.
The Committee amended the bill to replace the term “community mental health center” with a definition for “mental health intervention team provider,” which means a center organized pursuant to article 40 of chapter 19 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, a mental health clinic organized pursuant to article 2 of chapter 65 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, or a federally qualified health center as defined by section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the federal social security act. It also includes other provider categories as authorized by KDADS to serve as a partnering provider under the Mental Health Intervention Team Program Act. The bill also requires a provider to provide specific services, including support for students available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, person-centered treatment planning, and outpatient mental health services.
On Wednesday, Feb. 14, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2777, which would prohibit any representative of the State Fire Marshal from using body cameras or other media recording devices during on-site inspections of patient care facilities, which include hospitals, recovery centers and hospice facilities. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Hospital Association (KHA) and LeadingAge Kansas, who emphasized the importance of protecting patient privacy during on-site inspections of patient care facilities. KHA noted the requirement that hospitals and other facilities comply with federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), while LeadingAge Kansas emphasized that accurately documenting inspections can be done without infringing on patients’ rights to privacy. Written only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Children’s Alliance for Kansas, InterHab, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Kansas Healthcare Association and the Kansas Center for Assisted Living. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a representative of the Kansas State Fire Marshal. Committee members discussed potential amendments to clarify what facilities would be included and asked questions regarding the need for inspectors to have cameras, inspectors’ compliance with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines, and the need to document violations.
The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2749, which would amend reporting requirements for abortions performed in Kansas. The bill would provide for a written report of pregnancies lawfully terminated to be submitted by medical care facilities and persons licensed to practice medicine and surgery to KDHE on a biannual basis. The bill also would require, except in the case of a medical emergency, each pregnant woman to be asked, prior to the termination of such woman’s pregnancy, which of a defined set of reasons was the most important factor in such woman’s decision to seek an abortion and, if more than one reason was relevant, which was the second most important and which was the third most important. If the woman declined to answer, the bill would require this response to be recorded.
Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansans for Life, Kansas Family Voice and Alliance Defending Freedom, who all emphasized the need to collect data to inform policy decisions to support women and families seeking abortion services and noted the bill would not disclose personal identifying information and would promote more responsive data sharing from KDHE to provide stakeholders with timely information. The Alliance Defending Freedom requested an amendment to include data collection on complications and injuries as a result of an abortion. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of the Kansas Catholic Conference and a private citizen. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes and Trust Women Foundation, who expressed concerns regarding the protection of patients’ rights and well-being, highlighting concerns of traumatization of survivors of sexual abuse, rape and incest, and the importance of respecting privacy and autonomy in reproductive health care decisions. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Mainstream and Loud Light Civic Action, and 18 private citizens. There was no neutral testimony. Committee members asked questions regarding the definition of the term “woman” in the bill and how it relates to minors seeking abortion services, if medical providers can opt out of asking these questions (no), whether patients can opt out of answering the questions (yes, but that response must be recorded), the format for how the information will be gathered, the intent and purpose of the data collection, patient consent and privacy, the medical benefit to patients from collection of this data, the prevalence of similar reporting requirements in other states, and the legal and constitutional implications of the bill.
On Thursday, Feb. 15, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2784, which would transfer the authority for certification of continuing care retirement community (CCRC) facilities from the Kansas Insurance Department to KDADS. A continuing care retirement community offers options for older adults who want to stay in the same place through different phases of the aging process, from independent or assisted living to memory care and skilled nursing care. The bill also would establish an annual assessment per licensed bed on each skilled nursing care facility and would reduce the rate for skilled nursing care facilities that are part of a continuing care retirement community, small skilled nursing care facilities, and high Medicaid volume skilled nursing care facilities. The bill would define “continuing care retirement community.” The bill would require the creation and on-going monitoring of licensure and regulatory oversight of independent living facilities and homes.
Eric Turek, Director of Government and Public Affairs for the Kansas Insurance Department and Steve Anderson, Kansas Medicaid Inspector General, provided proponent testimony. Turek emphasized the Insurance Department’s limited role in overseeing CCRCs after registration, noting that KDADS is better suited to administer this program. He also noted that the two agencies have been collaborating since October 2023 to ensure a smooth transition period. Anderson focused on the need to improve the registration process for CCRCs, highlighting audit findings regarding incomplete registrations and the 68 percent error rate within registrations of CCRCs. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Health Care Association and LeadingAge Kansas, who expressed concerns with including CCRCs in the definition of an adult care home that would require KDADS to license and monitor independent living facilities and homes that currently do not have licensing requirements. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Kansas Hospital Association and the Kansas Adult Care Executives Association. Lacey Hunter, Commissioner of Survey, Certification and Credentialling at KDADS, provided neutral testimony that included a detailed overview of the policy changes the bill would implement. Committee members asked questions regarding the differences between federal and state definitions of CCRCs (the federal government does not have a definition of CCRC), the role of skilled care in CCRCs, compliance in facilities that have multiple buildings, and the financial and audit process associated with the registration of CCRCs.
The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2793, which would prohibit health care providers from performing health care services on minors without parental consent. The bill would impact all health care providers licensed in the state, including physicians, nurses and mental health providers, with some exceptions stated in the bill, primarily related to emergency cases, cases in which a minor is pregnant and immunizations. Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Ron Bryce, a representative from the Kansas Medical Society and a private citizen. Rep. Bryce noted his experience as a physician, the concerns he has heard from constituents, and the importance of including parents in health care decisions relating to their children. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Kansas Board of Nursing, Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Wyandotte Behavioral Healthcare, and the Kansas Mental Health Coalition, who all expressed support for including parents in health care decisions of minors, but voiced concerns about the broad language in the bill impacting routine nursing practices in schools, where it is often difficult to get immediate parental consent to provide treatment in routine health conditions and the potential risk to patient safety and access to care and need for mitigation of unintended consequences related to timely interventions. Committee members asked questions regarding reproductive health care access for minors over the age of 16 (Rep. Eplee noted that providing contraception for young women age 16 and older without parental consent is a longstanding medical practice), parental consent and the role of family law in situations of shared custody and married parents who do not agree on the best course of action for their child, minors’ access to mental health services, and the process used by school nurses to obtain consent to provide services beyond the standard medication dispensation release
On Friday, Feb. 16, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2789, which would establish the pregnancy compassion program to provide services that promote childbirth to women facing unplanned pregnancies and to promote and establish the pregnancy compassion public awareness program to promote public awareness of such services and resources. The bill would appropriate $4,000,000 per year from the state general fund toward such program and establish a fee on the In God We Trust and the Choose Life license plates and use such fees to provide additional revenue for alternatives to abortion. Proponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansans for Life, Kansas Catholic Conference, Kansas City Pregnancy Clinic, Insight Women’s Clinic and Salem Homes, who stressed providing support for life-affirming options, how the increase of funding can expand current services, the services pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes can provide, the role of the community in supporting pregnancy resource centers, and the rise of expanding needs, most notably, the lack of affordable housing. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Kansas Family Voice, Mary’s Choices, A Better Choice, Hope’s Place Pregnancy and Family Support Center, and Grace Place Pregnancy Care Center.
Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes and Trust Women Foundation, who expressed concerns about the potential diversion of funds and lack of oversight in pregnancy resource centers, the absence of protocols for tracking and reporting how funding is spent, the lack of outcome-based reporting, the allocation of state funds to anti-abortion organizations, concerns about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars being used for the program and the potential for lack of accountability, and called for evidence-based policy and comprehensive health care services in lieu of the subsidizing anti-abortion organizations. Committee members asked questions regarding the selection process for the nonprofit selected to administer the program, the qualifications and accreditation of pregnancy resource centers, the utilization of federal funds, the role of DCF and the Office of the Treasurer in the administration of the bill, the role of religious organizations, the availability and scope of support services, the confidentiality of client information, the role of religious programming for non-religious clients, how pregnancy resource centers handle adoption assistance, the duration of services offered to women, and the composition of paid staff and volunteers within pregnancy resource centers.
On Monday, Feb 19, the Committee worked HB 2777, (described above) and amended the bill to include additional facility types within the definition of “patient care facility” and to include community-based locations where individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities receive habilitation services as a site where body cameras could not be used by the State Fire Marshal. The bill, as amended, was passed favorably out of Committee. The House Committee of the Whole also amended the bill to extend its provisions to all licensed care facilities, including child care facilities, and passed it on February 22.
The Committee then worked HB 2784 (described above) and amended the bill to:
- Remove CCRC from the definition of “adult care home” in law regarding adult care homes;
- Clarify the definition of CCRC in law regarding adult care homes;
- Clarify that “place or facility” includes multiple buildings;
- Clarify the definition of “continuing care” in the bill;
- State that if certification is not issued or renewed, the provider would be able to appeal the decision in accordance with the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, and judicial review would be in accordance with the Kansas Judicial Review Act; and
- Remove Section 9 of the bill regarding the Quality Care Assessment Tax.
The bill, as amended, was passed favorably out of committee.
The Committee then worked HB 2749 (described above) and amended the bill to:
- Change references to “woman” to “patient;”
- Remove direction for the patient to rank the second and third most important reasons for seeking an abortion;
- Remove the requirement to include the number of times each reason was indicated as the second or third most important reason for seeking an abortion in required reports; and
- Remove select factors from the survey,
The bill, as amended, was passed favorably out of committee.
Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee
(Sen. Beverly Gossage, Chair)
On Tuesday, Feb. 13, the Committee worked Senate Bill (SB) 103, which would make several amendments to the Dental Practices Act (Act), including:
- Require dentists to provide certain practice ownership information;
- Remove the minimum personal presence requirements of licensed dentists regarding dental offices using a licensee’s name;
- Permit the Kansas Dental Board (Board) to refuse to license or to take action upon a licensee under the Act who directed or pressured another dental professional to perform dentistry that failed to adhere to the standard of dental care or that would violate the Act; and
- Prohibit dentists or a contract for dental services from requiring a patient to sign an agreement that attempts to limit a patient’s ability to file a complaint with the Board.
The bill was passed favorably out of committee.
On Wednesday, Feb. 14, the Committee held a hearing on SB 390, which would establish the Conscientious Right to Refuse Act. The act would prohibit discrimination against individuals who refuse medical interventions, such as vaccinations, and create a civil cause action based on such discrimination. The act would repeal K.S.A. 65-126 65-127, 65-129 and 65-129c, related to the Secretary of KDHE’s authority to quarantine and impose associated penalties. Medical interventions defined in the act include vaccination, biologic, pharmaceutical, drug, gene editing technology, or DNA- or RNA-based product. Under the act, employers, health care entities, schools or persons are prohibited from imposing adverse employment action, denial of goods and services, denial of entry, separation from others without valid business necessity, denial of housing, assessment of a financial penalty or treatment of an individual differently based on refusal of any of the listed medical interventions.
Proponent testimony was provided by Sen. Mark Steffen and eight private citizens. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by 22 private citizens. Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Association of Local Health Departments, Kansas National Education Association, Immunize Kansas Coalition, Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Interfaith Action and Kansas School Nurse Organization. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Morton County Health Department, Health Forward, Kansas Hospital Association, Kansas Council of Health-Systems Pharmacy, SEK Multi-County Health Departments, KDHE, Nurture KC, Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, Kansas Academy of Family Physicians, Johnson County Health and Environment, Kansas Pharmacists Association, Grant County Health Department, Unified Government Public Health Department, Kansas Public Health Association, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, LeadingAge Kansas, Kansas Medical Society, and Kansas Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics, and 28 private citizens. Committee members asked questions regarding the current liability for employers if an employee had an adverse effect from a mandated vaccine, the right of an individual to choose not to vaccinate, medical reasons to not receive a vaccination, federal mandates on employers and the 2021 Special Session legislation related to penalties to employers who fail to grant medical and religious exemptions. The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 23.
On Thursday, Feb. 15, the Committee held a hearing on SB 391, which would establish the Constitutional Right to Health Freedom Act. The Act would remove the authority of KDHE to designate infectious or contagious diseases by rules and regulations. KDHE would be required to submit a report to the Legislature on such diseases and would be authorized to recommend ways to prevent the spread and dissemination of diseases injurious to public health and could recommend the isolation and quarantine of persons afflicted with or exposed to such diseases. KDHE would be allowed to adopt policies necessary to carry out the provisions of K.S.A. 65-101, related to the general supervision of the health of the people of the state, but could not carry out those provisions in a manner that conflicts with any other statute or otherwise expands the authority of KDHE. The bill would amend various statutes pertaining to the issuance of orders by KDHE, county or joint boards of health, and local health officers related to infectious and contagious diseases and would remove authority to issue certain orders to allow only recommendations. The bill would remove current requirements for licensed social workers, teachers and school administrators to report knowledge or information related to individuals suffering from or a death from a reportable infectious or contagious disease. The bill also would remove the authority of a county or joint board of health or local health officer from prohibiting public gatherings when necessary for the control of any and all infectious or contagious disease, although a recommendation against the public gathering would be allowed. Under the bill, employers would be prohibited from discharging an employee when the employee is following local health officer recommendations or due to their vaccination status and the bill would create a civil cause of action against the employer by the employee who has been discharged.
Proponent testimony was provided by Senator Mark Steffen and nine private citizens. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by a representative of We the People and 14 private citizens. Opponent testimony was provided by Ashley Goss, Deputy Secretary, KDHE, and representatives of Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Association of Local Health Departments and Kansas Chamber of Commerce. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of the Kansas State Nurses Association, K.U. Medical Center, Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, Wyandotte County Public Health Department, Kansas Academy of Family Physicians, Kansas Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics and 19 private citizens. Committee members asked questions regarding the current status of COVID mandates and COVID mandates for child care entities, the potential risks of schools no longer being required to report infectious diseases to KDHE, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations during the COVID pandemic, and employers’ rights under the bill.
On Monday, Feb. 19, the Committee held a hearing on SB 488, which would expand the programs which may be audited or investigated by the Office of Medicaid Inspector General to include cash, food and other health assistance programs. Currently, these activities are limited to the Medicaid program. Proponent testimony was given by Steven Anderson, Medicaid Inspector General, Office of the Attorney General, and a representative of Opportunity Solutions. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by representatives of Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and Kansas Action for Children. Committee members asked questions regarding current fraud investigation efforts, the fiscal note ($2.98 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and $2.4 million for FY 2026) and additional staff (20 full-time equivalents). The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 23.
The Committee also held a hearing on SB 489, which would direct the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) to establish a correctional center nursery for incarcerated expectant mothers and their child to allow certain expectant mothers to care and bond with their children for up to 36 months while incarcerated. Proponent testimony was provided by Gloria Gaither, Deputy Secretary for Facilities Management, KDOC, and representatives of the Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition, Ministry to Incarcerated Families, United Women in Faith, Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition and the Topeka Doula Project. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Nurture KC, Kansas Catholic Conference, Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, United Way of Kaw Valley, Kansas Children’s Service Leage, Kansas Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics, Kansas Family Voice, Kansas Action for Children, and Kansas Association for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health. There was no opponent testimony submitted and written-only neutral testimony was provided by a representative of Kansas Birth Equity Network. Committee members asked questions regarding women sentenced for more than 36 months (not eligible), the percentage of infants born to incarcerated women who go to foster care, and program oversight by KDHE. The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 23.
On Tuesday, Feb. 20, the Committee worked SB 352, which would create the John D. Springer Patient’s Bill of Rights. The bill would make definitions and establish requirements for in-person visitation in certain circumstances at medical care facilities. Facilities would be required to establish or revise visitation policies and procedures that comply with the provisions of the bill prior to Sept. 1, 2024. KDHE would be required to provide information on the agency’s website that explains the requirements of the bill with a link to report complaints against medical care facilities alleging violations. The bill also would list specific rights for patients being cared for in medical care facilities. Medical care facilities would receive immunity in certain situations, and damages for actions brought for violations of bill provisions would be specified as actual damages or $25,000, whichever is greater, and the cost of the suit. The Committee amended the bill to:
- Remove the specific time frame to establish visitation policies and procedures by medical care facilities and the parameters to be included in the visitation policy and procedure;
- Provide clarification regarding minor patients and parent or guardian presence; and
- Include clarification around the use of involuntary seclusion and restraints.
The Committee passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of committee. The bill was further amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole to include a remedy for a medical care facility’s compliance with the Act that results in a monetary penalty, fees or lost funding and the establishment and protocol of the Medical Care Facility Reimbursement Fund and was passed on Feb. 22.
The Committee also worked SB 391 (described above) and amended the bill to:
- Remove the criminal penalty regarding a violation of the tuberculosis related statues;
- Reinstate reporting the infectious or contagious disease requirements for licensed social workers, teachers and school administrators;
- Require the Secretary to designate a list of infectious or contagious diseases;
- Permit the Secretary to provide testing for infectious or contagious diseases; and
- Allow a Board of County Commissioners to adopt an order regarding isolation or quarantine based upon a Local Health Official’s recommendation to the Board.
The Committee passed the bill, as amended, favorably out of committee. The bill was further amended by the Senate Committee of the Whole to remove the provisions related to a cause of action against an employer and return the bill to current law and also adopted an amendment that a local health official could choose to submit recommendations regarding isolation or quarantine of an infected individual and the Board could decide to act upon the recommendation to isolate or quarantine an infected individual, and passed as amended on Feb. 22.
House Child Welfare and Foster Care Committee
(Rep. Susan Concannon, Chair)
On Monday, Feb. 12, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2628, which would modify the law governing access to confidential information regarding children alleged or adjudicated to be in need of care. The bill would require DCF to release certain information to the public in response to an open records request pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) within seven business days of receipt of the request, if criminal charges are filed with a court alleging that a person caused a child fatality. Under current law, the required information includes age and sex of the child, date of fatality, a summary of previous reports and findings of abuse or neglect involving the child, and services provided to the child as recommended by DCF. Proponent testimony was provided by Sec. Laura Howard, DCF, who stated that the agency was requesting the bill and stressed the importance of transparency while preserving confidentiality safeguards. She noted that through this bill, she believes that DCF can provide both to the public and to those impacted by the death of a child, but she also acknowledged that the statute and the process are confusing for the public and the media, because for information to be released, DCF must determine a finding of abuse or neglect. There was no opponent or neutral testimony submitted.
On Thursday, Feb. 15, the Committee worked HB 2581, which would eliminate the requirement that court-ordered child support be paid when a child is in the custody of DCF. The bill also would remove the requirement that child support payment requests be made in a child in need of care petition. The bill was amended to reinsert language that would have been removed by the bill, as introduced, concerning the required contents of a Child In Need of Care petition, modifying the language to make a request for child support permissive rather than mandatory. The bill, as amended, was then passed favorably out of committee.
The Committee then worked HB 2628 (description above) and passed it favorably out of committee.
On Monday, Feb. 19, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2189, which would add a definition for “non-minor dependent” to the Kansas Code for Care of Children, which would be an individual who is at least 18 years old but less than 21 years old, and except for the age requirement, meets the definition of a child in need of care. Upon a written request by a child to a court, the bill would prohibit the court from issuing an order terminating jurisdiction over the child before June 1 of the school year in which the child turns 18 years old if the child is in an out-of-home placement, is still attending high school, and has not completed a high school education, or who is a non-minor dependent in the custody of DCF when in out-of-home placement and is transitioning to adulthood. The bill would require that a non-minor dependent participate in case planning, attend school or work, make efforts to independence as determined by DCF, and receive independent living services from the Independent Living Program administered by DCF. If the non-minor dependent does not comply with these requirements, DCF could petition the court to terminate jurisdiction. The court would not have jurisdiction over a non-minor dependent after the non-minor dependent has been absent from placement for 30 calendar days or attains 21 years of age. Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Adam Thomas and a representative of Children’s Alliance of Kansas. There was no opponent testimony and neutral testimony was provided by Stacy Tidwell, Deputy Director for Youth Programs, DCF. The bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee on Feb. 21 and re-referred to Child Welfare and Foster Care on Feb. 22.
The Committee then held a hearing on HB 2772, which would establish the Kansas Indian Child Welfare Act by providing additional requirements for child custody proceedings involving American Indian children. The bill would define terms used in the Act and would grant jurisdiction over proceedings that involve an American Indian child to the child’s tribe. The bill would require DCF to notify tribes if a proceeding would involve an American Indian child and would require state courts to seek placement of an American Indian child with an American Indian custodian or person committed to the child’s culture. The state courts would be required to declare standards for proceedings involving an American Indian child and also would be required to provide notice of the proceedings and identify when to notify the United States Secretary of the Interior. Proponent testimony was provided by Rep. Christina Haswood and representatives of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas. Written-only proponent testimony was submitted by the Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a representative of American Adoptions and a private citizen. Written-only neutral testimony was provided by representatives of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas and DCF. Committee members asked questions about retroactive dates related to adoption and record keeping, alignment with existing federal law, definition of an American Indian child, and geography and tribal membership requirements. No further action was taken on the bill.
The Committee then worked HB 2552, which would prohibit DCF from using federal monthly Social Security (SSA), Supplemental Security (SSI) or other federally issued benefits received by a child in foster care to reimburse the state for the costs of care while in state custody, including food, clothing, shelter, education and daily supervision. The bill also would require DCF to create accounts for children receiving federal benefits and directing the use of the benefits for the best interests of the child. No further action was taken by the Committee.
House Welfare Reform Committee
(Rep. Francis Awerkamp, Chair)
On Tuesday, Feb. 13, the Committee held a hearing on HB 2673, which would direct DCF to request a waiver from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that would allow the state to prohibit the purchase of candy and soft drinks with food assistance benefits. Proponent testimony was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions Project, who stated concerns about the purchase of unhealthy items with food stamps, particularly focusing on the prevalence of sugary products like soft drinks and candy. He referenced statistics from the USDA showing significant expenditures on these items and emphasized the impact on obesity rates, especially among SNAP recipients and cited Kansas’ 35.7 percent obesity rate among young adults and argued that the bill would address concerns of obesity and related diseases. Opponent testimony was provided by Dr. Carla Whiteside Hicks, DCF, and representatives of Fuel Trust, Independent Energy and Convenience, the Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Action for Children, Harvesters and the Retail Grocers Association. Whiteside Hicks pointed to the administrative challenges in implementing the proposed change and emphasized the complexity of retailer compliance monitoring and resource limitations within the agency to implement the bill. Fuel Trust cited concerns about the financial implications of the bill and potential challenges for retailers to stay in business. Written-only opponent testimony was submitted by representatives of Kansas Appleseed, Kansas Chamber, Kansas Beverage Association and National Confectioners Association. Committee members asked questions regarding food deserts and access to healthy options, and the potential challenges of obtaining approval of a waiver from the federal government. Chair Awerkamp stated that the intent of the bill is to prompt DCF to request a waiver annually until granted.
On Tuesday, Feb. 20, the Committee worked HB 2673, made a technical amendment to the bill and passed it, as amended, favorably out of committee. However, it was stricken from the House Calendar on Feb. 23.