SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 2825
As Recommended by House Committee on
Insurance
Brief*
HB 2825 would create the Consumer Protection Related
to Hospital Price Transparency Act (Act), which would
establish requirements for hospitals to provide certain pricing
information to the public, provide the Attorney General (AG)
with enforcement authority, and establish procedures for
hospitals not in compliance with the Act.
Definition (New Section 1)
The bill would define “hospital” as used in the Act to
mean a general hospital or special hospital licensed under
KSA 65-425. Those terms are defined in law, as follows:
●“General hospital” means an establishment with an
organized medical staff of physicians, permanent
facilities that include inpatient beds and with
medical services, including physician services, and
continuous registered professional nursing services
for not less than 24 hours of every day to provide
diagnosis and treatment for patients who have a
variety of medical conditions; and
●“Special hospital” means an establishment with an
organized medical staff of physicians with
permanent facilities that include inpatient beds and
with medical services, including physician services,
and continuous registered professional nursing
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org services for not less than 24 hours of every day, to
provide diagnosis and treatment for patients who
have specified medical conditions.
Requirements (New Section 2)
Pursuant to federal regulation (45 CFR § 180), each
hospital operating in the United States is required to provide
clear, accessible pricing information online about the items
and services that each hospital provides. The bill would
require each hospital that is licensed in Kansas to provide:
●A list of the hospital’s top 300 procedures with
corresponding pricing information and a plain
language description of each procedure included in
a consumer-friendly format on a public-facing
website;
●Upon request of a patient scheduled to receive an
elective procedure, test, or service to be performed
by the hospital or, upon request of a patient’s
legally authorized representative, made at least
three days in advance of the date on which the
elective procedure, test, or service is scheduled to
be performed, furnish the patient with an estimate
of the payment amount for which the patient will be
responsible; and
●Written information about the patient’s ability to
request an estimate of the payment amount.
The bill would require written information about the
patient’s ability to request an estimate of the payment amount
to be posted in conspicuous public areas of the hospital,
including registration or admission areas, and included on
any website maintained by the hospital.
2- 2825 Enforcement (New Section 3)
The bill would provide the AG with the authority to
enforce the provisions of the Act. If the AG finds that a
hospital is non-compliant with 45 CFR § 180, as in effect on
July 1, 2024, then the hospital would be fined $250 per day of
non-compliance.
Non-compliance with the provisions of the Act would
constitute an unlawful or deceptive trade practice under the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
Non-compliance (New Section 4)
Any hospital not in material compliance with the Act on
the date that items or services are purchased by or provided
to a patient would not be able to initiate or pursue a collection
action against the patient or a patient guarantor for any debt
owed for those items or services.
If a patient believes that a hospital was not in material
compliance with the Act on the date that items or services
were purchased by or provided to the patient and the hospital
undertakes a collection action against the patient or patient
guarantor, the bill would provide for the patient or patient
guarantor to file a civil action against the hospital to
determine if:
●The hospital was materially out of compliance with
the Act or rules and regulations promulgated under
the Act on the date that the items or services were
purchased or provided; and
●Such non-compliance with the Act is related to the
items or services purchased by or provided to the
patient.
3- 2825 The bill would provide that a hospital would not be able
to undertake a collection against a patient or patient
guarantor while a civil action is pending.
Court Order
If the trier of fact finds that the hospital was materially
out of compliance with the Act or rules and regulations
promulgated under the Act, after considering standards
issued by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) and standards set by the Act, the bill would
direct the court to order the hospital to:
●Refund the payor any amount of the debt the payor
has paid and pay a penalty to the patient or patient
guarantor in an amount equal to the amount of the
debt;
●Move to dismiss, with prejudice, any collection
action relating to the debt and pay any attorney
fees and costs incurred by the patient or the patient
guarantor relating to such action; and
●Cause to be removed from the patient or the
patient guarantor’s credit report any report made to
a consumer reporting agency relating to this debt
and take necessary actions to cause any report
made to a consumer credit agency relating to the
debt to be removed from the patient’s or patient
guarantor’s credit report.
The bill would require the court to provide a copy of the
order issued to the AG to notify the AG of the material non-
compliance finding.
The bill would state that nothing in the Act would be
construed to:
●Prohibit a hospital from billing a patient guarator or
third-party payor, including a health insurer, for
4- 2825 items and services purchased by or provided to the
patient; or
●Require a hospital to refund any payment made to
the hospital by a patient, patient guarantor, or third-
party payor for items purchased by or provided to
the patient so long as the hospital has not
undertaken a collection action against the patient,
patient guarantor, or third-party payor in violation of
the Act.
Kansas Consumer Protection Act
The bill would add violations of the Act to the list of
deceptive acts and practices under the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act.
Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Appropriations at the request of Representative Sutton.
House Committee on Insurance
In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by a representative of Opportunity Solutions
Project, who stated that many hospitals have failed to comply
with the federal hospital price transparency rules, and the bill
would provide enforcement mechanisms that would help
ensure patients have access to pricing information and
cannot be pursued by collection agencies for medical debt
that was not properly communicated.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by a
representative of the Kansas Chamber.
Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of
Great Plains Health Alliance, Greenwood County Hospital,
5- 2825 Kansas Hospital Association, and Stormont Vail Health. The
opponents generally stated that pricing medical procedures
and services is complicated, hospitals are already required to
comply with federal rules regarding price transparency, and
instituting additional requirements would increase the
financial burden on hospitals.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by
representatives of Ascension Via Christi, Kansas Association
of Counties, Mountain Region CommonSpirit Health,
Physician Hospitals of Kansas, and Salina Regional Health
Center.
No other testimony was provided.
Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, the Office of the Attorney General
(Office) states that if it finds that a hospital is non-compliant
with 45 CFR § 180, then the hospital would be fined $250 for
each day the hospital is non-compliant, which would result in
additional revenues that would be credited to the State
General Fund (SGF). However, the agency cannot estimate
the additional revenue the fines could generate. To enforce
the Act, the Office would need 3.0 FTE positions at a total
cost of $345,000 from the SGF starting in FY 2025. The
Office would require 1.0 First Assistant Attorney General FTE
position at a cost of $135,000, 1.0 Assistant Attorney General
FTE position at a cost of $125,000, and 1.0 Legal Assistant
FTE position at a cost of $85,000.
The Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) states the bill
could increase the number of cases filed in district court
because the bill creates a new crime and allows a party to
bring a civil action. The increase in cases would also increase
the time spent by district court judicial and non-judicial
personnel in processing, researching, and hearing cases. The
bill could also result in the collection of docket fees that would
6- 2825 be deposited into the SGF. However, the OJA cannot
estimate the additional expenditures or revenues the bill
could generate.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment
reports that there would be no fiscal effect on agency
operations.
Any fiscal effect associated with the bill is not reflected
in The FY 2025 Governor’s Budget Report.
For counties that have hospitals, there could be
additional expenditures associated with making the required
information available to the public. In addition, there could be
additional expenditures related to ensuring compliance with
the bill’s requirements. However, the Kansas Association of
Counties states that a fiscal effect cannot be estimated. The
League of Kansas Municipalities states that the bill would not
have a fiscal effect on cities.
Health; health care; hospitals; pricing; consumer protection; Consumer Protection
Related to Hospital Price Transparency Act
7- 2825