Kansas Senate Bill SB151

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Requiring the secretary of health and environment to request a waiver from the United States centers for medicare and medicaid services to end participation in certain expenditure authorities under the KanCare demonstration.

Impact

If the waiver requested under SB151 is granted by CMS, the state will effectively discontinue these key medical assistance services, potentially affecting a substantial number of individuals reliant on these services. The discontinuation of these expenditures could lead to a significant decrease in available resources for those seeking support for behavioral health issues and substance use disorders, which has broad implications for public health in the state. Should the waiver not be approved, the secretary is required to persist in requesting the waiver annually, indicating a sustained effort to formalize this change in policy regardless of the outcome of the initial request.

Summary

Senate Bill 151 (SB151) is a legislative proposal that aims to modify the state's participation in certain expenditure authorities under the KanCare demonstration program by requiring the Secretary of Health and Environment to seek a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Specifically, the bill mandates that, starting from July 1, 2025, the secretary must request to terminate participation in services pertaining to behavioral health needs, substance use disorder treatment, continuous eligibility for specific relatives, and coverage for individuals transitioning from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This legislative move is significant within the context of Kansas's healthcare landscape.

Contention

The discussions around SB151 may spark contention regarding the adequacy of support for vulnerable populations, particularly those struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues. Critics of the bill may argue that ending coverage for these services undermines the state's commitment to public health and decreases access to critical resources for individuals who may already face significant barriers to care. Proponents might assert that the intention behind the bill is to streamline expenditures and focus resources on more efficient or necessary healthcare services, but such a shift raises questions about long-term consequences for affected communities.