Policy and advocacy

What we’re watching: April 2024 legislative update for Kansas, Missouri

May 2024

With April ending, there are lots of things happening on both sides of State Line Road.

Kansas is looking at a likely special session to resolve issues on tax policy but the session has ended — for now. This means that, while many of the bills we track are unlikely to see the light of day, they are still technically live and could be considered.

Missouri follows close behind with adjournment sine die happening on May 17. Many have speculated that a special session could still occur because of hangups on the budget and other key legislation.

Check out our policy agendas for Kansas and Missouri, to get a sense of how legislation works for, or against, Health Forward’s purpose plan.

Here’s what we’re watching and advocating for in Kansas and Missouri:

Kansas

After HB 2105, an anti-DEI bill that applies to higher education, passed before the April 5^th adjournment, Governor Kelly decided to let the bill become law without her signature. This is not the desired outcome and as we look towards the 2025 session, we remain concerned that more and more harmful anti-DEI legislation will be introduced.
Before the April break, a motion was made in the Senate to pull Medicaid expansion legislation (SB 355) out of its committee for consideration by the full Senate. Unfortunately, the motion failed 18-17 and another legislative session will go by leaving about 150,000 Kansans in the lurch on access to affordable, quality health care they would’ve received if Medicaid was expanded.
Despite numerous bills focused on curtailing access to the ballot box, especially in eliminating the 3-day grace period to return advance mail in ballots, it appears that those efforts have stalled for now. The main vehicle, SB 14, stalled out in the Senate after passing the House before first adjournment. We are proud of all the advocates who helped stop this legislation!

People policy goal: People can easily access safe, quality, and affordable whole—person care.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Medicaid Expansion (SB 355 and HB 2556)	Expands Medicaid in Kansas, one of only 10 states refusing to expand the program, to provide health insurance to nearly 150,000 Kansans	Despite huge support during the March 20th hearings, both bills are unlikely to see action if a special session is called.	We supported the expansion of Medicaid in Kansas and will continue to advocate for its adoption until it happens.
Removing authority of public health officials (SB 6, SB 390, and SB 391)	These bills generally remove the authority of statewide public health officials to do their job: prevent the spread of infectious diseases.	SB 6 passed the Senate last year 22-18 and is in the House. SB 391 was adopted in the Senate on February 22^ndthis year, 23-17.	We opposed all these bills. They would actively harm public health, especially in infectious disease outbreaks.
Improving maternal health outcomes (SB 118)	Would expand authority to allow for a formal review of maternal deaths, akin to Missouri’s PAMR.	This bill remains in committee without getting a public hearing.	We supported this legislation and would encourage a better definition of disaggregated data to specify at least by race, ethnicity, language, and geography.
Expanding telemedicine (HB 2337 and SB 246)	Expands telehealth offerings and requires certain coverage under insurance.	Both of these bills remain in committee without getting a public hearing.	We supported this legislation.
Audits for safety net programs (SB 488)	Allows the inspector general to conduct audits on all state cash, food, and health safety net programs.	Passed out of the Senate 22-18 on March 26^th, but is still technically viable if and when a special session is called.	While Health Forward is not opposed to audits of programs, we fear this would empower the use of burdensome audits and, ultimately, unnecessary barriers for hard working people to access the safety net.

Power policy goal: Participation in our democracy and policymaking process improves health outcomes.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What they do	Status	Our stance
Restricting advance mail in ballot voting (HB 2512, HB 2513, HB 2571, SB 14, SB 343, SB 365, and SB 366)	Generally, these bills all focus on making advance mail in ballot voting more difficult. HB 2513 and SB 365 require return by 7pm on election day. HB 2571 categorizes mail in ballots as provisional until verified by election officials. SBs 343 and 366 restrict how ballots are sent out by election officials.	An amended version of HB 2512 passed the House 97-23. SB 365 was voted down 18-22 on March 7^th. SB 14 passed the House but didn’t pass the Senate before the April break and contained the contents of HBs 2512 and 2513.	We opposed all these bills as they all make it more difficult to vote in advance, vote by mail in ballot, or to access them in the first place. We provided written testimony in opposition to HB 2512, HB 2571, and SB 366. We will work with partners to continue to oppose this legislation.

Place policy goal: Our communities are healthy place where people fully participate in the digital economy and build wealth through safe, quality, and affordable housing and homeownership.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Extending the Homestead Property Tax refund to renters (HB 2636).	Allows renters to qualify for up to $700 in a refundable tax credit, which can be put towards the cost of renting.	Heard in the House Committee on Taxation on February 15^th, 2024.	We supported this legislation and provided written testimony to the committee.
Prohibiting localities from imposing fees or registration requirements on vacant properties (HB 2083)	Limits what local governments can do to help fill vacant housing.	Passed the House in 2023 and was amended by the Senate but did not receive final passage.	We are generally opposed to legislation that preempts localities from doing what they deem necessary, in this case, to induce owners of vacant properties to have them occupied. With the current housing shortage, we need more, not less, housing.
Local ad valorem tax reduction fund (LAVTRF) changes (Budget and SB 332)	The Governor’s budget proposal includes the LAVTRF, which gives dollars back to counties and cities to use in certain circumstances, including lowering property taxes. SB 332 would have the LAVTRF be used to issue rebates to residential property owners.	The Governor’s budget bill had a hearing on January 25^th, 2024. SB 332 was also heard on February 13^ththis year. An attempt to abolish the LAVTRF in HB 2036 (Tax bill) failed after the Senate was unable to override Governor Kelly’s veto.	Generally, we are supportive of measures that would reduce property taxes for homeowners, especially for seniors and those who may be priced out by property tax increases.
Housing incentive districts and credit transferability (SB 34)	Allows for the designation of urban and rural housing incentive districts to spur the creation of more affordable housing and increase the transferability of tax credits related to housing development.	Without passage from both bodies in 2024, this legislation is still technically viable.	Not specific to this legislation, we are in favor of measures that could lead to more affordable housing stock. However, there needs to be more systemic investment from the state.

Platform policy goal: Community health is influenced by systems, policies, and stories that promote racial equity and economic inclusion.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in hiring practices and statements in higher education (HB 2460 and HB 2105)	Would ban universities from considering potential student or faculty stance regarding their viewpoint about diversity, equity, and inclusion.	While 2460 passed the House 81-39 on March 21^st, 2105 ended up being the vehicle for the bill passing both chambers. The governor allowed it to become law without signature on April 25^th.	We are opposed to this this, and all anti-DEI legislation, which harms our education pathways – especially for health sciences professions – and economy. We testified in opposition in person.
Prohibition on people from certain countries from owning real property in Kansas (House sub for SB 172)	Bans people from 6 countries from owning real property in Kansas, unless approved by an oversight board.	It passed the House 84-39 on March 27^thbut failed in the Senate. A reworked version passed both chambers on April 30^th but may still be vetoed or signed by the Governor.	We understand the intent behind the bill but opposed it due to the negative impacts on immigrants from these countries awaiting legal status in the US, harming their ability to own or start businesses in the state.
Protecting hair styles from discrimination in the workplace – the ‘CROWN Act’ (HB 2044 and SB 36)	These bills would make it unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their hairstyle typically associated with race, including braids, locs, and twists. It would ensure that people with afro—textured hair are not discriminated against based on their choice of hair style.	These bills have been introduced to their respective committees in the House and Senate, with the Senate having a hearing on January 11^th, 2024.	Health Forward supported these bills as currently written, and submitted testimony in support on SB 36. It ensures that people wearing natural or protective hair styles do not face discrimination, which disproportionately impacts Black women in the workplace. It aligns with our stance that racial equity should be pursued in all policies.

These highlighted bills are ones we are keeping a focus on, but to see a full list of the bills we’re tracking in Kansas.

Missouri

The Senate finally resolved a nearly two-day filibuster — apparently the longest in Missouri history — to pass SB 748, which is the federal reimbursement allowance (FRA) renewal. This is a major win because otherwise Medicaid would’ve needed to be funded out of the state general fund to the tune of about $4 billion. The Senate will now begin to work through the budget bills to meet the May 10th constitutional deadline to send them to the Governor’s desk.
SJR 74, which would gut simple majority rule for passing ballot initiatives, has passed both the Senate and the House, with the only difference being the House inserting misleading and already statutory language known as ‘ballot candy’ back into the resolution. It now goes back to the Senate where, if passed as-is, would head to the Governor’s desk for signature.
A couple of other bills we’re watching haven’t seen floor action recently but we’re not losing sight of them until session is over.
- HB 2385 would prohibit local governments from requiring landlords take any federal housing assistance vouchers. It has passed the House and its Senate committee but is not on the calendar.
- HB 2619, sweeping anti-DEI legislation banning the expenditure of any state dollars on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, has passed out of its committee of origin and is on the House calendar. It could be considered by the full body at any time.

People policy goal: People can easily access safe, quality, and affordable whole—person care.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Renewing the federal reimbursement allowance (FRA) aka the ‘provider tax’ (SB 748)	Allows Missouri to bring back billions in federal matching dollars to fund our Medicaid program.	Passed out of committee and is on the Senate calendar for perfection.	We support this bill and provided testimony in favor.
Work requirements for Medicaid (SJR 76)	Would require people on Medicaid between ages 19 – 49 to submit to onerous work verification requirements to be eligible for health insurance.	It passed out of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on March 27^th.	We oppose this bill and any bill that imposes work requirements for access to safety net supports.
Data disaggregation by race, ethnicity, language, and geography for certain public health data (SBs 1239, 888, and 1357).	SB 1239 would require data disaggregation for certain demographic variables across a broad set of public health data. SBs 888 and 1357 are very similar but would apply to the pregnancy associated mortality review board (PAMR)	SBs 888 and 1357 have been combined and passed out of committee on February 28th.	We support all of these bills as written. We testified in support of SB 888 during its hearing on Jan. 24^th.
Allowing for audio and audiovisual services to be considered telehealth (SB 931, also HBs 1421, 1873, and 1907)	These bills will allow audio-only and audiovisual communication to qualify as telehealth services, greatly expanding telehealth options.	All three of the bills on the House side have passed out of their committee, in addition to the Senate bill on March 13^th.	We support the expansion of telehealth to include these options to be available to people needing remote care.
Expanding the coverage of doula services through Medicaid (HBs 1446 and 2632)	These bills would allow anyone covered on Medicaid who is expecting to give birth to have access to doula services.	Both of these bills have passed out of committee, and HB 2632 is on the House calendar for perfection.	We support these bills and provided testimony in support.

Power policy goal: Participation in our democracy and policymaking process improves health outcomes.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Modifying the initiative petition process – (SJR 49, 51, 56, 61, 73, 74, 77, 79, 81, 83, and HJRs 76 and 86 plus HB 1749)	These bills, numerous as they are, generally all make it more difficult to put questions to the citizen’s vote, more difficult to pass, and tweaks how those amendments can be changed.	SJR 74 has passed both the Senate and House, with the House reinserting ‘ballot candy’ language. HJR 86 has passed the House and been referred to committee in the Senate. HB 1749 has passed the House, as well as its Senate committee.	We generally oppose changes to the initiative petition process. We will stand with citizens and advocates to work to oppose these resolutions, should they be fully adopted.
Adding an expiration date to voter registration and auto-rejecting absentee ballots without matching signatures (HB 2052)	As the description indicates, it would lead to disenfranchisement of people through not fault of their own and auto-rejection of an absentee ballot makes it more difficult to feel secure in your vote counting.	It has only been read into the House a second time – still needs referral to a committee.	We oppose this legislation and similar legislation that works to disenfranchise voters through unneeded barriers and obstacles.

Place policy goal: Our communities are healthy place where people fully participate in the digital economy and build wealth through safe, quality, and affordable housing and homeownership.

Policy issue and relevant legislation	What it does	Status	Our stance
Preempting local governments on requiring landlords to take housing assistance (HB 2385)	Prohibits local governments from requiring landlords from taking any federal housing assistance.	This bill has passed out of the House and its Senate committee but is not on the Senate calendar yet.	We are strongly opposed to this legislation as it would make it more difficult to secure safe, affordable, and quality housing for people earning a low wage. We testified in opposition.
Broadband legislation – there is legislation to allow an income tax deduction for broadband internet expansion grants (HB 2142) and the establishment of a Broadband Development Council (HB 1813)	See brief descriptions in the Policy Issue column.	HB 2142 the House on March 27^th 140-0. HB 1813 has passed out of its committee on March 28^th.	We testified in support of HB 2142 because it is directed at providing a deduction only of those dollars are going to the express purpose of broadband internet access. We are monitoring HB 1813.
Preemption from the state on eviction moratoria (HB 2062)	HB 2062 prevents localities from having a moratorium on evictions, which was extremely important during the COVID outbreak.	HB 2062 passed out of the House in February and has passed out of the Senate committee but is not on a calendar as of yet.	We testified in opposition to HB 2062 on Jan. 17th.

Platform policy goal: Community health is influenced by systems, policies, and stories that promote racial equity and economic inclusion.

Policy issue and relevant legislation

What it does

Status

Our stance

Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion legislation – SB 1314, HB 2619, HB 2567, and SB 980.

HB 2619 (combines HBs 2365, 2448, and 2569) prohibits the state from spending dollars on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. HB 2567 is a ‘Do No Harm’ bill that would restrict DEI funding specifically in medical sciences education. SB 980 regulates businesses with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from contracting with the state.

HB 2619 has been placed on the House calendar and could go to the floor at any time. HB 2567 had a public hearing completed on February 13^th.

SB 980 had a hearing at the end of February.

We staunchly oppose all anti-DEI legislation as it cuts directly against our purpose of strengthening and building inclusive, powerful, and healthy communities characterized by racial equity and economic justice. We testified in opposition to HB 2619 and HB 2567 on February 13^th.

These bills highlighted are ones we are keeping a focus on, but here is a full list of the bills we’re tracking in Missouri.

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

What we’re watching: April 2024 legislative update for Kansas, Missouri

Kansas

Missouri

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

What we’re watching: April 2024 legislative update for Kansas, Missouri

Kansas

Missouri

Related Stories

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work