Policy and advocacy

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

February 2024

We hope everyone had a great February! Legislatively, there’s been a significant amount of activity in both Kansas and Missouri as both legislatures work towards key deadlines.

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

Damaging anti-public health legislation, SB 391, passed the Kansas Senate on Feb. 22, which removes virtually all executive authority from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to enforce rules and regulations, such as quarantines and the use of personal protective equipment for first responders, during an infectious disease outbreak.
A slightly improved voting restriction bill, HB 2512, passed out of the House with a veto-proof majority. While the bill was amended from its original version to still allow for Monday voting prior to election day in certain circumstances, we oppose the legislation which will lead to some voters losing out on the chance to vote ahead of election day.
Promises of a hearing on Medicaid expansion following turnaround have advocates working hard to gather testimony and speak out in support. We support moving forward with the legislative process on Medicaid expansion in Kansas, which would provide health insurance coverage to nearly 150,000 people.

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	Introduced in the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare (Senate) and Committee on Health and Human Services (House)	We support the expansion of Medicaid in Kansas, but do not support the inclusion of work requirements in these bills.
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 22nd this year, 23-17	We oppose 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.	Introduced in the Committee on Public Health and Welfare last year.	We support 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.	Introduced in the Committee on Public Health and Welfare (Senate) and Committee on Health and Human Services (House) last year.	We generally support 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.	Was heard on February 19th in the Committee on Public Health and Welfare.	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 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, SB 366, HB 2571 have had hearings. The rest have been introduced in the Committee on Federal and State Affairs (Senate) and Committee on Elections (House).	We oppose all of 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 15th, 2024.	We support 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 has been amended by the Senate and is in that chamber’s Committee on Local Government.	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 25th, 2024. SB 332 was also heard on February 13th this year.	Generally, we are supportive of measures that would reduce property taxes to homeowners, especially for seniors and those who may be priced out by property tax increases. We will monitor these bills and their progress.
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, as well as increasing the transferability of tax credits related to housing development.	Passed the Senate last year and is now on the House.	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)	Would ban universities from considering potential student or faculty stance regarding their viewpoint about diversity, equity, and inclusion.	Was introduced in 2023 and was heard on January 31st, 2024.	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.
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 11th, 2024.	Health Forward supports 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.

Missouri

The conventional wisdom that the Senate wouldn’t do much during this legislative session was upended when SJR 74, which makes it harder for initiative petitions to be adopted, passed on Feb. 19. It is currently being read into the House. Meanwhile, the House also has a very similar version of this initiative petition change with HJR 86, which passed out of its committee.
The barrage of anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion bills on the House side have been consolidated into one bill, HB 2619, which would ban any dollars spent by state agencies attached to DEI initiatives. This would come at a significant economic cost to Missouri, risking $2.6 billion in economic output and nearly 24,000 jobs through the end of the decade. All of this legislation threatens the ability to deliver services, tax credits, and quality, responsive health care and many other essential needs across the state.
Another dangerous bill is HB 2385, which prohibits local governments from requiring landlords take any federal housing assistance vouchers. This means that many people who have difficulty finding affordable housing, including people with disabilities and veterans, would have a nearly impossible task of finding safe, quality, and affordable housing.

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 has been read into the Senate Health and Welfare committee but there is no hearing scheduled as of the end of the month.	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)	SB 1239 has been referred to the Senate Health and Welfare committee; SBs 888 and 1357 have been heard in Senate Progress and Development.	We support all of these bills as written. We testified in support of SB 888 during its hearing on Jan. 24th.
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.	SB 931 has been read into the Senate Health and Welfare committee. All three of the bills on the House side have passed out of their committee, as of February 26th, 2024.	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 had public hearings in the House Healthcare Reform committee on February 13th, 2024.	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.	Of these bills, SJR 74 and HJR 86 have both gained momentum with SJR 74 passing out of the Senate on February 19th, 2024 and HJR 86 passed out of committee on February 26th.	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 is ready to be read into the House at any point, after passing through the Rules Committee on February 26th, 2024.	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 passed out of the Special Committee on Tax Reform on February 22nd. HB 1813 had a public hearing on February 7th, 2024.	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 on February 12th, 2024 111-26.	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 passed the rules committee on February 26th and is ready to be moved on the House floor at any moment. HB 2567 had a public hearing completed on February 13th, 2024.

SB 1314 and 980 have been referred to their committees.

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 13th.

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: February 2024 legislative update for Kansas, Missouri

Kansas

Missouri

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

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

Kansas

Missouri

Related Stories

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work