Policy and advocacy

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

February 2024

Welcome to the first 2024 installment of our monthly government affairs updates, where we work to inform you on key legislation and regulations related to our policy agendas in Kansas and Missouri, as well as how they advance — or counteract — the strategies laid out in our purpose plan.

We also have legislative district infographics available for use in your policy and advocacy efforts.

Given that the Kansas legislature operates on a two-year cycle, it’s important to note that many bills from 2023 are still viable this session. This is important to note because bills from the previous year’s session could still be heard, passed out of committee, or even passed out of the Senate or House to go to the respective governor.

To see last year’s legislative updates, follow these links:

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

Kansas

The drumbeat on Medicaid Expansion in Kansas has been getting louder as Gov. Kelly announced her new plan for the bill, which would include work requirements. Health Forward released a statement lauding the introduction of the legislation for its middle of the road approach but expressing concerns about the plan’s work requirements provision. Nevertheless, we support a public hearing on the bills so that legislators may hear from the people and pursue ways to make health care accessible for all Kansans.
The re-occurring attacks on voting rights and access in Kansas continue, with a bevy of bills introduced to make it harder to return mail in ballots, require onerous voter identification, or intrude on voter rolls.
Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) legislation that bans the use of DEI statements in higher education has been getting movement. HB 2460 makes it harder for institutions to affirm their commitment to an inclusive learning and working space and runs counter to Health Forward’s commitment of supporting and building inclusive, powerful, and healthy communities.

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. SBs 390 and 391 were introduced in the Committee on Public Health and Welfare this year.	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.

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. In particular, HB 2512 requires they are returned two dates before the election, and 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.	Two bills have had hearings – HB 2512 and SB 366. 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 by mail in ballot or to access them in the first place. We provided written testimony in opposition to HB 2512 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
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, while SB 332 has been introduced in the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee.	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 but has now been scheduled for a hearing on January 31st in the House.	We oppose this bill and testified on January 31, and all anti-DEI legislation, which harms our education pathways – especially for health sciences professions – and economy. You can view our testimony here.
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.

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

Missouri

Few bills have been moving this year — so far. However, that will change as more bills are beginning to be referred to their respective committees in the Senate.
One early bill that Health Forward testified in favor of is SB 748, known as the federal reimbursement allowance or ‘provider tax’ bill, which helps fund a significant portion of our state’s Medicaid program. Without renewing this legislation, Missouri would have to pay for Medicaid out of the state general fund, positioning funding of the Medicaid program in competition with funding other government supported programs.
Several anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion bills have been introduced this session, too. Two bills — SB 1314 and HB 2365 — focus on suspending any dollars from the state budget touching anything related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Another bill, SB 980, would ban the state from contracting with businesses engaged in DEI considerations, which would hinder the ability to deliver services, tax credits, and quality, responsive health care and many other essential needs across the state.
A significant number of bills to hinder the initiative petition process are underway, with nearly 20 bills and resolutions being heard this week on both the House and Senate side. We are opposed to changes in the initiative petition process that undermine the people’s power in the policy making process.

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; SB 888 has had a hearing in Senate Progress and Development, while 1357 has been just referred to that committee.	We support all of these bills as written. We testified in support of SB 888 during it’s 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, while the other House bills have also made it to committee, with HB 1907 having been heard on Jan. 23rd.	We support the expansion of telehealth to include these options to be available to people needing remote care.

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.	These bills were all heard the week of Jan. 29th in their respective committees.	We generally oppose changes to the initiative petition process. As these efforts winnow down, we’ll update you on which bill is gaining the most momentum. SJR 74 has been favored as the main bill that’ll go to the Senate floor.
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
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 received a hearing on Jan. 30th. HB 1813 has been referred to Workforce and Infrastructure Development on the House side.	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) and source of income discrimination (HB 2385)	HB 2062 prevents localities from having a moratorium on evictions, which was extremely important during the COVID outbreak. HB 2385 preempts localities from banning landlords from not taking tenants who have housing vouchers.	Both bills have had public hearings, with HB 2062 passing out of committee on Jan. 29th.	We testified in opposition to both bills, HB 2062 on Jan. 17th, and HB 2385 on Jan. 30th (no link available yet).

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 and HB 2365, and SB 980.	1314 and 2365 both prohibit the state from spending dollars on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. SB 980 regulates businesses with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from contracting with the state.	SB 1314 and 980 have been referred to their committees, while HB 2365 has only been second read.	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.

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: January 2024 legislative update for Kansas, Missouri

Kansas

Missouri

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work

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

Kansas

Missouri

Related Stories

Purpose Areas

More About Our Work