(March 10, 2026) – Today, the House Welfare Reform Committee received an update on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program error rate and funding, which impacts HR 1. Then, the committee held an informational hearing on Senate Bill 363. The bill requires the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to seek federal approval for continuous Medicaid eligibility for certain individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities receiving services through a home and community-based services waiver. It also directs state agencies to report to specific legislative committees on Kansans losing Public Assistance Program eligibility, mandates the Kansas Department for Children and Families and KDHE to enter into data-matching agreements with other state agencies to verify eligibility for food and medical assistance and requires KDHE to submit certain data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Additionally, it prohibits certain public assistance waivers or exemptions without legislative approval, mandates self-attestation for determining eligibility for public assistance, requires quarterly eligibility redeterminations for Medical Assistance with certain exceptions, limits retroactive enrollment in Medical Assistance and calls for immediate termination of Medical Assistance eligibility upon confirmation of an individual's death. The bill also increases the age limit for able-bodied adults without dependents and prohibits certain exemptions from work requirements under the Food Assistance Program.

The Kansas Legislative Research Department provided a bill overview. The committee heard from Dr. Whiteside-Hicks of DCF, who highlighted system costs. The committee requested additional information on major cost drivers, focusing on more checks with the Kansas Department of Revenue. The chair asked if eliminating self-attestation is a part of the cost driver, and the conferee confirmed it is difficult to verify, especially household composition. Whiteside-Hicks suggested income checks may be easier, but household composition can be more time-consuming. Currently, confirming household details requires tax records with the Kansas Department of Revenue, and since they don't have an IT agreement, it would need a systems upgrade.

The committee next heard from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Medicaid Director, Christine Osterlund, who echoed concerns about household composition and household status. She questioned whether CMS would approve certain approaches and pointed out the nuisance differences between what can be counted for Medicaid versus SNAP or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. She emphasized these programs count things differently because each has its own rules. For example, she noted the criteria for counting someone as a household member for Medicaid can differ from those for SNAP. Just because someone lives in your house doesn't automatically qualify them as income for Medicaid eligibility. The committee asked what the agency would do regarding household composition, and Osterlund admitted she did not know. She suggested this might be the reason for difficulty in getting CMS approval and highlighted most states use self-attestation for this process. She explained there is a prudent person application test—using the example of a household where a child lives part-time being claimed by more than one household, noting her eligibility calculations differ from other services, which are designed to make sure the child is only covered by one household. Committee members inquired about federal limitations on self-attestation. Osterlund described where data sources exist and where they do not, clarifying that H.R. 1 does not require quarterly re-determinations for Medicaid eligibility. She said current re-determinations are done once a year but explained the agency can use a process to evaluate status changes and easily check certain information quarterly. She noted that, as written, implementing this would require quarterly re-determinations for about 40,000 people and described how they estimated the fiscal impact based on that number. The committee asked about the requirements of H.R. 1 concerning the Medicaid population in expansion versus non-expansion states. Osterlund discussed the impacts on Kansas compared to other states. They also questioned why taxes aren't a straightforward way to determine household composition. Osterlund explained that, in cases of divorce, custody agreements are sometimes not filed with a court. She reminded the committee that some people on these programs do not file taxes.

KDHE informed the committee they currently process applications within 45 days. Under these circumstances, the added burden would extend that timeframe and likely prevent them from meeting the 45-day deadline. This could mean Kansas would need to implement a corrective action plan for Medicaid determinations. She reminded them of a similar situation in 2019 and explained the financial impact on the state.

The committee will meet again Thursday for an official hearing on the bill.