Streamlined Sales and Use Tax

The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) is a multi-state cooperative agreement intended to simplify the administration of state sales tax systems and encourage remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes. Since 2003, 24 states have enacted SSUTA-conforming laws. Kansas was the first state with effective conforming legislation.

Historical Context

The SSUTA was an outgrowth of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, created in 1999 in response to questions over states’ right to collect sales taxes from remote sellers (out-of state and/or internet retailers). With the growth of internet sales, states were seeking to combat revenue losses resulting from the shifting sales tax base and ensure equity between remote retailers and brick-and-mortar stores.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Illinois1 that collection of sales tax required a retailer to have physical contact with the state. Later, in the 1992 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota2 ruling, the Court held that remote sellers, though liable for state sales taxes, could not be required to collect taxes where the seller lacks sufficient physical presence, as requiring compliance with multiple state sales tax systems imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

The SSUTA is an attempt in part to remove this burden by creating a streamlined and simplified tax system in which states and retailers could voluntarily participate.

Relevant Legislation

SB 472 (2002) and HB 2005 (2003) enacted provisions bringing Kansas into conformity with the SSUTA (See KSA 79-3666 through KSA 79-3682).

The Bellas Hess and Quill rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2018 with its South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.3 ruling that remote sellers can be required to collect sales tax if they have “sufficient economic nexus” in the state. South Dakota’s participation in the SSUTA was one of the reasons given by the Court as evidence the South Dakota law did not violate the Commerce Clause.

Following the Wayfair decision, in 2019, Kansas began requiring registration of remote sellers. Prior to 2021, Kansas was one of three states without a provision requiring marketplace facilitators (entities facilitating internet sales through a physical or digital marketplace) to collect and remit sales tax. With enactment of 2021 SB 50, marketplace facilitators with more than $100,000 of annual sales sourced into Kansas were required to collect and remit sales taxes.

Streamlined Conformity Requirements

To provide a simplified tax system, the SSUTA requires member states to agree to certain rules in the administration of their sales and use taxes. These requirements include, among other things, rules related to sourcing of taxable sales, uniform definitions, and the retention of certain proceeds by certified service providers.

Destination Sourcing

The SSUTA generally requires member states to adopt statutes requiring destination sourcing for sales tax purposes. This requirement means that for taxable sales where the purchased product or service is not received by the purchaser at the business location of the seller, the tax will be applied and collected as if the sale occurs where the product or service is received by the purchaser.

Uniform Definitions

The SSUTA includes a library of definitions and generally requires that, if a member state uses a term appearing in the library of definitions within its sales and use tax statutes, it must use the definition of that term provided for by the SSUTA library of definitions. This provision does not require a state to use all terms in the library of definitions, but does require uniformity in the definition of those terms if they are used.

Certified Service Providers

To reduce compliance burdens on remote sellers, SSUTA states must require Certified Service Providers (CSPs) to perform sales and use tax functions on behalf of sellers. Member states are generally required to allow CSPs to retain 5 percent of the first $500,000 of tax owed to the state and 2 percent of all additional tax owed to the state each year. In 2021, CSPs retained $2.0 million of sales and use tax that otherwise would have been due to the state of Kansas.

  1. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 87 S.Ct. 1389 (1967). ↩︎
  2. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (1992). ↩︎
  3. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 2080 (2018). ↩︎

by Eric Adell
Research Analyst
785-296-4404

Community Supervision

In Kansas, three entities comprise the community supervision structure: Court Services, Community Corrections, and Parole Services. Parole Services supervises offenders released from Kansas correctional facilities on parole, post-release supervision, or conditional release. This memorandum will focus on the functions of Court Services and Community Corrections and how they compare to each other.

Court Services

One of the duties delegated to the Office of Judicial Administration by the Kansas Supreme Court includes trial court support. Court Services Officers (CSOs), often referred to as probation officers, supervise a large population of lower-risk offenders in Kansas. The purpose of Court Services is to carry out the orders of the district court in a timely, professional, and ethical manner, consistent with community interests. The roles and duties of Court Services and its personnel are governed by state law, administrative rule, and local court policy. According to the Kansas Association of Court Services Officers, the CSOs’ primary role of service is accountability to the court and the court process.

The duties of CSOs vary. In general, CSOs supervise the probation of adult and juvenile offenders, work with children in need of care, research and write pre-sentence investigation reports, and perform other duties as directed by the district court.

Community Corrections

Community Corrections seeks to supervise and assist high-risk people convicted of felony offenses to address substance abuse and mental illness. Community Corrections focuses on public safety, helping people make changes to reduce criminal behavior, and reducing admissions to prison facilities. Community Corrections is a state and local partnership in which county departments are funded by the State through grants from the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC). Community Corrections is comprised of county employees working under the direction of local boards of county commissioners who supervise higher-risk adults and youth assigned by the court for intensive supervision probation.


Court ServicesCommunity Corrections
Governing BranchJudicialExecutive
Associated AgencyOJAKDOC
County – StateStateCounty
Crime LevelLow-risk Felony ProbationModerate and High-risk Felony Probation
Misdemeanor Probation

Dual Supervision Legislation

An issue that has arisen with the current supervision structure in Kansas is how to resolve conflicts that may occur when an offender is ordered to be supervised by multiple entities due to multiple convictions. In response to a recommendation made by the Kansas Criminal Justice Reform Commission in December 2021, the 2022 Legislature passed SB 408, which provides guidance for the consolidation of supervision into one supervision entity or agency for an offender under the supervision of two or more supervision entities or agencies. The bill amended the statute1 governing transfer of supervision of persons on parole, on probation, assigned to a Community Corrections program, or under suspended sentence to allow the district court where the defendant is currently being supervised to use the guidelines to determine whether it is appropriate to transfer jurisdiction of the defendant to a different district court or retain the jurisdiction.

Funding

In 2022, the Kansas Judicial Branch reported to the Legislative Budget Committee that the 2021 Legislature provided it with funding to hire 70 additional CSOs. Those positions were filled, and the retention rate for those positions, and CSOs in general, was reported as high. The Judicial Branch has stated that it is better situated to meet the statutorily-mandated duties CSOs must perform, in addition to new criminal justice reform duties, locally-originating duties, and other services CSOs provide that are designed to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.

Subsequently, the KDOC stated that Community Corrections was unable to compete with the higher wages that Court Services could provide to CSOs, which would negatively impact retention of Community Corrections officers, and, ultimately, offender recidivism. The Legislature added $2.6 million from the State General Fund (SGF) in FY 2022 and $8.4 million SGF for FY 2023 for the purpose of salary increases among Community Corrections agencies.2 The 2023 Legislature did not appropriate moneys specifically for Community Corrections salary increases, but executive branch agencies, including KDOC, received funds to make salary adjustments for FY 2024 pursuant to a Department of Administration market survey. KDOC also received funds to accomplish an additional 5.0 percent salary raise for corrections officer and parole officer employees.3

  1. See KSA 2022 Supp. 21-6610 ↩︎
  2. 2022 H. Sub. for Sub. for SB 267 ↩︎
  3. 2023 SB 25 ↩︎

by Jordan Milholland
Managing Research Analyst
785-296-3923

Budget Neutrality in KanCare

KanCare is the program through which Kansas delivers Medicaid, a joint federal and state program that provides health and long-term care services to qualifying individuals. If states wish to waive certain federal requirements in order to carry out new initiatives, they can submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees Medicaid. CMS may waive compliance with certain Medicaid requirements under Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act. This is known as a “1115 waiver.”

In 2012, Kansas submitted a 1115 waiver to implement KanCare as a Medicaid reform initiative, which included managed care contracts for all medical programs and services. The application was approved, and the first KanCare 1115 waiver took effect January 1, 2013, and lasted until December 31, 2017, with a one-year extension granted through December 31, 2018. Following a reapplication process, a second 1115 waiver was approved beginning January 1, 2019, and ending December 31, 2023.

Budget Neutrality

Medicaid is a partnership between the State and the federal government, with the federal government paying for approximately 60.0 percent of Medicaid expenditures in Kansas and the State paying the remaining 40.0 percent. For CMS to approve each 1115 waiver, Kansas must demonstrate that the project will be budget-neutral for the federal government. For a waiver to be budget-neutral, it must not result in greater Medicaid costs to the federal government than would be expected without the waiver. To ensure budget neutrality, CMS places a limit on the amount of federal Medicaid funding for which Kansas is eligible over the course of the five-year 1115 waiver project. Kansas must agree to limit spending to stay within the range of budget neutrality and return any federal funds received that exceed the agreed-upon cap.

When KanCare was implemented, CMS estimated the existing Kansas Medicaid program would have cost the federal government $1.0 billion more if the 1115 waiver were not in place. This enabled Kansas to spend an additional $1.0 billion in federal funds over the course of the five-year waiver and remain within the boundaries of budget neutrality. At the same time, CMS estimated that, based on anticipated spending increases and policy changes over the course of the five-year waiver, Kansas would be approximately $568.0 million below the budget neutrality cap when the waiver ends on December 31, 2023.

What Impacts Budget Neutrality

Budget neutrality is based on how much is spent per Medicaid program member per month. To calculate this, CMS sorts the population served by Medicaid into two groups. One group is made up of adults and children, and the other is aged-blind-disabled and long-term care. A maximum per member per month amount is calculated for each of the two groups. For this reason, membership increases or decreases do not significantly impact budget neutrality unless there is a large increase or decrease within a high-cost eligibility group.

Budget neutrality is impacted by most changes to KanCare, including any policies that increase the capitation payments made to KanCare managed care organizations (MCOs). Examples of expenses that do count toward the budget neutrality cap include:

  • Any changes to the rates paid to Medicaid providers;
  • The addition of new Medicaid-covered codes or services; and
  • Provider assessments used to draw down federal matching funds, such as the Health Care Access Improvement Program (HCAIP). Some expenditures that do not impact budget neutrality include:
  • Changes to client obligations, such as changes to the protected income level;
  • Changes to the Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) [PACE operates outside of the 1115 waiver];
  • School-based services funded with Medicaid dollars (these programs operate outside of the 1115 waiver);
  • Medicaid Expansion, as it would operate under a separate budget neutrality cap; and
  • Provider rate increases paid outside MCO capitation payments [i.e., Strengthening People and Revitalizing Kansas (SPARK) distributions and the 2021 retroactive $15/day nursing facility rate increase].

Corrections to the Kansas Budget Neutrality Cap

Due to the way CMS calculated the State’s budget neutrality cap, several costs were underestimated, ultimately reducing the amount Kansas can spend before reaching the budget neutrality cap. One such cost was an increase to the MCO privilege fee that reduced the State’s cumulative budget neutrality cap by an estimated $234.0 million. Another underestimated cost was the anticipated expenditures for the adult and child population groups. At the time CMS was calculating Kansas’ budget neutrality cap, the State had placed a temporary pause in eligibility redeterminations for the adults and children group. This came during the processing of new applications for other population groups. This had the effect of lowering the anticipated expenditures by $139.5 million for the adult and child population group.

In June of 2022, CMS approved an amendment to the Section 1115 waiver that raised the budget neutrality cap to accommodate the influx of federal funds generated by HCAIP. This followed a prior proposal that KDHE made to CMS in September 2020 after noticing a technical error in the State’s budget neutrality calculation. This proposal was accepted by CMS, and the budget neutrality cap was raised; however, the amount Kansas is allotted to spend on each of the two population groups was not increased.

New KanCare Waivers

KDHE is currently in the process of applying for a new federal authority to implement the KanCare program, once the current 1115 waiver expires on December 31, 2023. The agency has expressed a growing concern that continuing under the 1115 waiver model may hinder the ability to fund future state initiatives, such as reducing the waitlist for certain home and community-based services and addressing inpatient mental health capacity.

On December 27, 2022, KDHE submitted a request for a five-year renewal of the KanCare Section 1115 Demonstration for January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2028, along with an amendment to transition features of the KanCare program, to more permanent federal authorities such as state plan amendments and a Section 1915(b) waiver. With these changes, fewer populations covered by KanCare will be subject to budget neutrality considerations, providing the state with increased funding flexibility.

by Megan Leopold, PhD
Fiscal Analyst
785-296-4419

Remote Learning in K-12 Public Schools

The 2021 Legislature passed HB 2134, which included several policy provisions and appropriations for the State Department of Education for FY 2021, FY 2022, and FY 2023. The bill also included provisions related to “remote learning,” defined as a method of providing education in which a student regularly enrolled in a school district does not physically attend the attendance center where the student would otherwise attend in-person on a full-time basis, and the instruction is prepared, provided, and supervised by teachers and staff of such school district to replace the instruction that would have occurred in the attendance center classroom.…

Remote Learning Limitations

The bill provided that school districts cannot offer or provide more than 40 school term hours of remote learning to a student unless:

  • The local board of education authorizes a student to temporarily attend school through remote learning in excess of the 40-hour limitation when such student cannot reasonably attend in person due to illness, medical condition, injury, or other extraordinary circumstance;
  • The State Board of Education (State Board), due to a disaster, conditions resulting from widespread or severe property damage caused by such disaster, or another condition restricting the operation of the school, certifies the school district cannot comply with remote learning restrictions and authorizes the school district to conduct up to 240 school term hours via remote learning; or
  • The State Board provides the school district with a waiver certifying widespread or severe property damage restricting the operation of the school and authorizes the school district to conduct up to 240 school term hours via remote learning.

School Finance Provisions

School districts must apply to the State Board for authorization to exceed the 40-hour remote learning limitation or for a waiver from remote learning limitations.

The bill requires students who attend a school through remote learning in excess of these limitations to be deemed remotely enrolled.

Funding for such students would be subject to “remote enrollment” provisions, defined as the number of students regularly enrolled in kindergarten and grades 1-12 in the school district who attend school through remote learning in excess of the remote learning limitations provided in the bill.

Each school district that offers remote learning must determine remote enrollment on or before June 30 of each school year. The school district must then certify remote enrollment by grade to the State Board.

The State Board is required to determine the number of remotely enrolled students by school district. Funding for such remote learning is $5,000 in remote enrollment state aid per remotely enrolled student, rather than the base state aid under the current school finance formula.

The State Board must notify school districts of the amount of remote enrollment state aid and must require each school district to return any payment over $5,000 or deduct the excess amount over $5,000 from future payments to the school district for remotely enrolled students if any overpayment is made to the district.

by Arianna Waddell
Legislative Fellow
785-291-0516

School Finance Formulas in the United States in 2018

Funding for K-12 schools generally is based on formulas that include an amount per pupil or teacher, with adjustments based on student needs and capital outlay and debt. This memorandum provides an overview of school finance formulas across the United States in 2018, capturing the choices of all states at that particular moment in time.

School Finance History

In the early 1900s, flat grants providing a basic dollar amount per student, regardless of wealth or need, financed public schools. Beginning in the 1920s, many states started using a new system, “foundation formulas,” with funding provided on a sliding scale based on the relative wealth of school districts. In the 1930s, states began to adjust formulas based on costs associated with certain student populations, such as students at risk of failure and students with disabilities.

Beginning in the 1960s, states further adjusted formulas for a number of reasons, including to create greater equity among districts, as well as to account for district size and regional cost differences.

The 50 States

A look at each of the individual state formulas finds wide variations in formula provisions; however, there are many similarities. Major formula components are described below, which are adopted from a state inventory of public education finance systems in the United States undertaken by University of Nevada Professor Deborah A. Verstegen and updated via surveys of states’ education agencies conducted periodically. The latest update includes formulas in effect during the 2017-2018 school year.1

Basic Formula Components

Foundation programs provide a uniform per pupil or per teacher amount of funding using state and local funding. Forty states use this approach.2 Complete funding by the state for K-12 education occurs only in one state: Hawaii. Hawaii is also the only state that has only one school district.

Combination systems are used in nine states to combine full state funding, flat grants, or funding based upon varying tax rates.

Adjustments for Various Needs Within Foundation Formulas

Forty-one states provide supplemental funding for low-income or at-risk students based upon three factors: being qualified to receive free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast, the actual number of students determined at risk of failure, or concentrations of low-income students. Nine states provide no additional funding for this group.

Of the other adjustments made by the states:

  • Twenty-three states provide additional funding for English language learners;3
  • Four states provide additional funding for gifted and talented students;4
  • Twelve states provide funding for remote and small schools;3 and
  • Eight states provide additional funding for career and technical education.3

Examples of other adjustments include additional funding for transient students or different funding based upon different grade levels.

Capital Outlay and Debt Service

Multiple methods are used to assist school districts with capital outlay or debt service costs. Assistance can range from grants to loans to little or no state assistance for major facility projects.

Kansas allows school districts to levy a local property tax to fund capital outlay expenditures, which is capped at eight mills. Using the capital outlay formula, some school districts are eligible for Capital Outlay State Aid to provide equalization aid for property tax equity. Kansas also allows a school district to issue bonds of up to 14.0 percent of its assessed valuation, with the approval of the majority of the electors in the district, to finance construction of school facilities. Some school districts are eligible to receive Capital Improvement State Aid to help pay the costs associated with capital improvement bonds to provide equalization aid for property tax relief. There are three rates for Capital Improvement State Aid, depending on when the bond was approved by voters.

Special Education

States use one of four methods to pay for special education services:

  • Per pupil funding based upon a weighted pupil count or a flat grant;3
  • Cost reimbursement with definition of eligible costs;
  • Per teacher or instructional unit funding; or
  • Funding based upon total student population rather than special education eligibility.

Kansas provides state aid in the form of reimbursement for the “excess costs” associated with providing special education services. The reimbursement rate is set in statute at 92.0 percent of total state excess costs, but the statutes also provide for prorating state aid if the appropriation for Special Education State Aid does not equal 92.0 percent of excess costs. Excess costs and the statutory amount of state aid are calculated using a statutory formula.

  1. More detailed information about each state can be found at https://schoolfinancesdav.wordpress.com. See also, Deborah A. Verstegen, A Quick Glance at School Finance: A 50 State Survey of School Finance Policies (2018). ↩︎
  2. Kansas is one of the states that use this approach. ↩︎
  3. Kansas is one of the states that use this adjustment. ↩︎
  4. Kansas provides additional funding for gifted and talented students through the Special Education State Aid rather than through the foundation formula. ↩︎

by Jennifer Light
Fiscal Analyst
785-296-4410

Child Welfare System Oversight in Kansas

A number of efforts have been undertaken since 2015 to provide oversight for the child welfare system in Kansas. A brief history of such efforts and recent developments follows.

Legislative Committees, Task Forces, and Working Groups

Special Committee on Foster Care Adequacy

The Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) created this committee in 2015 (and again in 2016) to study Department for Children and Families (DCF) oversight of foster care contractors; study whether a working group would aid in addressing foster care concerns; and study the selection, qualification, and responsibilities of foster parents.

The 2015 Special Committee recommended evidence-based, peer-reviewed research on family structure be given high priority when considering best interests of children and making foster care placement decisions. Additionally, it recommended introduction of legislation that would create a statutory joint committee to oversee foster care.

The 2016 Special Committee recommended introduction of legislation establishing a foster care oversight task force, containing the language of 2016 HB 2585, as amended by the House Committee on Children and Seniors, which died on the House Calendar. Other recommendations included affirming and facilitating the visitation rights of biological parents and grandparents; and addressing, through standing or special committees, the Legislative Division of Post Audit audit findings and the DCF actions taken on the concerns raised regarding foster care and adoption in Kansas Child Welfare System Task Force

The 2017 Legislature passed House Sub. for SB 126, which directed the Secretary for Children and Families to establish a Child Welfare System Task Force to study the child welfare system in Kansas. The Task Force was composed of various entities and stakeholders, and it convened working groups to study the following topics: general administration by DCF; protective services; family preservation; reintegration; foster care; and permanency placement. The Task Force’s final report included 23 recommendations and was submitted to the 2019 Legislature.

Crossover Youth Working Groups

The 2019 Omnibus Appropriations bill, House Sub. for SB 25 (Section 87), included provisos requiring DCF to establish working groups in 2019 and 2020 to study the impact of 2016 SB 367.

2016 SB 367 included a prohibition on the placement of youth in a juvenile detention center in certain circumstances and removed juvenile detention facilities as a placement option under the Child in Need of Care (CINC) Code unless the child is also alleged to be a juvenile offender and the placement is authorized under the Juvenile Code. The working groups’ reports can be found here.

Special Committee on Foster Care Oversight

In 2020, the LCC created this committee to receive input from families, social workers, and other stakeholders on progress and shortfalls in the State’s child welfare system, including quality of care for children in foster care, access to health and mental health services, trends in contributing factors, program outcomes from the federal Family First Prevention Services Act, and barriers to sharing information across the system; and to make recommendations to the Legislature to improve the State’s child welfare system.

Among its recommendations, the Special Committee recommended the Legislature establish a joint statutory committee for child welfare oversight and also establish an independent oversight agency that would provide advocacy services for persons involved in the child welfare system.

Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight

The 2021 Legislature established the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight with the passage of HB 2158. The Joint Committee is authorized to make recommendations and introduce legislation it deems necessary in performing its functions related to the review of the child welfare system, and is required to meet at least once each quarter.

Legislative Audits

The Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) has performed several audits related to the state’s foster care system since February 1987. Topics reviewed in these audits include: the health and safety of children in foster care; foster care case plan tasks and permanency outcomes; consistency across foster care service providers; the treatment of LGBTQ foster and adoptive parents; and decisions to remove children from their homes.

The full report of each audit may be accessed by searching “foster care” at https://www.kslpa.org/. LPA also curates a webpage containing information on upcoming audits.

Kansas Division of the Child Advocate

Governor Kelly issued Executive Order 21-28 in October, 2021, to establish the Division of the Child Advocate within the Office of Public Advocates. The Office of Public Advocates is housed within the Department of Administration, but the Division of the Child Advocate functions as an independent state agency. The powers and duties of the Division of the Child Advocate include the following:

  • Addressing complaints made by or on behalf of a child in the custody of the Secretary for Children and Families, or alleged to be a CINC, that relate to state agencies or other service providers;
  • Establishing a procedure for receiving, processing, responding to, and resolving such complaints;
  • Submitting findings and recommendations for changes to DCF;
  • Accessing confidential records maintained by DCF; and
  • Maintaining confidentiality.

Office of the Child Advocate Legislation

HB 2345, introduced in the 2021 Legislative Session, would have established the Office of the Child Advocate for Children’s Protection and Services within the Legislative Branch. SB 301, also introduced in the 2021 Legislative Session, would have established the Office of the Child Advocate within the Office of the Attorney General. Neither bill advanced to the Governor. [Note: As introduced, SB 301 contained similar subject matter to SB 120 and HB 2115 (establishing the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight) and HB 2345 (establishing the Office of the Child Advocate).]

Senate Sub. for HB 2153, recommended during the 2021 Legislative Session by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, contained amended language from SB 301 and died on the House calendar at the end of the 2022 Legislative Session.

Three bills during the 2023 Legislative Session included provisions that would establish the Office of the Child Advocate. Sub. for SB 232 remains in the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. Senate Sub. for HB 2070 incorporates provisions originally contained in Sub. for SB 232 and remains in conference committee with conferees appointed from the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care. HB 2443 remains in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

by Iraida Orr, J.D.
Principal Research Analyst
785-296-4408

Premium Pay For Essential Workers

This memorandum addresses the use of certain federal moneys to provide premium pay for certain workers during the federal public health emergency (PHE) for COVID-19.

American Rescue Plan Act

The federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 provided $2.6 billion, from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (Fiscal Recovery Funds), to state and local governments for discretionary purposes. Among other stated uses, these discretionary funds could used to provide premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work during the federal public health emergency (PHE) for COVID-19 . [Note: The federal PHE for COVID-19, declared under Section 319 of the federal Public Health Service Act, expired at the end of the day on May 11, 2023.]

Premium Pay to Essential Workers

ARPA allows states to use their Fiscal Recovery Funds to support essential workers by providing premium pay directly to workers or through grants to third-party employers with eligible employees.

The intent of the premium pay is to help maintain continuity of operations that are critical to the health and well-being of communities as well as provide compensation to workers who have been at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the nature of their jobs.

Premium pay is to be added to workers’ normal earnings and may not substituted for a worker’s normal earnings. Premium pay may be applied retrospectively for work performed since the start of the federal PHE for COVID-19.

Eligibility

In order to ensure that premium pay is directed toward the intended population, ARPA provides guidance that eligible workers should be both at heightened risk of exposure due to the nature of their work and be critical to the continuity of essential operations.

Heightened risk. Premium pay is to be reserved for individuals who engage in work that involves “regular in-person interactions or regular physical handling of items that were also handled by others.” By this definition, a worker who engaged in telework from a residence would not be eligible for premium pay.

Essential. Eligible workers are those who are necessary to maintain continuity of operations of critical infrastructure sectors. While governments receiving Fiscal Recovery Funds have the discretion to identify critical sectors in their communities, the following sectors are identified as essential:

  • Health care;
  • Public health and safety;
  • Child care;
  • Education;
  • Sanitation;
  • Food service; and
  • Transportation.

Guidelines

ARPA recognizes that many workers in the sectors listed above will make lower than average wages in their sector, creating a misalignment between health risk and compensation. To ensure these funds are directed toward these workers, the following guidelines have been created:

  • Premium pay should be limited to $13 per hour in addition to the wages the worker already receives, and not exceed an aggregate amount of $25,000 per worker;
  • Lower income workers should be prioritized;
  • Premium pay that would increase a worker’s total pay to an amount that is above 150.0 percent of the state’s average annual wage for all occupations requires written justification; and
  • Grants provided to third-party employers for the purpose of providing premium pay must be publicly disclosed and follow specific reporting requirements.

Premium Pay in Kansas

On September 3, 2021, the Governor’s Strengthening People and Revitalizing Kansas (SPARK) Task Force recommended, and the State Finance Council approved, the allocation of $50.0 million from Fiscal Recovery Funds for hospitals to either provide premium pay or create custom retention programs for clinical staff.

Qualified staff include nurses and other employees who provide frontline care. Any general or critical access hospital with an emergency department as defined under KSA 65-425 is considered a qualified facility.

Hospitals were required to apply for the funding, which was allocated to each hospital based on the number of licensed non-ICU beds and ICU beds. This funding was to be spent by February 28, 2022, and could be applied retroactively to September 1, 2021.

By completion of the initiative in FY 2022, 120 Kansas hospitals were awarded funds, with awards ranging from $39,797 to $7.5 million. The largest allocations included:

  • $7.5 million to Ascension Via Christi Hospital in Wichita;
  • $5.5 million to the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City; and
  • $5.0 million to Wesley Medical Center in Wichita.

by Megan Leopold, PhD
Fiscal Analyst
785-296-4419

Regulation of Robocalls

Unsolicited calls are among the most frequent consumer complaints received by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The use of automatic dialing-announcing devices (referred to as robocalls) to make these calls is on the rise, with estimates indicating 4.3 billion such calls were received across the United States in September 2023…

Current Kansas Law

The Kansas No-Call Act1 (No-Call Act) prohibits calls to consumers from automatic dialing-announcing devices in certain instances. The No-Call Act defines “automatic dialing-announcing device” to mean any user terminal equipment that when connected to a telephone line, can dial, with or without manual assistance, telephone numbers that have been stored or programmed in the device or are produced or selected by a random or sequential number generator, or when connected to a telephone line can disseminate a recorded message to the telephone number called, either with or without manual assistance.

Under the No-Call Act, telephone solicitors making calls, including robocalls, are required to:

  • Identify themselves;
  • Identify the business on whose behalf such person is soliciting;
  • Identify the purpose of the call immediately upon making contact by telephone with the person who is the object of the telephone solicitation;
  • Promptly discontinue the solicitation if the person being solicited gives a negative response at any time during the consumer telephone call;
  • Hang up the telephone, or in the case of an automatic dialing-announcing device operator, disconnect the automatic dialing-announcing device from the telephone line within 25 seconds of the termination of the call by the person being called; and
  • Answer the line within 5 seconds of the beginning of the call by a live operator or an automated dialing-announcing device. If answered by automated dialing-announcing device, the message provided shall include only caller identification information, but shall not contain any unsolicited advertisement.

Additionally the No-Call Act states a telephone solicitor shall not be allowed to do any of the following:

  • Withhold the display of the telephone solicitor’s telephone number from a caller identification service when that number is being used for telemarketing purposes;
  • Transmit any written information by facsimile machine or computer to a consumer after the consumer requests orally or in writing that such transmissions cease; and
  • Obtain by use of any professional delivery, courier, or other pickup service, receipt or possession of a consumer’s payment, unless the goods are delivered with the opportunity to inspect before any payment is collected.

The No-Call Act is supplemental to the Kansas Consumer Protection Act2 (KCPA) and provides that local exchange carriers and telecommunications carriers shall not be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, and any violation of this section is an unconscionable act or practice under the KCPA.

The No-call Act was last updated in 2014 to, among other things, authorize the Office of the Attorney General to enforce Kansas law regarding calling a consumer’s listed cellphone number, not solely landline numbers. It also contained provisions to make changes in various timelines to conform with federal law.

Proposed Kansas Legislation

As proposed, 2017 HB 2273 would have increased restrictions on robocalls. The bill would have prohibited robocalls unless the person receiving the call had consented to or authorized receipt of the message or the message was immediately preceded by a live operator who obtained the person’s consent. Additionally, the bill would have prohibited robocalls before 9:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. The bill would have also prohibited calls from being made to hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, recuperation centers, ambulance services, emergency medical service facilities, mental health centers, psychiatric hospitals, state institutions for people with intellectual disabilities, law enforcement agencies, or fire departments. During the 2018 Legislative Session, HB 2273 was passed by the House on a vote of 121-1, but no action was taken by the Senate Committee on Utilities before adjournment.

Additionally, on March 7, 2023, the Senate Committee on Utilities heard testimony on robocalls from a representative of the attorney general’s office. Staff of the Kansas Legislative Research Department provided an overview of robocall laws in Kansas and other states.

Policies in Other States3

As of October 2023, 44 states limit commercial robocalls in some way. Several states also limit robocalls to mobile devices.4Laws in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington specifically limit the use of automated text messages. Some states also specifically prohibit robocalls from being made to unlisted or unpublished numbers and to numbers including those for emergency rooms, hospitals, hotel rooms, vacation rentals, and paging devices.

While most states generally prohibit robocalls and automatic text messages, many also provide specific exceptions in their statutes. Examples of instances where automated calling or messaging may be allowed despite a general prohibition on the practice include delivery, delay, or other information about a purchase; prior relationship between the parties; charitable or nonprofit organization, public opinion polls, research surveys, or radio or television broadcast rating organization; collection of lawful debts; public school programs; and employee work schedules.

Additionally, some states have requirements for the time, day, duration, time of disconnection after the call has ended, and purpose for which robocalls may be used. Other requirements that states place on robocalls include providing the caller’s contact information or not blocking the caller identification; stating the name of the person for whom the call is intended; a live operator obtaining permission before playing a recorded message; requiring automated systems to be attended while in use; and, for political calls, identifying who paid for the call, whether a candidate authorized the call, and other identifying information.

Federal Legislation

In 2019, the federal TRACED (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence) Act5, gave the FCC new tools to fight unwanted, and often illegal, robocalls. Among these tools are the following:

  • Adoption of the STIR/SHAKEN6 caller identification framework to verify that the caller identification (ID) information transmitted with a particular call matches the caller’s real number, reducing the effectiveness of an illegal spoofed caller ID;
  • Additional transparency and redress for callers and consumers when wanted calls are blocked inadvertently; and
  • A more streamlined process for private entities to voluntarily share information with the FCC regarding calls and text messages that violate laws regarding robocalls and spoofing.

In July 2023, the FCC, Department of Justice, FTC, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, and other law enforcement partners, including attorneys general from all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, announced their participation in Operation Stop Scam Calls.7

Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force

The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center found that in 2021, about 60 million Americans paid $29.0 billion as a result of scam robocalls and texts. In 2022, 51 states and U.S. territory attorneys general came together to form the Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, targeting U.S. telecommunications companies that allow robocalls originating internationally to reach their customers. The attorneys general stated their aim is to put telecommunications companies on notice that they must stop scam calls before they go through to customers or face prosecution from multiple states collectively.8

Some of the anti-robocall principles developed by the Task Force and agreed to by the attorneys general and 12 major telecommunication providers include the following:

  • Offering free call blocking and labeling;
  • Implementing STIR/SHAKEN call authentication;
  • Analyzing and monitoring network traffic; and
  • Investigating suspicious calls and calling patterns.

Difficulties of Regulation

The Pew Charitable Trusts9 note regulation of these types of calls is difficult because of the impracticality of enforcement. Many companies simply do not follow the laws concerning robocalls and increasingly these companies are operating overseas, away from the investigative jurisdiction of the states. The National Do Not Call Registry blocks only legally operating businesses. Telephone companies have stated they are blocking known offensive numbers and are working to help law enforcement agents trace illegal robocalls to identify their origin. The FTC is also working on identifying “spoofed” numbers, which are fake phone numbers beginning with a local or familiar looking area code. Many advocates urge federal and state partnerships for maximum impact in preventing these calls. Ultimately, most concerned parties agree technology and apps will likely be the answer to avoiding and ending illegal robocalls.

  1. KSA 2022 Supp. 50-670 and KSA 2022 Supp. 50-670a. ↩︎
  2. KSA 2022 Supp. 50-623 et seq. ↩︎
  3. The following states and U.S. territories have no penalties listed for violating the National Do Not Call Registry provisions: Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, plus Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, North Mariana Islands, and Guam. ↩︎
  4. Additionally, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia do not include commercial robocalls in state laws prohibiting unsolicited commercial communications. ↩︎
  5. Public Law 116-05 (2019), amending 47 USCA 227; new sections codified at 47 USCA 227b, 227b-1, and 227b-2. ↩︎
  6. From the Federal Communication Commission, “Combating Spoofed Robocalls with Caller ID Authentication” accessed January 23, 2023: STIR/SHAKEN are acronyms for the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) and Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs (SHAKEN) standards. This means that calls traveling through interconnected phone networks can have their caller ID “signed” as legitimate by originating carriers and validated by other carriers before reaching consumers. STIR/SHAKEN digitally validates the handoff of phone calls passing through the complex web of networks, allowing the phone company of the consumer receiving the call to verify that a call is in fact from the number displayed on Caller ID. ↩︎
  7. This initiative, “Operation Stop Scam Calls,” targets telemarketers, including those who use telephone calls to commit fraud, as well as those who facilitate illegal telephone calls. The federal and state initiative not only targets telemarketers and the companies that hire them but also takes action against lead generators who deceptively collect and provide consumers’ telephone numbers to robocallers and others, falsely representing that these consumers have consented to receive calls. The effort also targets Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers who facilitate illegal robocalls every year, which often originates overseas. (FCC Joins Federal and State Robocall Partners to Launch ‘Operation Stop Scam Calls, FCC News, July 18, 2023) ↩︎
  8. State Attorneys General Unite Against Robocalls, PEW Stateline Article, August 15, 2022. ↩︎
  9. States Try to Silence Robocalls, But They’re Worse Than Ever, PEW Stateline Article, July 25, 2018
    [Note: In 2023, Stateline transitioned from The Pew Charitable Trusts to States Newsroom.] ↩︎

by Kate Smeltzer
Research Analyst
785-296-4407

Mpox (Monkeypox)

This memo provides general information on mpox, formerly known as monkeypox.

Description, Reporting, and Case Numbers

Mpox is a viral disease, specifically an orthopoxvirus,1 and is in the smallpox virus family.

The symptoms of mpox are primarily flu-like (such as fever, headache, muscle aches and backaches, chills, and exhaustion). In addition, a rash may occur before or after the flu-like symptoms. The rash may be painful, itch, or look like pimples or blisters. An infected person is contagious until the rash fully heals, no scabs remain, and there is a new layer of skin.2

Mpox symptoms in people are required to be reported to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) by mandated reporters,3 including both symptoms that are present before laboratory testing and the laboratory testing results. As of September 28, 2023, there were 50 total cases of mpox that had been reported in Kansas4.

Treatment and Vaccine

According to KDHE5, there are no treatments specifically available for mpox, but a treatment protocol is available based on antiviral drugs and vaccines originally developed to prevent smallpox. KDHE has the antiviral drug tecovirimat (also know as TPOXX) available in a limited supply. Both clinicians and pharmacists may request it through the KDHE Epidemiology Hotline. Availability of the vaccine in Kansas may be found on the KDHE mpox webpage.

Zoonotic Virus

Mpox is a zoonotic virus, meaning it can spread between people and animals.6 On August 19, 2022, the American Veterinary Medical Association7 reported that in June 2022, researchers in France, confirmed the first known transmission of mpox to have occurred between humans and a dog.

If there is transmission to the animal population, owners of domestic animals have a duty to report diseases to the Animal Health Commissioner per KSA 47-622. The Animal Health Commissioner determines the response needed to protect the health of domestic animals as set forth in KSA 47-610 et seq.

Federal Public Health Emergency

A nationwide public health emergency was declared by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services on August 4, 2022,8 for an outbreak of mpox cases. The public health emergency order end expired January 31, 20239 due to a decline in cases. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services continues to monitor the situation and maintains a resource webpage on mpox which includes research, resources, and vaccine distribution information10

  1. Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA). Spring 2022. Monkeypox Outbreak in the U.S. Kansas Animal Health News. p.6. https://agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/dah-newsletters/kdah-summer-2022-newsletter.pdf?sfvrs ↩︎
  2. Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Monkeypox (Mpox) Symptoms. https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1923/Mp ↩︎
  3. KAR 28-1-2 ↩︎
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2022-2023 U.S. Map & Case Count https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/response/2022/us-map ↩︎
  5. See KDHE mpox webpage in footnote 2. ↩︎
  6. KDA.Spring 2022 Monkeypox Outbreak in the U.S. ↩︎
  7. American Veterinary Medical Association. August 19, 2022. Human-to-dog Monkeypox Transmission Case Reported. https://www.avma.org/news/human-dogmonkeypox-transmission-case-report ↩︎
  8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists. https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/monkeypox-4Aug22.aspx ↩︎
  9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Statement from HHS Secretary Becerra on Mpox. December 2, 2022. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/12/02/statement-from-hhs-secretary-becerra-on-mpox.ht ↩︎
  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS Response to the Mpox Outbreak https://www.hhs.gov/mpox/index.htm ↩︎

by Nicole Hrenchir
Legislative Fellow
785-296-3535

Adult and Youth Mental Health Beds in Kansas

This memo provides a description of the type of mental health beds available to adults and youth in Kansas, as well as the number of beds available across the state as of October 2023.

Mental Health Beds for Adults

Psychiatric Hospital Treatment

In Kansas, the highest level of care for adults experiencing severe mental illness is provided in psychiatric hospitals. The Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) oversees state-run psychiatric hospitals and licenses private psychiatric hospitals.

Pursuant to the 1990 Mental Health Reform Act,1 the first step for admission to a state hospital is to be screened by a community mental health center. The Care and Treatment Act for Mentally Ill Persons2 provides guidance for admission to the state hospitals. Generally, those admitted to state hospitals are individuals who exhibit severe symptoms that cannot be safely and effectively treated in the community.

Osawatomie State Hospital Campus3

Founded in 1866, Osawatomie State Hospital (OSH) provides inpatient psychiatric care to individuals in the eastern third of the state. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decertified OSH due to staffing shortages and other issues. In 2017, CMS recertified Adair Acute Care (AAC), an independent facility on the OSH campus that met CMS certification requirements. OSH and AAC operate separately, with OSH operating 116 state-licensed-only beds and AAC operating 60 CMS-certified beds. Between OSH and AAC, the campus has 176 combined state- licensed and CMS-certified beds.

Larned State Hospital4

Founded in 1914, Larned State Hospital (LSH) serves individuals who have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed, individuals charged with felony crimes, and sexually violent predators. The Psychiatric Services Program (PSP) serves the same population as OSH, individuals who are voluntarily or involuntarily committed for treatment. The PSP operates 90 CMS-certified beds, 60 of which are dedicated to long-term, residential treatment of patients and 30 of which are designated as a crisis stabilization unit.

Proposed State Hospital in Sedgwick County

The 2022 Legislature appropriated $15.0 million SGF to KDADS5 for the construction of a hospital in Sedgwick County, contingent upon the conclusions of a study by the 2022 Special Committee on Mental Health Beds and the affirmative recommendation by the State Finance Council. The 2022 Special Committee on Mental Health Beds6 met during Fall 2022 and recommended the State Finance Council release the funds to KDADS. On December 21, 2022, the State Finance Council released the appropriated funds to KDADS to begin the process. Additionally, Sedgwick County received $25.0 million for the project from federal COVID-19 relief funds distributed by through the Strengthening People and Revitalizing Kansas (SPARK) process.7

In conjunction with Sedgwick County, KDADS presented a plan to construct a 50-bed facility within the county, proposing 25 beds be designated for voluntary admissions and 25 beds for forensic competency evaluations. In March 2023, KDADS signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Sedgwick County concerning construction of the proposed hospital.8 Pursuant to the MOU, Sedgwick County will construct the hospital and turn over the facility to KDADS upon completing construction.

In August 2023, Governor Kelly signed Executive Order No. 23-05 establishing the South Central Regional Psychiatric Hospital Advisory Panel which is tasked with planning, designing and constructing the proposed state hospital according to the recommendations of the 2022 Special Committee on Mental Health Beds.9 10 The Panel must submit an interim report to the Sedgwick County Commission and to the Governor by January 15, 2024, with a final report due by June 30, 2024.

Private Psychiatric Hospitals

Private Psychiatric Hospitals (PPHs) include freestanding hospitals, similar to the state psychiatric hospitals, and psychiatric units in community hospitals. PPHs allow individuals to receive a state hospital level of care in their community. There are 303 PPH beds across the state.

State Institution Alternatives Program11

PPHs can participate in the State Institution Alternatives (SIA) program to provide state hospital level of care in an individual’s community. Patients would otherwise be transferred to OSH or LSH, depending on the individual’s location in the state. Five private psychiatric hospitals are enrolled in the SIA program to provide inpatient psychiatric services to adults. As of September 2023, the SIA program has served 1,318 adults.

Short-term Community Treatment

Crisis Stabilization Centers

The purpose of a Crisis Stabilization Center (CSC) is to provide short-term treatment to prevent a long-term stay in psychiatric hospital. CSCs provide urgent care in the community to voluntary patients for up to 72 hours. If a CSC is unavailable, individuals experiencing a mental health crisis often seek treatment in an emergency room, are held in a jail cell, or remain untreated. There are 115 CSC beds across the state. Additionally, CSC beds are being developed in Dodge City and Pittsburg.

Crisis Intervention Centers

Similar to CSCs, Crisis Intervention Centers (CICs) would provide urgent care in the community for up to 72 hours; however, CICs would provide treatment to involuntary patients pursuant to the Crisis Intervention Act. CICs are not yet active; KDADS and the Office of the Attorney General are in the process of drafting rules regulations. Upon approval of the regulations, 62 CIC beds are anticipated to be available across the state.

Licensed Adult Mental Health Beds Across Kansas, as of October 2023








CityState Psychiatric Hospital
Private Psychiatric Hospital
Crisis Intervention Center
Crisis Stabilization Center
Kansas City–
49
30**30
Lawrence–
–
32**–
Leavenworth–
–
–
20
Manhattan–
–
–
6
Olathe–
48
–
–
Osawatomie176
–
–
–
Overland Park–
40
–
–
Shawnee–
20
–
–
Topeka–
16
–
26
Northeast176
173
62
82








Southeast–
–
–
–








Salina–
15
–
2
North Central–
15
–
2








Hutchinson–
8
–
–
Newton–
40
–
–
Wichita25*95
–
25
South Central25
143
–
25








Hays–
–
–
4
Northwest–
–
–
4








Garden City–
10
–
–
Larned90
–
–
–
Southwest90
10
–
–








STATEWIDE TOTAL291
341
62
113

* Beds will become available upon completion of the state hospital in Sedgwick County.
** Beds will become available upon approval of rules and regulations for crisis intervention centers.

Mental Health Beds for Youth

The first place for a youth to receive mental health treatment in Kansas is in a community mental health center (CMHC). If the child needs more intensive care than can be provided safely and effectively in the community, the child may be treated in one of the following placements.

Inpatient Acute Beds

Kansas does not operate any state-run inpatient psychiatric facilities for youth with mental illness. Instead, inpatient acute psychiatric care is provided by private hospitals. There are 200 children’s inpatient acute beds across the state.

SIA Beds

Private psychiatric hospitals providing inpatient acute psychiatric services can enroll in the SIA program. SIA providers receive patients based on daily capacity. The SIA program has served 1,149 children.

Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities12

Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) provide out-of-home residential psychiatric treatment to youth whose needs cannot be effectively and safely met in a community setting. Prior to receiving services in a PRTF, all community-based services must have been exhausted. Community-based services include Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) under waivers, such as the Serious Emotional Disturbance waiver and the Intellectual and Developmental Disability (I/DD) waiver. A PRTF is not a permanent or long-term placement. The programs provide active treatment in a structured therapeutic environment. Admission to a PRTF begins by requesting PRTF services from the child’s Medicaid managed care organization (MCO). The child is then assessed for medical necessity. The MCO must render its decision within 14 days, and the child’s guardian can appeal if the request for PRTF services is rejected. The child is then placed on a waitlist for a PRTF if medical necessity is met. There are currently 385 PRTF beds across the state.

Qualified Residential Treatment Programs

Qualified Residential Treatment Programs (QRTPs) provide residential treatment under the federal Family First Prevention Services Act. QRTPs treat children with serious emotional or behavioral disorders or disturbances. QRTP services are provided to foster children only with the goal of allowing foster children to successfully transition back to family care. QRTPs are tasked with:

  • Facilitating family participation in the child’s treatment, to the extent involvement is appropriate and in the child’s best interest;
  • Facilitating outreach to family members, documenting how outreach is made, and maintaining contact information for known family and fictive kin of the child;
  • Documenting how family members are integrated in treatment, including post-discharge, and how sibling connections are maintained;
  • Providing discharge planning and family-based aftercare support for at least six months post-discharge; and
  • Having 24/7 access to care from registered or licensed nursing staff and other licensed clinical staff.

There are currently 123 QRTP beds across the state.

Licensed Youth Mental Health Beds Across Kansas as of October 2023






CityChildren Acute Inpatient
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities
Qualified Residential Treatment Facilities
Kansas City48
48
16
Lawrence–
–
10
Olathe–
111
–
Overland Park64
–
–
Paola–
65
–
Topeka20
60
24
Northeast132
284
50






Parsons–
–
12
Southeast–
–
12






Salina–
42
16
North Central–
42
16






Newton–
41
–
Wellington–
–
16
Wichita54
–
29
South Central54
41
45






Hays14
18
–
Northwest14
18
–






Southwest–
–
–






STATEWIDE TOTAL200
385
123
  1. KSA 2022 Supp. 39-1601, et seq. ↩︎
  2. KSA 59-2945, et seq. ↩︎
  3. https://kdads.ks.gov/state-hospitals-and-institutions/osawatomie-state-hospital ↩︎
  4. https://kdads.ks.gov/state-hospitals-and-institutions/larned-state-hospital/larned-state-hospital—services ↩︎
  5. 2022 HB 2510 Sec. 28(c) ↩︎
  6. https://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/Committees/2022Committees/Committees-Spc-2022-Mental-Health-Beds.html ↩︎
  7. https://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/Committees/2022Committees/Committees-Spc-2022-Mental-Health-Beds.html ↩︎
  8. Sedgwick County Memorandum of Understanding with KDADS ↩︎
  9. https://governor.kansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EO-23-05-Signed-Executed.pdf ↩︎
  10. https://kdads.ks.gov/state-hospitals-and-institutions/south-central-regional-psychiatric-hospital-advisory-panel ↩︎
  11. https://kdads.ks.gov/state-hospitals-and-institutions/state-institution-alternatives-(sias) ↩︎
  12. https://kdads.ks.gov/kdads-commissions/behavioral-health/prtfs ↩︎

by Dayton LaMunyon
Fiscal Analyst
785-296-4405