News – Page 3

Briefing Book 2026: Artificial Intelligence Use in Health Insurance

As artificial intelligence (AI) has become an increasingly common presence in daily life, policymakers have been considering ways to ensure that the use of AI is not replacing human expertise and decision-making on complex topics. One of the areas of concern for both physicians and policymakers has been AI’s use in health insurance, particularly the ways in which insurance companies have begun utilizing AI to assess benefit coverage decisions.

How AI is Being Used in Health Insurance

Health Insurers

In 2025, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners published its Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) Survey Report, representing feedback from 93 insurance companies in 16 states. Of the companies surveyed, 84 percent indicated they use AI/ML across product lines. Companies selling individual major medical health insurance reported currently using or exploring the use of AI/ML for:

Utilization management practices (71.0 percent);
Disease management programs (61.0 percent);
Prior authorization for approval processes (68.0 percent);
Claims fraud detection (50.0 percent);
Medical provider fraud detection (51.0 percent);
Sales and marketing solutions (45.0 percent); and
Denying prior authorizations (12.0 percent).

One of the key ways that insurers have begun using AI in their work is through prior authorization. Prior authorization requires health care providers to obtain approval from a patient’s health insurer before providing the prescribed item, service, or prescription.

A February 2025 study by the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) notes that some studies suggest prior authorization can “reduce health care costs without negatively impacting care quality,” and it has been successfully used to reduce overutilization of some items, redirect care to less expensive treatments, and help ensure care aligns with accepted clinical standards by not covering experimental treatments or non-approved uses of medications. However, prior authorization can also cause necessary care to be delayed or denied, declines in health, and increased administrative burden and cost.

Physician Concerns

A survey conducted in 2024 by the American Medical Association found that 61.0 percent of physicians surveyed reported concern that the use of AI by health plans is increasing prior authorization denials. With these increased denials, surveyed physicians also reported poor clinical outcomes for patients (94 percent), delayed care (93 percent), and increased administrative burden for physicians and staff.

Class Action Lawsuit

A federal class action lawsuit filed in Minnesota against UnitedHealthcare in 2023 claims the company is “wrongfully denying elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare Advantage Plans by overriding their treating physicians’ determinations as to medically necessary care based on an AI model that Defendants know has a 90 percent error rate” (Estate of Gene B. Lokken et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied, in part, a request by UnitedHealthcare to dismiss the lawsuit. Portions of the lawsuit regarding breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of faith and fair dealing were allowed to proceed. The Court also waived the requirement that plaintiffs must exhaust the Medicare appeals process prior to filing a lawsuit due to the potential for irreparable harm to many patients.

Policy Responses

Recent State Actions

Colorado. Colorado became the first state to implement regulations on AI and insurance on November 14, 2023. The regulations require life insurance companies to report how they review AI models and use External Consumer Data and Information Sources (ECDIS), which may include data like credit scores, social media habits, purchasing habits, home ownership, educational attainment, licensures, court records, and other information to supplement or supplant traditional underwriting factors. Life insurance companies are also required to develop a governance and risk management framework. Similar regulations are set to take effect for health and auto insurers in Colorado on October 15, 2025.

California. In 2024, the California Legislature passed SB 1120, the Physicians Make Decisions Act (Act), to restrict health insurers and disability insurers from using AI, algorithms, and similar tools as the sole means to deny, delay, or modify care based on medical necessity. The Act, enacted on January 1, 2025, provides that final medical necessity determinations may be made only by a licensed physician or licensed health care provider who is competent in the specific clinical issues and services requested by the provider.

The bill applies to prospective, retroactive, and concurrent utilization functions and creates requirements for AI, algorithms, and other tools used in health care. Under the bill, these tools must:

Base decisions regarding medical necessity on the enrollee’s medical or clinical history and circumstances;
Be applied fairly and equitably;
Be available to inspection for audit and compliance reviews by specified state agencies; and
Be reviewed periodically to assess outcomes and ensure accuracy, reliability, and compliance with the Act.

2025 State Legislative Actions

During the 2025 Legislative Session, four states passed bills to prohibit payors from using AI to deny medical necessity or prior authorization determinations.

Arizona. HB 2175 requires that health care providers independently review claims and prior authorization requests prior to an insurer denial. The sole use of any other source to deny a claim or prior authorization is prohibited.

Maryland. HB 820 requires carriers to ensure that if an AI tool is used for utilization review, it must include medical history, individual circumstances, and other clinical information in its determination. Such AI tools must be open for inspection and audit by the state, and patient data may not be used for any purpose beyond the intended utilization review.

Nebraska. LB 77 prohibits AI output from being the sole basis of evaluating medical necessity in order to deny, delay, or modify health care services. The use of AI in utilization review must be disclosed to health care providers and enrollees and communicated clearly on the payor’s public website.

Texas. SB 815 prohibits the use of AI to make adverse determinations regarding medical necessity of services. Payors may only use AI for administrative support or fraud detection. The bill also requires any AI tools in use by payors to be subject to inspection by the Commissioner of Insurance.

Federal Actions

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Final Rule, effective January 2024, stating that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may use AI, algorithms, and related technologies to make coverage determinations, but medical necessity determinations must be “based on the circumstances of each specific individual” and determinations “must be reviewed by a physician or other appropriate health care professional with expertise in the field of medicine or health care that is appropriate for the services at issue.”

In November 2024, CMS released a Fact Sheet discussing proposed changes to the MA Program for Contract Year 2026, including requiring MA plans to “ensure services are provided equitably, irrespective of delivery method or origin, whether from humans or automated systems.” When the Final Rule for the 2026 MA Program was released in April 2025, the rule did not include these proposed guardrails on AI, but CMS noted broad interest in the regulation of AI and stated the agency would “continue to consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to engage in future rulemaking in this area.”

By Leighann Thone and Iraida Orr
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Children’s Eligibility for CHIP, MCHIP, Medicaid, and HCBS, Including Information on Premium Requirements for CHIP

The History of Medicaid

In the United States, Medicaid is a partnership between the federal government and the states with shared authority and financing, created by Congress in 1965 through Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The program was designed to finance health care services for low-income children, their parents, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Medicaid has become the nation’s largest source of funding to provide health services to low-income people.

State participation in Medicaid is optional. However, the federal government’s financial share of Medicaid financing creates an incentive for the states. To date, no state has declined to participate. All 50 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands participate and administer their own Medicaid plans. Although all states participate, eligibility varies widely because the states can choose to cover additional people and services above and beyond the federal minimum requirements.

Kansas participates in Medicaid, but has not participated in Medicaid expansion under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Health Coverage Programs in Kansas

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) administer the KanCare program. KDHE maintains financial management and contract oversight as the single state Medicaid agency, while KDADS administers the Medicaid waiver programs for disability services, mental health, and substance abuse, and operates the state hospitals and institutions.
The State of Kansas offers medical assistance to eligible Kansans primarily through these health care coverage programs.

KanCare under the Medicaid plan (KanCare). KanCare is the largest program and provides health and dental coverage for people with limited income who meet program eligibility, which may include pregnant women, children up to age 19, adult caretakers of children, persons who have aged out of foster care, persons with disabilities, and elderly.

HCBS. The Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) program in Kansas is part of the KanCare system. It provides long-term care and support services to eligible Kansans in their homes or communities rather than in institutional settings like nursing homes or hospitals, with Medicaid covering the cost of those services.

Long-term care and support services can include acts of daily living, such as bathing and dressing. Typically, Medicaid does not pay for these types of services unless they are provided in an institutional setting. With an HCBS waiver, the State is waiving the requirement that care must be provided in an institution and instead paying to provide the same level of care at home or in the community. The HCBS waiver program was authorized under Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act.

Kansas operates seven approved HCBS waivers: Autism (AU), Brain Injury (BI), Frail Elderly (FE), Intellectually/Developmentally Disabled (IDD), Physical Disability (PD), Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED), and Technology Assisted (TA).

KanCare under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plan. CHIP covers uninsured children up to age 19 who do not qualify for Medicaid. CHIP households who are above 166.0 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) are required to pay a premium per household which is either $20, $30, or $50 per month. When a family has not paid their monthly premiums for two months, the account is considered delinquent. When a child’s CHIP coverage ends for delinquency, they cannot re-enroll in the program for 90 days unless they qualify for Medicaid or the balance is paid.

CHIP was implemented on January 1, 1999, and state law requires that all CHIP children be in capitated managed care to control costs. State statute currently ties CHIP income limits to the 2008 FPL. [Note: This limit has been addressed through various provisos to bring the income limits in line with the CHIP state plan eligibility threshold.]

M-CHIP. M-CHIP is a category of Medicaid coverage for children between the ages of 6 and 18 who are between 113.0 percent and 133.0 percent of the poverty level standard (PLS). M-CHIP is Medicaid, and CHIP-specific requirements do not apply. However, the funding for these children is still related to CHIP.

MediKan. MediKan is funded entirely by state funds and covers persons who are applying for Social Security disability benefits.

Managed Care Organizations

Kansas contracts with three Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) to coordinate health care for nearly all Medicaid beneficiaries. The MCOs are Healthy Blue (HB), Sunflower State Health Plan (Sunflower), and United Healthcare Community Plan of Kansas (UHC). As of April 2025, the average MCO enrollment for the 2025 calendar year was 429,638 beneficiaries per month. In April 2024, there were 443,151 beneficiaries.

Each Medicaid consumer in the state is enrolled in one of the KanCare health plans, and as of April 2025, UHC had 37 percent of the enrollment, or 160,363 beneficiaries; Sunflower 36 percent, or 156,864 beneficiaries; and HB 26 percent, or 112,411 beneficiaries. Consumers have the option during open enrollment once a year to change to a different KanCare health plan if they wish to do so.

As of April 2025, there were 61,100 beneficiaries in CHIP, 10,386 age 0–4; 50,001 ages 5–18, and 413 age 19 and older.

CHIP Premiums
KanCare Update, April 2025

Family Poverty Level for Household Size	Under age 1	Ages 1-5	Ages 6-18
<100% FPL	Medicaid, No Premium	Medicaid, No Premium	Medicaid, No Premium
<133% FPL	Medicaid, No Premium	Medicaid, No Premium	CHIP, No Premium
<150% FPL	Medicaid, No Premium	CHIP, No Premium	CHIP, No Premium
151-166% FPL	CHIP, No Premium	CHIP, No Premium	CHIP, No Premium
167-191% FPL	CHIP, $20 Premium per Family	CHIP, $20 Premium per Family	CHIP, $20 Premium per Family
192-218% FPL	CHIP, $30 Premium per Family	CHIP, $30 Premium per Family	CHIP, $30 Premium per Family
219-255% FPL	CHIP, $50 Premium per Family	CHIP, $50 Premium per Family	CHIP, $50 Premium per Family

Data from KDHE KanCare Update April 2025 slide 16

Eligibility for Health Coverage Programs

General Rules

These general rules apply to all medical programs.

Kansas Residency. Participants must live in Kansas.

Citizenship and Immigrant Status. Participants must be a U.S. citizen or immigrant with a certain status. Some immigrants must wait five years before they can get coverage.

Household. All persons living in a home are required to be included in the application process for a household. The eligibility worker will decide who must be included in a household for a person’s medical assistance plan. It should be noted that different household members may be in different medical programs based upon the household members’ qualifications.

Other Health Insurance. If a participant has other health insurance, it is a primary coverage and should be billed before KanCare.

Coverage Date. Medical assistance usually starts with the month of application. However, sometimes a participant can receive coverage for the three months before the month the participant applied if it is requested.

Reviews. Currently, medical assistance applications are reviewed each year. Participants are required to keep KDHE advised of changes in address and coverage could end if KDHE does not have a current address for the participant.

Income Rules

The Affordable Care Act established a new methodology for determining income eligibility for Medicaid, which is based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI).

MAGI is the basis for determining Medicaid income eligibility for most children, pregnant women, parents, and adults. The MAGI-based methodology considers taxable income and tax filing relationships to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid. MAGI replaced the former process for calculating Medicaid eligibility, which was based on the methodologies of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program that ended in 1996. The MAGI-based methodology does not allow for income disregards that vary by state or by eligibility group and does not allow for an asset or resource test.

Some individuals are exempt from the MAGI-based income counting rules, including those whose eligibility is based on blindness, disability, or age (65 and older).

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) Dollars Per Year

Family size	2024 income numbers	2025 income numbers
For individuals	$15,060	$15,650
For a family of 2	$20,440	$21,150
For a family of 3	$25,820	$26,650
For a family of 4	$31,200	$32,150
For a family of 5	$36,580	$37,650
For a family of 6	$41,960	$43,150
For a family of 7	$47,340	$48,650
For a family of 8	$52,720	$54,150
For a family of 9+	Add $5,380 for each extra person	Add $5,500 for each extra person

Kansas Income Rules. KDHE states each medical program has different income rules. A household’s income must be less than the maximum income level for the program that the participant applies. Both earned income and unearned income may be counted to determine eligibility. Earned income is the money the applicant or other members in the household receive from paid employment. Unearned income is the money the applicant or other members of the household receive from Social Security, child support, unemployment, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, pensions, and other income sources. The approval process will use gross income and subtract deductions, such as qualifying pre-tax, federal deductions, to calculate the household income for the application.

Resources and Assets. Examples of resources are bank accounts, cars, property, and stocks that are owned by a person or someone in the household. Most plans for the elderly and persons with disabilities have a limit on the amount of resources a person may have. Plans for families and children do not have a limit.

By Elizabeth Cohn and Amanda Prosser.
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Federal 340B Drug Pricing Program

The federal 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B) allows certain eligible entities that serve low-income patients to purchase discounted outpatient drugs from manufacturers that participate in Medicaid and Medicare Part B. Manufacturers must sell covered outpatient drugs at 340B prices to these entities. The difference between the cost of the drugs and the amount paid by insurance enables covered entities to use federal resources to improve accessibility and provide more comprehensive services, particularly in rural, low-income, and medically underserved areas.

Program Overview

Section 602 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 added Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act. Under 340B, entities receive a 20.0 to 50.0 percent discount on the average manufacturer price of outpatient prescription drugs.

The covered entities may generate revenue under 340B if patients’ insurance reimbursements exceed the 340B price. Federal statutes do not restrict how covered entities may use this revenue. A survey by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a group representing safety-net hospitals, showed that covered entities use the revenue to reduce patients’ drug costs, provide uncompensated care, and maintain broader hospital operations, among other things. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Primary Health Care, however, requires a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to use 340B discounts for community benefits to fulfill grant requirements and remain a covered entity.

According to the Office of Pharmacy Affairs within the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA OPA), which administers the 340B Program on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the discounts enable covered entities “to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible” to fund safety-net care.

While both the 340B Program and the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program offer rebates to states, states cannot order “duplicate discounts” or stack rebates on prescription drugs.

Eligible Entities

Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act specifies the entities that are eligible to participate in 340B. These include qualifying hospitals, FQHCs, and specialized clinics. Entities are not allowed to divert drugs purchased at the 340B price to an individual who is not a patient of the entity.

Contract Pharmacies

Some covered entities enter into agreements with non-affiliated retail pharmacies, known as contract pharmacies, to provide services to patients. Contract pharmacies are not included in the federal 340B enacting statute. However, in 2001, HRSA created Alternative Methods Demonstration Projects (AMDP), which allow certain covered entities to contract with retail pharmacies. This allowed entities without in-house pharmacies to dispense medications under 340B. In 2010, HRSA expanded 340B to allow covered entities to contract with multiple pharmacies without going through the AMDP process.

Covered Entities in Kansas

As of September 2025, there are 565 unique covered entities in Kansas, according to HRSA’s 340B Office of Pharmacy Affairs Information System (340B OPAIS). These entities account for a total of 963 registered sites, including child sites such as affiliated clinics and outpatient facilities.

While Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) make up less than 1.0 percent of all unique entities, they account for over 25.0 percent of all registered sites.

Disproportionate Share Hospital. DSH facilities are general acute care hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients and automatically qualify for 340B annually if they provide enough inpatient services to Medicaid and low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

Critical Access Hospital (CAH). CAHs are designated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The CAH designation aims to reduce the financial vulnerability of rural hospitals and enhance health care access by maintaining essential services in rural communities.

Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics. STD clinics are non-hospital facilities that diagnose and treat STDs. These clinics are supported by the STD Control Program overseen by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Updates and Developments

HRSA-funded Health Centers

On July 31, 2025, HRSA announced new award terms requiring health centers to offer insulin and injectable epinephrine to low-income patients at or below the centers’ 340B acquisition cost. The agency stated the change is aimed at lowering out-of-pocket costs for these medications. The change aligns with Executive Order 14273, Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First. Health centers are expected to implement the new terms immediately.

340B Rebate Model Pilot Program

In August 2025, HRSA announced the launch of a voluntary 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program to test an alternative to the traditional upfront discount system under the 340B Drug Pricing Program. In this pilot, participating drug manufacturers will provide post-sale rebates to covered entities instead of upfront discounts.

The pilot targets drugs included on the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program’s Selected Drug List for the 2026 applicability year. Manufacturers with agreements under this program must submit plans to HRSA by September 15, 2025, with approvals expected by October 15, 2025. Implementation will begin January 1, 2026, and continue for at least one year.

Key requirements include:

Manufacturers must bear all administrative and data submission costs;
Covered entities must receive at least 60 days’ advance notice before implementation;
Data on dispensed drugs can be submitted within 45 days of dispensing;
Rebates must be paid within 10 days of data receipt; and
Information technology (IT) systems used must be secure and comply with HIPAA privacy standards.

Limited to selected drugs and manufacturers initially, the pilot program will help HRSA evaluate the rebate model’s effectiveness and inform the development of a formal process for approving future 340B pricing models that comply with the 340B statute and the Administration’s goals.

Recent Kansas Legislation

2025 SB 284 was introduced by the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. The bill would enact the Defense of Drug Delivery Act. Specifically, the bill would prohibit drug manufacturers; third-party logistics providers; repackagers; and an agents, contractors, or affiliates from limiting or interfering with the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities, unless required by federal or state law. It would also prohibit manufacturers from requesting health information or other data as a condition of access to 340B drugs, unless required by law.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt rules and regulations, administer the newly created Defense of Drug Delivery Fund, and impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, with each package of 340B drugs considered a separate violation. The State Board of Pharmacy would be authorized to investigate complaints and impose discipline, suspension, or revocation of the registration or permit of such person or entity.

The Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance amended the bill to clarify that wholesalers and virtual wholesalers are not among the entities prohibited from limiting 340B drug delivery but may be investigated if they possess evidence relevant to a complaint.

Active Covered Entities in Kansas

Entity Type	Unique Covered Entities	Total Registered Sites
Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH)	5	245
Critical Access Hospital (CAH)	78	194
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD)	164	164
Tuberculosis (TB)	147	147
HRSA-funded Health Center (CH)	103	103
Family Planning – Title X (FP)	54	54
Sole Community Hospital (SCH)	5	35
Children’s Hospital (PED)	1	12
Health Center Program Look-Alike (FQHCLA)	3	3
Rural Referral Center (RRC)	1	2
HIV/Viral Hepatitis (HV)	1	1
Ryan White Part C (formerly Title III) (RWII)	1	1
Ryan White Part B (formerly Title II) (RWIIR)	1	1
Urban Indian (UI) Health Center	1	1
Total	565	963

Source: HRSA 340B OPAIS data, accessed September 2025.

The bill passed the Senate on emergency final action on March 20, 2025. On March 24, 2025, the bill was referred separately to the House Committees on Interstate Cooperation and Insurance. As of the 2025 Interim, the bill remains in committee and has not yet been considered by the full House. Kansas’ two-year legislative cycle means SB 284 will remain active through the 2026 Session.

U.S. Supreme Court Case

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in American Hospital Association v. Becerra that the reimbursement payment rates set by HHS for drugs obtained under 340B in calendar years 2018 and 2019 were unlawful. The Court’s decision was based on HHS’s failure to conduct a required survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs before implementing the rates.

By Arianna Waddell and Leighann Thone.
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Foster Care Update

HB 2075 Implementation

The 2025 Legislature passed HB 2075, requiring the Secretary for Children and Families to respond within 24 hours of receipt of a referral from a law enforcement agency that a child may be a victim of abuse or neglect. This response includes contacting the persons who are subject to the report made by law enforcement and providing a status update to the referring law enforcement agency.

At the August 2025 meeting of the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) regional directors and a representative of Kansas law enforcement agencies provided an update on the implementation of HB 2075.

DCF regional directors emphasized the benefits of enhanced communication and information sharing between law enforcement agencies and DCF regional offices. While some initial challenges emerged with implementing the new policy, particularly around ensuring weekend and holiday coverage, each region stated it is proactively developing solutions. Strategies include hiring part-time staff, using voluntary sign-ups, and scheduling rotations to ensure 24-hour follow-up coverage. Directors shared positive outcomes, such as children remaining safely at home with DCF-provided wraparound services, thereby avoiding unnecessary trauma from police protective custody. One director did note an instance where a regional office received a large backlog of police reports, some over a month old. The director commented that this would be an educational opportunity to resolve the issue.

The representative of law enforcement agencies expressed strong support for DCF’s implementation of HB 2075. The representative praised the agency’s collaborative efforts, including in-person and virtual town halls for law enforcement and community members. Based on a survey of chiefs of police and sheriffs, all but one gave positive feedback. This dissenter was personally encouraged to better engage with their DCF regional counterpart. Lastly, the representative expressed excitement for the new online training developed jointly by DCF and the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center.

Executive Order No. 25-01

The federal Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014 established tax-advantaged savings accounts designed to allow individuals with disabilities to save money without jeopardizing their eligibility for other benefit programs such as Medicaid. These ABLE accounts can hold various federal cash benefits including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Administration (SSA) survivor benefits, and Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

Despite the intent of the ABLE Act to promote long-term financial security for individuals with disabilities, it remained a longstanding and widespread practice for states, including Kansas, to act as representative payees of children in foster care, and collect federal benefits on behalf of eligible children. These funds were then used to offset the cost of foster care—an approach that was historically accepted under the rationale that the benefits were being used for the immediate needs of the child.

However, this practice has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Critics argue that these funds should be preserved for the child’s future needs and transition to adulthood, rather than used to reimburse the state for foster care costs.

In response, there has been growing national momentum for reform, including Kansas Executive Order 25-01, issued on January 10, 2025. Among other provisions, the order seeks to ensure that federal cash benefits received by children in foster care remain with the child, rather than being diverted to cover foster care maintenance payments.
However, implementing this policy change is projected to have significant fiscal implications to the state budget. Specifically, it is estimated that the shift will increase the State General Fund (SGF) share of foster care maintenance payments by approximately $8.0 to $9.0 million annually. This reflects the additional cost the state will bear by no longer using children’s federal benefits to offset foster care expenses.

Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System Update

In the 1990s, the federal government introduced SACWIS (Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System). SACWIS is a federally funded framework designed to support child welfare case management services under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Kansas, however, did not receive federal certification for its case management system at the time and therefore was ineligible for the enhanced federal matching funds for system development. In 2016, the federal government published the final rule for CCWIS (Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System), a modernized version of SACWIS. This updated the federal regulation framework for the design, development, and operation of a child welfare information system eligible for Title IV-E funding. Since then, Kansas has been working toward compliance and participation in CCWIS.

The Kansas CCWIS aims to consolidate multiple legacy systems into a single, integrated platform that meets the CCWIS federal standards. The project is expected to cost a total of $100 million over the estimated four-year development period, with approximately 50 percent of the total cost coming from the SGF. Initially, the agency was allocated $2 million SGF annually for the project. Subsequently, as bids for the work were received, the 2024 Legislature approved an increase of $8.5 million SGF increase per year to the project’s base budget. As of state fiscal year (SFY) 2026, the agency receives $10.6 million SGF as a part of their base budget for the CCWIS project.

In July 2025, DCF announced the awarding of contracts for the CCWIS project. The largest of these is the Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) contract, valued at $44 million, which was awarded to RedMane Technology, LLC., a Chicago-based firm selected through the competitive procurement process. DCF states this is a four-year contract with three 36-month optional renewals, if needed.

Two additional contracts were also awarded:

Maximus US Services, Inc. received a $2.1 million contract to serve as the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) vendor. DCF states that this will expire at the end of SFY 2029; and
CSG Government Solutions was awarded $4.7 million to provide quality assurance services throughout the duration of the project. DCF states this is a three-year contract with five one-year renewals, if needed.

The 2025 Legislature deleted approximately $26.8 million in reappropriated funds from DCF. According to the agency, these funds represented a savings accumulated over time across multiple programs and were intended to support the CCWIS contract. However, the agency was unable to encumber the funds prior to their deletion, as the final CCWIS contracts had not been signed. Now that the contracts have been finalized, the agency is advocating to reappropriate approximately $7.7 million SGF agency-wide savings from SFY 2025 to SFY 2027 to fulfill obligations under the signed contracts.

Foster Care, By the Numbers

DCF reports Kansas has had a 25 percent decline of children in foster care since 2019 (7,588 in SFY 2019 to 5,690 in SFY 2025). Additionally, fewer children entered foster care in SFY 2025, a total of 2,473 children in SFY 2025 versus a high of 4,212 children in SFY 2018. DCF credits the State’s investment in preventative efforts to keep families together.

When compared nationally, Kansas continues to be identified as a state with a high removal rate. In federal FY 2023, Kansas improved by three spots to rank 10th in the nation with 3.84 removals per 1,000 children compared with the national average of 2.22 removals per 1,000 children. Approximately 61 percent of children are removed from the home due to abuse or neglect and 39 percent are removed as the family undergoes an assessment to determine future outcomes. The percentage of children removed for abuse and neglect has decreased over time, and the percentage of children removed during a family needs assessment has increased as the State invests in prevention efforts aimed at keeping families together.

By Amanda Prosser and Elizabeth Cohn.
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Kansas Vaccination Rates and the Cost to Treat Illnesses

Required Vaccinations for Students

KSA 72-6262 et seq. requires proof of certain vaccinations for all students enrolling for the first time in a school, preschool, day care program operated by a school, or as designated by the Secretary of Health and Environment (Secretary). Certification must be from a licensed physician or local health department and detail that the student has received all tests and vaccines as deemed necessary by the Secretary.

The vaccinations currently required for each susceptible child are the following: Diphtheria; Hepatitis A; Hepatitis B; Measles (Rubeola); Meningitis; Mumps; Pertussis (Whooping Cough); Poliomyelitis (Polio); Rubella (German Measles); Tetanus; and Varicella (Chickenpox). The vaccination list is set out in KAR 28-1-20, and any changes to the list are required to go through the rules and regulations process. KSA 76-761a requires each college and university to have policies and procedures, including a waiver procedure, for all incoming students who reside in student housing to be vaccinated for meningitis.

Click or tap on the following charts to see vaccination rates among kindergarteners for five different vaccines:

Average Vaccination Coverage Among Kindergarteners for Varicella

Average Vaccination Coverage Among Kindergarteners for Polio

Alternatives to the Certification of Completion

A student, in accordance with KSA 72-6262, who has not completed the required vaccinations is required to present to the school one of the following:

A written statement, signed by a licensed physician, stating the physical condition of the child is such that the tests or inoculations would seriously endanger the life or health of the child. This statement must also be submitted annually; or
A written statement signed by one parent or guardian that the child is an adherent of a religious denomination whose religious teachings are opposed to such vaccinations. [Note: Kansas City, Kansas, Public Schools have a standardized form: Religious Exemption from Immunizations.]

2025 Measles Outbreak

In early 2025, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Division of Public Health, recognized an outbreak of measles cases. As of August 13, 2025, the published data reflects there have been 90 total cases of measles in Kansas in 2025, and 87 of those cases are associated with the outbreak, with 12 counties having a case of measles. The ethnicity case rate reflects 7 cases in the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and 81 in the Not Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

Cases are split by age groups as follows:

Age Range	Cases
0-4	38
5-10	21
11-13	8
14-17	6
18-24	3
25-34	7
35-44	4
45-54	2
55-64	1
65+	0

KDHE states the routine recommendation is two doses of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with the first dose at age 12-15 months and the second dose at age 4-6 years before school entry. KDHE notes that one dose is 93 percent effective against measles, and two doses are 97 percent effective. Updated maps are available on the KDHE Measles Outbreak Dashboard for community transmission as well as the location of publicly funded MMR vaccine clinics in Kansas.

Cost of the Measles Outbreak

KDHE presented on the estimated cost of a measles outbreak at the July 2025 Robert G. (Bob) Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight (Bethell Committee). KDHE estimated a cost of $2.6 million calculated as follows: KDHE used a review of the costs of measles outbreaks in the United States that was gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2001 to 2018 for the purpose of a simple estimate for the Bethell Committee. The review estimated the median cost per measles case at $32,805 and the median cost per contact at $223. Based on that information, KDHE estimated the cost of measles in Kansas from Jan. 1, 2025, to June 16, 2025, at a total of $2,665,432 (80 measles cases, 184 cases under public health monitoring).

Statewide Vaccine Coverage and Exemptions

The KDHE Kindergarten Immunization Dashboard reports on the following vaccines:

Vaccine	Diseases Prevented	Number of Doses	Required
DtaP	Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis	5 doses or 4 doses considered appropriate if 4th given on or after 4th birthday	Yes
IPV	Polio	4 doses or 3 doses considered appropriate if 3rd given on or after 4th birthday	Yes
MMR	Measles, Mumps, Rubella	2 doses	Yes
Var	Varicella (Chickenpox)	2 doses or a history of the disease	Yes
HepB	Hepatitis B	3 doses	Yes
HepA	Hepatitis A	2 doses	Yes
Required	All vaccines required for school entry	Also referred to as 542232	Yes
Hib	Haemophilus Influenza type B	3 doses recommended but not required	No
PCV	Streptococcus pneumonia	4 doses recommended but not required	No

The statewide school entry vaccine coverage by academic year for all required vaccines and the statewide exemption rate were the following:

Academic Year	Required Vaccinations	Total Exemption Rate
2019-2020	89.89%	2.12%
2020-2021	88.54%	1.97%
2021-2022	87.37%	2.27%
2022-2023	87.22%	2.91%
2023-2024	86.69%	2.99%

Source: KDHE Kindergarten Immunization Data [Note: The data also includes a breakdown by school district and certain private schools.]

By Elizabeth Cohn and Amanda Prosser.
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control

Background

The Food Stamp Act of 1964, which established the original federal framework for food assistance, did not include a formal or comprehensive quality control system. In the early 1980s, the current system for measuring Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payment errors was established, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issuing error rates annually.

Today, the USDA employs a two-tiered quality control system to monitor SNAP eligibility and benefit accuracy. Under this system, states and the federal government collaboratively review SNAP cases. In Kansas, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) conducts monthly reviews of a sample of cases. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) then re-examines a subset of those cases to verify state accuracy by conducting interviews with selected participants and requesting additional documentation.

As a result of this quality control process, the USDA publishes four efficiency and effectiveness measures based on collected data.

Application Processing Timeliness Rate

The application processing timeliness (APT) rate measures how efficiently eligible applicants receive benefits on time. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 considers timeliness to be when all eligible households receive SNAP benefits within 30 days of application or within 7 days for those eligible for expedited service. The APT rate is calculated by dividing the number of SNAP applications timely approved by the total number of applications approved within that time frame.

Case and Procedural Error Rate

The case and procedural error rate (CAPER) reflects both the accuracy of the state agency’s determination and its compliance with federal procedural requirements around the determination. A case and procedural error occurs when a state takes one or more inaccurate or procedurally incorrect actions when denying, terminating, or suspending a household’s SNAP benefits. The rate indicates that a decision was inaccurate; the notice provided to the household was inaccurate, unclear, or insufficient; the notice provided to the household was untimely; and/or the procedures followed related to these decisions were inaccurate or untimely. The national rate is a weighted average of individual state rates, with the weighting based on a state’s proportion of total SNAP benefit issuance.

Program Access Index

The program access index (PAI) measure is designed to indicate the degree to which low-income people have access to SNAP benefits. It is not the participation rate, where the denominator is the number of people eligible. The PAI was designed to meet the federal requirements of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (also known as the 2002 Farm Bill), which established performance bonus payments to states with the highest PAI and the states with the most improved performance for program participation. A precise participation rate cannot be used to evaluate performance because of timing. Part of the federal requirement was that an award must be paid by the end of the fiscal year following the calendar year of performance.

To calculate the calendar year participation rate, an accurate estimate of people eligible for SNAP benefits is needed. This number is calculated by the American Community Survey and is on a one–to-two-year delay. Therefore, a true participation rate cannot be calculated to meet the federal timing requirement. For this reason, the designed PAI uses the federal poverty line for the given performance year rather than the number of eligible people.

Payment Error Rate

The payment error rate measures how accurately a state agency determined SNAP eligibility and benefit amounts for those who participate in SNAP. This rate can be displayed to show overpayments, underpayments, and as an aggregate rate. A lower rate is preferred. The national payment error rate is calculated as a weighted average of all individual state payment error rates, with weighting determined by a state’s proportion of total SNAP benefit issuance.

Click or tap to enlarge the following charts to see data on SNAP applications and payments.

Impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Section 10105 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amends Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) to establish state cost-sharing requirements for the SNAP benefit issuance, beginning federal fiscal year (FFY) 2028. Beginning in FFY 2028, the state share of SNAP benefit costs will be based on the state’s SNAP payment error rate, which includes the following cost-sharing structure:

Payment Error Rate	State Share	Federal Share
Less than 6.0%	0.00%	100.00%
6.0% to less than 8.0%	5.00%	95.00%
8.9% to less than 10.0%	10.00%	90.00%
10.0% or greater	15.00%	85.00%

In FFY 2028, states may elect to use their payment error rate from FFY 2025 or FFY 2026 to determine their required cost-share. Beginning in FFY 2029, the applicable rate will be based on the state’s payment error rate from the three fiscal years prior.
States with very high error rates may have the cost-sharing requirement delayed. States may qualify for a delay if their error rate meets either of the following criteria:

A fiscal year’s payment error rate is equal to or greater than 20.0 percent when multiplied by 1.5; or
A two-year average of a state’s payment error rate is equal to or greater than 20.0 percent when multiplied by 1.5.

These provisions may affect Kansas, depending on the state’s SNAP payment error rate in the years used to calculate the required state match. The 2024 Kansas SNAP aggregate error rate is 9.98 percent as published by the USDA. DCF estimated the first quarter of 2025 error rate to be calculated at 9.47 percent. Based on the 2024 rate, Kansas would have been required to contribute a 10.0 percent state match under the proposed framework, equivalent to approximately $40.8 million in benefit costs.

By Amanda Prosser and Iraida Orr.
See Health and Social Services for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Cybersecurity Update

Cybersecurity threats continue to pose an escalating risk to state and local governments, with attacks becoming more sophisticated, diverse, and costly. Recent data shows large increases in cyberattacks across all categories—from ransomware and data breaches to state-sponsored espionage, and supply chain compromises—making cybersecurity preparedness more critical for all levels of governments in Kansas.

Understanding the Cybersecurity Threat Landscape

Cybercriminals employ various tactics to compromise government systems and data, including:

Ransomware: Malicious software that encrypts files and demands payment for decryption;
Data Breaches: Unauthorized access to sensitive information for theft or exposure;
Phishing: Fraudulent communications designed to steal credentials or install malware;
Supply Chain Attacks: Compromising third-party vendors to access target organizations;
State-sponsored Attacks: Nation-state actors conducting espionage or disruption operations; and
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS): Overwhelming systems to disrupt operations.

These tactics typically allow for access to systems through phishing emails, malicious downloads, unpatched vulnerabilities in software, or compromised user credentials. Using that access, cybercriminals may steal sensitive data, disrupt operations, demand ransom payments, or establish persistent access for ongoing surveillance.

Threat Statistics

Cybersecurity threats are at all-time highs as statistics indicate approximately 4,000 cyberattacks happen daily, or an average of one attack every three seconds. According to multiple cybersecurity firms, worldwide cybercrime costs are estimated to reach $10.5 trillion annually by 2025.

Cyberattacks on state and local governments increased by 48.0 percent between 2023 and 2024, with 34.0 percent of state and local government organizations indicating they were hit by ransomware in 2024. The broader cybersecurity community has taken notice of these trends, with 72.0 percent of cybersecurity professionals reporting increased cyber risks, especially social engineering and ransomware. The financial impact has also risen, as the average cost of a data breach reached $4.88 million in 2024.

Emerging Threats

Several trends are changing the threat landscape, with artificial intelligence (AI) playing an increasingly prominent role in cyberattacks. AI-enhanced attacks have led to a surge in phishing incidents, which increased by 4,151.0 percent since ChatGPT’s release, as AI makes social engineering more sophisticated and harder to detect. Simultaneously, attackers are shifting their focus toward supply chain targeting, increasingly concentrating on managed service providers (organizations that manage information technology (IT) infrastructure remotely), and third-party vendors to access multiple clients simultaneously through a vulnerability. These evolving tactics have also intensified pressure on critical infrastructure, with 16.0 percent of reported ransomware attacks in 2024 specifically targeting utilities and energy infrastructure.

Kansas Incidents

Kansas has experienced multiple significant cyber incidents affecting critical government services. In October 2023, a cyberattack on the Kansas Judicial Branch’s IT systems shut down online access to the court system for several months, severely disrupting legal proceedings across the state.

The following year brought additional challenges when an attack on the City of Wichita in May 2024 disrupted city services and forced the municipality to revert to cash-only payments for city services. A September 2024 breach in Franklin County exposed sensitive poll book records containing names, social security numbers, vaccination information, and insurance billing information of 30,000 residents, demonstrating the broad scope of personal data at risk in government cyber incidents. So far, there has not been a major state-level incident in 2025.

National Incidents

Recent attacks on governmental entities nationwide show the cyber threats facing public sector organizations. In Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a cyberattack disabled 911 terminals in emergency vehicles, creating operational disruptions that required the National Guard to assist with emergency services.

Fulton County, Georgia, experienced a multi-week system outage that affected utilities, courts, and tax networks, demonstrating how ransomware can impact multiple government functions simultaneously.

The city of Columbus, Ohio, suffered a particularly damaging breach where three terabytes of sensitive data was stolen and subsequently leaked online after the city refused to pay ransom demands.

The education sector has also been targeted, with the Chicago Public School District experiencing a data breach that affected over 700,000 current and former students.
Federal agencies have also been attacked, as Chinese hackers breached a third-party vendor serving the U.S. Department of the Treasury, gaining access to over 3,000 files.

The judicial system faced significant disruption when Washington’s state courts experienced a statewide court system outage caused by a cyberattack. As recently as August 24, 2025 Nevada’s state government suffered a major attack that disrupted services statewide, including Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) operations, law enforcement dispatch systems, and state agency websites, forcing many offices to close for extended periods. The attackers successfully exfiltrated data from state networks, though officials have not yet identified what specific information was stolen.

Several high-profile private sector breaches have had significant government and public implications as well. Change Healthcare suffered the largest health care breach in U.S. history, affecting 100 million individuals and costing the company $2.87 billion, creating widespread disruptions in health care services and insurance processing. AT&T experienced a breach of its cloud environment that affected call records of over 100 million users, raising national security concerns about telecommunications infrastructure. A supply chain attack on Starbucks affected 11,000 stores nationwide, demonstrating how attacks on major retailers can impact local communities and economic activity across the country.

Kansas State Cybersecurity Initiatives

State officials and the Legislature, in cooperation with federal entities like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have been working to improve the State’s security posture. The most significant recent effort is the enactment of 2024 House Sub. for SB 291.

2024 House Sub. for SB 291

The legislation requires Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) for each branch of government to work with agency heads to develop cybersecurity programs compliant with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF) 2.0. These programs must be implemented by July 1, 2028.

NIST CSF 2.0 includes six core functions:

Identify: Understanding organizational assets, risks, and resources;
Protect: Safeguarding critical assets and data from threats;
Detect: Identifying potential cybersecurity events or incidents;
Respond: Taking action during or after a cybersecurity event;
Recover: Restoring capabilities and services after a cybersecurity event; and
Govern: Establishing and monitoring policies, processes, and oversight to manage cybersecurity risks.

Kansas is currently the only state to adopt a requirement for NIST CSF 2.0 compliance. Federal agencies are the only other entities requiring similar compliance.

The legislation also requires cybersecurity staff for each branch of government in Kansas to work at the direction of the branch’s respective CISO.

Additionally, beginning in 2028, a mechanism will be in place to certify an amount equal to 5.0 percent of an agency’s total budget that may be lapsed by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means or the House Committee on Appropriations should it be determined by the relevant Chief Information Technology Officer and Director of the Budget that an agency is not in compliance with provisions found within 2024 House Sub. for SB 291.
All provisions will expire on July 1, 2026, and the law will need to be reviewed during the 2026 Legislative Session. The House of Representatives adopted 2025 HB 2271 which, among other things, would have removed the referenced sunset provisions contained within 2024 House Sub. for SB 291. This legislation is currently in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, and could be considered during the 2026 Session.

Additionally, the Joint Committee on Information Technology held discussion and received testimony on the provisions of 2024 House Sub. for SB 291 during the 2025 Interim and is expected to make several recommendations for consideration by the 2026 Legislature.

State Appropriations

In 2025, the Office of Information Technology Services (OITS) requested, and the Legislature appropriated, $2.0 million for the creation and operation of a 24/7 Security Operations Center (SOC). The SOC provides real-time threat detection and incident response for the State’s network. In 2024, OITS modified its rate structure to eliminate the agency charge-back for cybersecurity services, opting to include those costs as a core portion of its services. Essentially, state agencies utilizing OITS services no longer pay a separate fee for cybersecurity services.

By James Fisher and Matthew Willis.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Electricity Capacity

Electricity capacity refers to the total amount of energy a device or system can store and release to utilities and customers.

2025 Electric Supply and Demand Biennial Report

KSA 66-1282 requires the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) to produce a report on electric supply and demand for all electric utilities in Kansas every two years. Electricity supply refers to the actual amount of energy produced and delivered over a period of time. Statute requires the report to include information pertaining to generation capacity needs, system peak capacity needs, and renewable generation. This reporting requirement became effective in 2011, and required the first report to be submitted by February 1, 2013.

In order to obtain data needed for the Electric Supply and Demand Biennial Report (Biennial Report), the KCC issued an order on October 29, 2012, requiring electric generators in Kansas to file this information annually. The KCC indicates the following generators are required to participate:

Evergy Kansas;
Empire District Electric Company;
Kansas Power Pool;
Kansas Municipal Energy Agency;
Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives;
Midwest Energy;
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; and
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities.

The 2025 publication of the Biennial Report is available online through the KCC’s website.

Generation Capacity Needs and System Peak Capacity Planning

Section one of the Biennial Report includes information on generation capacity, which refers to the maximum amount of electric power a generating unit can produce at any given time and peak capacity planning. The report indicates that all major utilities in Kansas are members of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the SPP operates as the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) in Kansas. As an RTO, the SPP has to meet certain federal requirements to ensure reliable and adequate power supplies and reserves are maintained by members.

According to the Biennial Report, in 2023, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) operated at a deficit of 950 megawatts (MW) while cooperatives (co-ops) and municipal utilities had surpluses of 83 and 73 MW, respectively. Those deficits are estimated to increase to 7,195 MW for IOUs by 2043, and co-ops and municipal utilities are estimated to have deficits of 186 and 129 MW by 2043.

Utilities that operate at a deficit are required to pay penalties. The Biennial Report shows long-term positions held by utilities and does not include short-term capacity contracts. The deficit illustrated in 2023 in the report can be explained by the use of short-term capacity contracts that are not captured in the report.

Reliability Concerns

The SPP has expressed concerns facing the industry. In an article published by the Kansas Reflector on April 23, 2025, the SPP was quoted in a letter posted online as saying: “We are facing an increase in extreme weather events that are causing grid emergencies, tight operating conditions, and risks to human health and safety. In the past, there were only a few weeks in summer when SPP risked running out of energy. Now, we are issuing grid alerts throughout the summer as well as during winter. Our risk of having inadequate supply to meet demand has greatly increased, and grid emergencies are likely to last longer, cause more damage and increase risks to human health and safety.”

On July 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy stated United States’ power outages could increase by 100 times in five years if suppliers fail to add capacity during peak demand.

Electricity Capacity Issues in Kansas

During an April meeting of the KCC’s Commissioners, KCC staff explained support for Evergy building two new natural gas plants in Kansas. Concerns exist regarding whether solar and wind generation will continue in Kansas, with solar tariffs placed on certain countries and uncertainty surrounding clean energy tax credits. There have also been issues with obtaining permits to build new solar facilities, as more local communities do not support hosting those facilities.

Furthermore, as more power generation comes online, retirement of older assets are also assessed. In Kansas, Evergy has explored and is planning on the retirement of the Jeffery Energy Center, which is a coal plant located in Pottawatomie County. Evergy has stated its intent to close all remaining coal generation plants by 2040, and within the next 10 years, will retire nearly 1,200 MW of coal-based energy and add 3,200 MW of renewable generation.

The addition and deletion of certain power generation by utilities represents the continual changes in energy portfolios as utilities work to create stable energy production that meets the projected needs and stresses on the system.

By Luke J. Drury and Kate Smeltzer.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Next Generation 911

What is Next Generation 911?

Next Generation 911 (NG911) is a digital, internet protocol (IP)-based system replacing the analog 911 infrastructure that has been in place for decades. Along with the digital transfer of information, NG911 utilizes geographic information systems (GIS) to help emergency dispatchers provide a location where the emergency call is taking place.

An analog system uses continuous electrical signals, such as voltage or current, sent over telephone wires to transmit data. A digital system uses a discrete, binary system (0s and 1s) to store and transmit information. An analog system uses continuous signals that are susceptible to data loss during transmission because of the physical aspect of transmitting the information from one source to the receiving source. A digital system using a discrete system is less likely to lose information because it is sending and receiving a fixed amount of data.

NG911, therefore, uses a digital system that bolsters the 911 system to overcome the drawbacks of an analog system. It enhances the capacity of emergency number services to create a faster and more resilient system that allows voice, photos, videos, and text messages to be sent from the public to the 911 network seamlessly, rather than relying on the location of specific phone numbers when calling a public safety answering point (PSAP).

A PSAP is the location where 911 emergency calls are received and processed and then dispatched to the appropriate emergency services. PSAPs have historically processed only analog systems. However, with newer technology and equipment, a PSAP is able to process the digital information that NG911 utilizes. That allows a person in an emergency situation to send voice and video phone calls, text messages, photos, or videos.

Next Generation 911 in Kansas

The Kansas State 911 Board (Board) was created by the Kansas 911 Act found in KSA 12-5362 et seq. It is tasked with monitoring the delivery of 911 services and developing strategies for future enhancement to the 911 system. The Board replaced the Kansas 911 Coordinating Council in 2024.

In 2012, the U.S. Congress created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide emergency responders with a nationwide, high-speed, wireless broadband network dedicated to public safety use. In November 2013, Kansas began researching how to implement a NG911 system in Kansas. FirstNet awarded the federal contract to AT&T to implement this system in April 2014. FirstNet would provide a plan for each of the 50 states to build a single, national, integrated network dedicated to public safety communications.

Kansas was in the process of data collection to understand how opting into the FirstNet services would impact Kansas financially and the state’s 911 systems’ ability to respond to emergency calls. This included gathering GIS data, imagery acquisition for the NG911 system, and how to incorporate PSAPs into this new system. The plan for Kansas was expected to be sent to the Governor in 2017 to understand how Kansas would be able to transition to NG911 services through FirstNet.

When Kansas opted into the FirstNet plan on August 15, 2017, under then-Governor Brownback, Kansas became one of the first adopters of NG911 services.

By Walter Schmidt and Nicole Bergman.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: An Overview of the Board of Tax Appeals Financing

Introduction

The Board of Tax Appeals is the highest administrative tribunal to hear appeals relating to ad valorem (property), income, sales, compensating use, and inheritance taxes, along with other matters involving taxation by state and local taxing authorities. The Board is divided into two divisions:

The Regular Division has broad jurisdiction to hear and decide tax matters, including property tax appeals, appeals from final determinations of the Department of Revenue, tax grievances, applications for exemptions from property tax, countywide reappraisal requests, and no-fund warrant requests; and
The Small Claims and Expedited Hearing Division oversees appeals for the valuation of single-family residential properties and commercial properties that are appraised at $3.0 million or less.

Fee Fund Financing

Prior to FY 2012, the Board was primarily funded with State General Fund (SGF) dollars. Over time, financing for the Board has shifted toward a greater reliance on the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) fee fund. Filing fees have been increased to support agency operations and offset reductions to the SGF. In FY 2024, funding for the Board was:

46.5 percent SGF;
53.4 percent from the BOTA Filing Fee Fund;
0.1 percent from the American Rescue Plan Act funds; and
0.1 percent from the Duplicating Fee Fund.

[Note: The Duplicating Fee Fund was closed in FY 2024.]

As of September 15, 2025, the BOTA Fee Fund has a balance of $953,325. Since the creation of the fee fund, several regulations have impacted the revenue collected, including the removal of the:

Filing fee for not-for-profit organizations’ appeals under $100,000;
Residential filing fee; and
Filing fees assessed to municipalities and political subdivisions.

The table below shows the amount in receipts the Filing Fee Fund received for FY 2016–FY 2024.

Fiscal Year	Receipts
FY 2016	$878,015
FY 2017	$944,818
FY 2018	$1,028,606
FY 2019	$819,183
FY 2020	$872,802
FY 2021	$872,636
FY 2022	$902,085
FY 2023	$949,575
FY 2024	$1,133,609
FY 2025	$1,128,325

The amount collected in FY 2024 was attributable to an increase in incoming cases from the Regular Division. Additionally, the 2024 Legislature approved reducing BOTA Filing Fee Fund expenditures by $150,000 and substituting these expenditures with funding from SGF in FY 2025.

The table below shows the ten-year expenditure history for the BOTA Filing Fee Fund:

Fiscal Year	Expenditures
FY 2016	$754,737
FY 2017	$1,030,906
FY 2018	$918,816
FY 2019	$945,802
FY 2020	$959,350
FY 2021	$862,880
FY 2022	$1,010,487
FY 2023	$1,064,798
FY 2024	$1,173,069
FY 2025	$933,059

The ending balance was $972,877 at the end of FY 2025. The Board estimates it will receive $950,000 in filing fees in FY 2026, which would lead to an ending balance of approximately $819,808.

By Chardae Caine and Edward Penner.
See Taxation for more.