[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6339306,"mediaKeyId","2262210-2b5697b4b109f9df1ddfb8af1314e9aa","parentId",2262210,"title","Committee weighs bill to authorize broader data matches for public‑assistance eligibility; DCF officials say much of it already occurs","audioSeconds",3710,"startMs",3716000,"endMs",5869,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262210-2b5697b4b109f9df1ddfb8af1314e9aa&start=3716&end=5","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262210-2b5697b4b109f9df1ddfb8af1314e9aa/thumbnail_3716000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6339306/Kansas/Committee-weighs-bill-to-authorize-broader-data-matches-for-publicassistance-eligibility-DCF-officials-say-much-of-it-already-occurs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339306-acbef5b61cf03acadbacc0c26b4c7a65/orig.mp4?Expires=1777682761&Signature=jLWTykz7DBqPptQKyYVlQldumiTU0FSwo~Yb8NbnSxQ-DRdMMvaI~PE~F3gcp5MbauaPFwIluJfP0HzFiUrqQM0r4g6yExDiXBk~I28x-rg6cDaNDEPHXGuQEZaN7IRPWXbB4TEdPu7uxayD4Ez4DElPJyP20IT3AbVAy-4hE-Y1tCVTrJM7AsLyLZVIbnVmX7oYG4LknMTkZT3zNUflyLAuEk1sX8Ci1JX~F4eG1pAvsnJOjnOwuRnyuHX1wgtOJ0NgrKaWtLWTV8EKmLqOPNMAYH~D5U~AIgZbdH04IZ0A-7LLu0jJ2wFZ~RPWhVh19-VGouteAHp4Z~zrmRK7wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","KS Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Committee on Welfare Reform took testimony on House Bill 2360, a proposal directing the secretaries for children and health to enter into data‑matching agreements with commercial entities and state or federal agencies to check public‑assistance program eligibility and detect possible fraud. Proponents argued broader, routine matching would improve program integrity; opponents cautioned that the department already performs many matches and that additional third‑party alerts could overwhelm staff and delay benefit processing.

Steve Green of Opportunity Solutions Project told the committee the bill has three central elements: authorizing third‑party contracts to collect data, tightening redetermination timing, and publishing a public, aggregate report on program‑integrity findings. Green said actively looking for fraud produces results and gave an example of EBT transactions and resale networks: \"Usually, it's about 50¢ on the dollar,\" he said of typical EBT resale arrangements, and he argued public reporting would make the scale of the problem clearer.

Department of Children and Families (DCF) staff outlined current practices and limits. Carla Whiteside Hicks, director of Economic and Employment Services at DCF, testified the department already receives many matches: death records daily, out‑of‑state electronic‑benefit‑transfer (EBT) usage daily, new‑hire and Department of Labor data monthly or quarterly, and social‑security notices for benefit starts or stops. \"We do that daily,\" she said of death‑record matches; on labor data she noted employers report quarterly, and DCF verifies at application, interim and annual reviews. She warned some information would be duplicative or unusable without client confirmation: under federal SNAP (food‑assistance) rules, data that a client has not reported cannot always be used to take case action until the client is given notice and verification. Whiteside Hicks also said that to receive certain IRS‑level Social Security Administration files, everyone with access would need to be fingerprinted — a significant operational constraint.

Food‑bank representatives and community groups opposed the bill. Karen Siebert, representing Harvesters and Second Harvest Community Food Bank, said additional data alerts “will place more strain on DCF staff and as such could threaten the food assistance benefits of low‑income Kansans.” She cited another state’s experience (Ohio) where a third‑party data feed produced millions of alerts that bogged caseworkers and required legislative fixes.

Committee members asked about data accuracy, third‑party reliability and the bill’s fiscal impact. Representative Brownlee Page repeatedly raised a concern about prior vendor reporting errors (Equifax was referenced in committee discussion as an example of a third‑party data problem) and asked whether vendors had corrected previous inaccuracies. Staff confirmed a fiscal note existed but said it had only just been received by committee staff and would be distributed for review.

Supporters said broader and more regular matches would reduce improper payments and recover funds, while the department and food‑security groups urged caution to avoid creating duplicate, unverified alerts that slow applications and renewals. The hearing closed without a committee vote; members requested additional information including the fiscal note and, in at least one case, vendor follow‑up on data‑quality questions raised during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee on Welfare Reform 02/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Committee on Welfare Reform took testimony on House Bill 2360, which would direct state secretaries to enter data‑matching agreements with commercial and government data holders to compare employment, wages, death, incarceration and other records against recipients of public assistance.","taxTitle","Committee on Welfare Reform, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",20584,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339312,"Kansas committee hears argument to require legislative approval for Medicaid waivers and costly state plan changes",3657,76000,3733000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262210-2b5697b4b109f9df1ddfb8af1314e9aa&start=76&end=3733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262210-2b5697b4b109f9df1ddfb8af1314e9aa/thumbnail_76000.jpg","/articles/6339312/Kansas/Kansas-committee-hears-argument-to-require-legislative-approval-for-Medicaid-waivers-and-costly-state-plan-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339312-ad2146c943d0ae31b176791bebcf6f56/orig.mp4?Expires=1777682761&Signature=HuwDN1vI9dBslTK3Oa1V8exQJ2DsQDMrEHYVmsnS5gj2nmcb6YJQTDo7hJN-IwCH5LoHSjtLP~cVZzbHWWeKHZUf9O8IsdG-iICVjlQTVWlQBwOVUw~FKE99iyyu5NerFXeleRbiZwqcmNLtjRaG8At3nbbCTzx8UfzjZktayoqNgA-Fs~VGw--o2PRW~1BGLiX~e9fX0MjNXFdK3UqMsXVSuG50hcKP1TGM4qcawHjo3ue9iARzUFEUvuFwaoxDjiVS10WtXw0FYMpxAOYCICpWwQE4Sq3bGNXVV9-0glSi9J4tZc2Gir8dOe-EBx80DF7hvB6Tls0dr2qjheo7SQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Welfare Reform on the statehouse heard testimony on House Bill 2240, a proposal that would require legislative approval before any Medicaid state plan, state plan amendment, demonstration or waiver that expands coverage or increases state costs could be sought or implemented. Supporters said the bill would restore legislative oversight; opponents warned the measure could prevent timely responses to federal mandates and urgent health needs.

Proponents focused on process and cost. Brian Sigma, visiting fellow with Opportunity Solutions Project, said the bill would stop “unacceptable” unilateral changes by state agencies and cited Kansas’ continuous eligibility policy as an example. \"Medicaid, as you know, is one of the largest expenditures in the Kansas state budget,\" Sigma said, arguing that waivers and state-plan amendments have been used to make major changes without a legislative vote. He told the committee Kansas data from the public‑health‑emergency redetermination showed 43.7% of enrollees were not approved for renewal and estimated that continuing coverage for people who no longer qualified has cost the state between $4,000,000 and $9,600,000 per year.

Advocates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) pressed the committee to add language so the bill’s oversight would explicitly cover large IDD system changes. Matt Fletcher, executive director of Interhab, urged an amendment so the legislature would review “large scale system changes” for the IDD service network, saying providers and families were excluded from development of the state’s proposals. Fletcher said he was \"about 140 days away\" from the implementation of one system change and that key pieces remained incomplete; he asked that the legislature be allowed to serve as a check to prevent harm to a vulnerable population.

Leaders of regional provider organizations described how proposed waiver and funding changes could alter eligibility, case management, day services and gatekeeping for the IDD network. Gerard (Jerry) McCod, president and CEO of Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, described organizations that have performed multiple administrative and service roles for decades and asked for legislative oversight to ensure design changes work in practice. Rachel Newman, chief operating officer of COF Training Services, gave a staff-and-accessibility example about taking a group bowling to illustrate the logistical challenges of replacing center‑based day services with community‑based hours. \"This single event was exhausting, and very challenging,\" she said, arguing that changes to day services and funding should be better vetted with providers and families.

Opponents argued the bill’s language is too broad and could hinder the state’s ability to respond quickly to federal rules, emergencies and mandatory program changes. Heather Braum, senior policy advisor at Kansas Action for Children, noted roughly 61% of Kansas Medicaid (KanCare) members are children and said many program changes happen during the year in response to federal guidance or urgent health needs. \"If the process to pursue changes can only occur with legislative authorization, the medical assistance program will no longer be able to quickly pivot,\" she said, offering an example in which a medication coverage change was made within 24 hours during an out‑of‑season RSV outbreak.

Other opponents, including Jenny Tapman of Thrive Allen County and Sean Gatewood of the KanCare Advocates Network, warned the bill could add bureaucracy that slows enrollment assistance and public comment response. Gatewood questioned whether large unilateral expansions actually have occurred, saying he was not aware of recent major expansions enacted without legislative action and asked what constitutes an \"increase\" in cost for the statute’s purposes.

State Medicaid officials answered committee questions about federal mandates and timing. Christine Osterlund, deputy secretary of agency integration and the state Medicaid director, said many federal changes are mandatory and can carry short implementation windows. \"We typically get deadlines to implement those services that are 30 to 60 days,\" she said, and cautioned that failure to comply can place federal matching funds at risk; she cited an example of a prior change that carried a roughly $51 million state impact that required appropriations work.

Committee members asked whether existing interim legislative committees or the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) could be used to provide oversight when the legislature is not in session. Staff explained that LCC policy 33 limits interim committees from speaking for the legislature without prior LCC approval, and members discussed whether the LCC itself could be delegated authority to act between sessions.

The hearing produced no formal action on the bill. Several proponent organizations requested an amendment to ensure the proposed oversight explicitly covers current and planned IDD waiver changes; opponents urged more-targeted alternatives such as increased transparency in consensus caseloads or expanded interim committee authority to review urgent changes.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 2240 without a recorded vote. Sponsors and stakeholders signaled they would provide proposed amendment language and additional material for committee consideration in subsequent work sessions.","Supporters of House Bill 2240 told the Committee on Welfare Reform the measure would prevent costly Medicaid waivers and state-plan amendments from taking effect without explicit legislative consent; opponents said the bill is too broad and would slow urgently needed program changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee weighs bill to authorize broader data matches for public‑assistance eligibility; DCF officials say much of it already occurs

Kansas committee hears argument to require legislative approval for Medicaid waivers and costly state plan changes