Kansas hearing on SB161 spotlights fight over legislative approval for federal waiver changes to public-assistance programs

Senate Bill 161 would require an act of the Kansas Legislature before any state agency seeks or implements a federal waiver or other authorization that would expand eligibility for a public-assistance program or increase state costs, the reviser told the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency at a May hearing.

The bill, explained Tamara Lawrence of the Reviser's Office, “would enact a new section of law that would require approval by an act of the legislature before any state agency seeks or implements a public assistance program waiver or other authorization from the federal government that would expand eligibility for any public assistance program or would increase costs to the state.”

Supporters framed SB161 as a restoration of legislative authority over major program changes. Jerry Michaud, president and CEO of Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, told the committee that providers and families should be at the table for system changes affecting intellectual and developmental disability services and asked legislators to oversee the process. Matt Fletcher, executive director of Interhab, called the proposed changes “massive in their scope” and urged the committee to consider amendments to protect providers and families during broad, simultaneous reforms. Brian Sigma, a visiting fellow with Opportunity Solutions Project, said legislative sign-off would prevent unelected agency decisions that obligate large sums.

"This bill is extremely important because it's about restoring legislative control over major public policy assistance decisions in Kansas,” Brian Sigma said in support of SB161. He also asserted that a 2022 waiver granting 12-month continuous eligibility slowed removal of enrollees no longer eligible, saying it “ended up slowing down the removal of approximately 40% of all enrollees who are no longer eligible for benefits.”

Opponents from health and advocacy organizations warned SB161 could create bottlenecks that prevent rapid state responses to federal rules or emergencies. April Holman, executive director of the Alliance for Healthy Kansas, said the bill could “bog down the Medicaid program” and that existing legislative oversight mechanisms (the Bethel oversight committee and appropriations process) already provide channels for review. Heather Braun, senior policy adviser at Kansas Action for Children, emphasized that Congress now requires 12-month continuous eligibility for children in Medicaid and CHIP and said rapid changes are sometimes needed in crisis situations.

State agency witnesses described real-world timing constraints. Christine Osterlin, deputy secretary for agency integration and state Medicaid director at KDHE, told the committee federal guidance frequently arrives late in the summer with January 1 implementation dates and can mandate coverage or rate changes that carry state fiscal impact. "We would need to convene a committee or a special session, to review all those changes," she said, noting many federal actions come on a federal fiscal-year timeline. Osterlin also clarified an earlier waiver history: an amendment submitted in 2021 corrected a prior agency error and was not the initial creation of continuous eligibility for adults.

Carla Whiteside Hicks, director of economic and employment services at the Department for Children and Families, listed programs that could be affected—TANF, SNAP, childcare assistance, low-income energy assistance and other programs with state plans or potential waivers—and warned that extra procedural steps could delay benefits or require more staff time to manage approvals.

Advocates urged alternatives to SB161 rather than a blanket legislative-approval requirement. Sean Gatewood of the KanCare Advocates Network and Mike Burgess of Disability Rights Center of Kansas suggested improving transparency around public comment, providing plain-language summaries of waiver changes, and strengthening existing legislative committee review. Karen Siebert of Harvesters Kansas Food Bank cited USDA rules and the role of disaster SNAP (DSTAP) in emergency response as an example of a federal program that could be hampered if the state required special-session legislative approval before implementation.

No committee vote was taken on SB161 during the hearing. Committee members asked questions about the scope of the bill, how it would interact with federally mandated changes, and whether the legislative consensus-caseload process or the Bethel oversight committee could provide alternatives to requiring a special session for agency-initiated changes.

The hearing record includes proposed amendment language offered by some proponents to narrow the bill’s triggers; several opponents urged the committee to consider narrower, process-based reforms instead of the bill in its present form. The committee closed the SB161 hearing and proceeded to other business without taking formal action on the measure.