Committee reviews data‑matching proposals in Senate Bill 85; fingerprinting, frequency and costs top concerns

The Committee on Welfare Reform held an extended, informal discussion of Senate Bill 85 — a bill directing periodic review of public‑assistance eligibility using federal and state data sources — but did not work the bill or take formal action.

Committee members and agency witnesses debated how frequently state agencies should receive or act on data matches from sources such as vital records, the Department of Labor, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Corrections, the National Directory of New Hires, HUD, and other federal repositories. Representatives from the Department for Children and Families (DCF), the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the Medicaid Inspector General, and other staff were present to answer questions.

A DCF official who testified (referred to on the record as “Doctor”) said some of the data the bill would have required is already provided to the agencies, but that one specific Social Security Administration file — identified in committee as the BARS file — carries an exceptional access requirement. “Everyone would have to be fingerprinted for us to be able to access that information,” the official said, adding that the requirement would extend to contractors such as Accenture and would require costly system upgrades. The official noted the agency already receives much of the same information from other sources, “it’s just in a different form.”

Members pressed for operational detail. The DCF official and other witnesses described current frequencies and interfaces: death records arrive daily from KDHE’s vital statistics; Department of Labor earnings are reported quarterly and are accessible by interface; out‑of‑state EBT transactions are reviewed daily; the Department of Corrections’ incarceration file (APPRIS/VINE) is delivered daily; and some Medicaid checks use PARIS (Public Assistance Reporting Information System) on a quarterly basis for cross‑state eligibility. The committee also discussed HUD payment records, IRS tax data (which agencies said can be outdated), and commercial data matches (e.g., vendor services such as TOCS/Equifax) that can fill gaps for out‑of‑state or contractor income but carry per‑match costs.

Committee members also focused on workload and fiscal consequences. The DCF official warned that the agencies are already behind federally required application and review timeliness for SNAP, and that adding frequent matches would increase the workload and could “decrease our ability to avoid a financial sanction from FNS,” because staff would have to verify and act on newly reported information. The official gave an example of administrative cost: the caretaker/parent Medicaid population’s monthly data match was estimated in committee testimony at $37,000 per month, “so if I’m doing a monthly data match … that’s $4,300,000 a year,” the official said.

Members asked about fingerprinting and background checks. The witness said DCF eligibility workers already undergo background checks but are not all currently fingerprinted; Social Security’s BARS file requires fingerprinting for every person who touches the data, including contractors. The witness also said the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) currently processes fingerprints and returns results to regional personnel offices.

Agencies and the Medicaid Inspector General described several operational realities that would limit immediate case action on some matches: Medicaid rules provide continuous eligibility for many children and other groups, which prevents ending coverage on the basis of a single data match; in some cases, federal rules require that the agency notify the household and verify information before action can be taken; and even when eligibility categories change (for example, moving a parent from caretaker medical to transitional Medicaid), the state still pays capitation rates and incurs administrative costs.

Several witnesses recommended targeted automation and improved intra‑agency data sharing to reduce waste and identify recoverable overpayments more efficiently. The Medicaid Inspector General and committee staff said they are exploring audits and technical fixes — for example, automated comparisons between eligibility end dates and claims data — to identify situations where capitation payments can be recovered without manual casework.

No motions were offered on Senate Bill 85 during the session; the committee left the bill unworked and kept a future meeting date open for follow‑up.

The committee’s discussion highlighted tradeoffs between more frequent, automated data matches and the staffing, system‑upgrade and legal obligations that would follow if the state pursued broader data access or monthly matching.