Anesthesiologist assistant licensure bill fails after contentious committee debate
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 2,368, which would have enacted the Anesthesiologist Assistant Licensure Act and created licensure authority under the State Board of Healing Arts, failed to pass the committee after debate over training slots and rural access; a proposed amendment to delay in‑state training programs also failed.
The Committee on House Health and Human Services voted against House Bill 2,368, a proposal to enact the Anesthesiologist Assistant Licensure Act and assign powers and duties to the State Board of Healing Arts.
Committee members debated whether licensing anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) would increase access to anesthesia services statewide or principally expand provider options in urban centers. Representative Pazier said she opposed the bill because “across the state of Kansas, I feel this bill will be detrimental to rural Kansas” and expressed concern AAs would not expand access in rural areas and might reduce training opportunities for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs).
The bill sponsor offered a balloon amendment that would have barred Kansas‑based AA training programs from accepting new students before February of a future year and limited training in Kansas to programs established before Jan. 1, 2020, at public universities in Kansas and Missouri until Jan. 1, 2028. Supporters said the amendment addressed concerns about limited clinical training slots; critics said the amendment in effect would simply delay the issue and could create problems by restricting where trainees may be educated.
The committee voted on the amendment by division after a voice vote showed doubt; members counted raised hands and recorded seven affirmative responses, after which the chair declared the amendment failed. Members then took the final motion to pass House Bill 2,368; that motion failed on a committee vote.
Members who opposed the bill cited rural access and training‑slot concerns; supporters argued AAs could be supervised and would be appropriate where anesthesiologists are available and that the measure was intended to increase capacity in areas with shortages. The committee record shows extensive back‑and‑forth and multiple members saying they remain open to further compromise, but no further amendments were adopted and the bill failed in committee.
Because the committee rejected the bill, the proposed licensure framework for anesthesiologist assistants will not advance from this committee at this time. The committee did not set specific follow‑up actions; members and stakeholders indicated they expect further negotiation outside the committee.
