House committee hears debate on HB 2157 to allow pharmacist COVID test‑and‑treat under statewide protocol

The House Committee on Health and Human Services opened a hearing on House Bill 2157, which would amend KSA 65 16 1 31 to add COVID‑19 to the list of conditions a pharmacist may test and treat under a statewide collaborative protocol.

Carly (the reviser) summarized the bill for the committee, saying it would take effect upon publication in the statute book and would add COVID‑19 to a pharmacist point‑of‑care testing and treatment list currently used for influenza, strep and urinary‑tract infections.

John Monroe, representing the Kansas Association of Chain Drugstores, testified in strong support. "Community pharmacies play a critical role in health care access," Monroe said, and adding COVID‑19 to statute would codify services pharmacists already provide under the federal PREP Act when that authority is removed. Monroe said the association represents hundreds of pharmacies that serve both urban and rural Kansans.

Brad Seiler, a Walgreens health‑care supervisor and pharmacist, told the committee that HB 2157 would not force insurers to pay for testing or treatment; patients could pay out of pocket. Seiler said collaborative statewide protocols would be developed with physicians and would define inclusion and exclusion criteria for when pharmacists could treat patients and when to refer them.

Nate Weil, director of clinical services for Auburn Pharmacies, described on‑site workflows: vitals collection, CLIA‑waived swab tests with 15‑minute results, and protocol‑driven treatment options. Weil argued pharmacies can provide timely access, especially in rural communities that lack urgent care, and that test‑and‑treat can save uninsured or underinsured patients money compared with urgent‑care visits.

The Kansas Medical Society, represented by Rochelle Colombo, opposed the bill. Colombo said the legislature previously chose not to authorize COVID‑19 in the same way and argued that, outside of very high‑risk situations, there is no broadly applicable outpatient COVID‑19 treatment that justifies expanding scope of practice. She also raised concerns about malpractice coverage and noted pharmacists are not required to participate in the state health‑care stabilization fund.

Committee members asked technical questions about existing protocols (which proponents said exist under the PREP Act or under prior state collaborative protocols for flu/strep/UTI), who would draft a statewide protocol, whether technicians could perform swabs, the cost to patients, and liability if antivirals such as Paxlovid cause adverse events. Proponents said protocols are developed in collaboration with physicians, specify inclusion/exclusion criteria, and can allow trained technicians to assist depending on manufacturer instructions and the final protocol language.

The committee heard both written and in‑person testimony and closed the hearing without a recorded vote. Committee staff and proponents said protocol development and liability protections remain central outstanding issues if the legislature proceeds.

The hearing record includes both proponent arguments that the bill would preserve continuity of care and improve rural access and opponent cautions that high‑risk patients and liability considerations argue for physician management and careful protocol design.