Kansas committee hears SB 409 to eliminate patient cost‑sharing for diagnostic breast imaging

The Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on Tuesday heard testimony on SB 409, a bill that would prohibit cost‑sharing for medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging on policies issued, delivered, amended or renewed on or after Jan. 1, 2027. The committee opened the hearing, received proponent and opponent testimony, and closed the hearing without taking a vote.

Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt, speaking as both the state’s insurance regulator and a breast cancer survivor, urged the committee to support the measure. "I am living proof that early detection saves lives," Schmidt said, recounting her own diagnosis and saying the bill would help Kansans avoid choosing between their pocketbooks and potentially life‑saving care. Schmidt noted that many states, including Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado, already require similar coverage and that the state employee health plan has provided the supplemental screening benefit for more than two years.

Clinical witnesses described the medical rationale for the bill. Dr. Amy Patel, medical director of the Breast Care Center at Liberty Hospital, told the committee that small tumors detected early have markedly better outcomes — "if I detect a cancer 1 centimeter or less, the survival probability approach is 100 percent" — and that dense breast tissue reduces mammography sensitivity, increasing the need for supplemental imaging. Patel and Dr. Michael Morrow, a breast imager practicing in Wichita, said diagnostic follow‑up is the medically necessary continuation of screening and that cost barriers cause some patients to forgo testing until disease is advanced.

Advocacy groups also supported the bill. Ryan Reza, policy and advocacy manager for Susan G. Komen in Kansas, said the organization supports extending to all Kansans the benefit already available to state employees and stressed that "this legislation is not controversial as cancer has no partisan affiliation." Megan Ward of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and survivor Peggy Johnson provided additional patient‑centered testimony.

The Department of Insurance provided data on the bill’s fiscal impact. Eric Turek said the state employee plan’s elimination of cost‑sharing for these services resulted in an estimated 0.03% premium increase and that available plan data for 2024–25 showed no increase in utilization after the change. The reviser’s summary of the bill notes an HSA‑qualified plan exemption where a prohibition on cost‑sharing would cause loss of HSA status and cites 26 U.S.C. §223.

Opponents warned of cost consequences for employers. Andrew Wiens, representing Kansas Employers for Affordable Healthcare, said SB 409 would be "another insurance mandate that would raise the cost of health care coverage for employers and result in higher premiums for employees," and argued that self‑insured and grandfathered plans could be disproportionately affected. Committee members asked multiple stakeholders whether the bill’s definitions clearly distinguish preventive, diagnostic and supplemental services and whether other states’ implementations offer best practices to limit unintended cost increases.

The committee did not take a formal vote on SB 409. Chair Dietrich closed the hearing and reminded members of upcoming hearings and agenda items. The bill’s next steps — whether it will be scheduled for a work session or a committee vote — were not announced during the hearing.

Reporting notes: The article quotes witnesses and officials who testified during the SB 409 hearing before the Kansas Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. Numbers and program details are reported as stated by witnesses; where witnesses gave differing statewide estimates in their testimony, those figures are attributed to the speaker who provided them.