Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing It And Statute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears staff plan to revise fingerprint statute and to replace aging licensing software
Summary
Kansas State Board of Nursing staff told the board they will pursue a statutory change to allow background/fingerprint checks for advanced practice nurses and that the licensing platform will reach end-of-life in mid‑2027, prompting a finance review and planning for a replacement system.
The Kansas State Board of Nursing voted to begin work on a statutory change to explicitly add advanced practice registered nurses to the state fingerprinting statute and discussed next steps to replace an aging licensing platform.
Carol Moreland, a board staff member, told members the office plans to revise KSA 74-11-12 and “add the language of advanced practice registered nurse in it” so APRNs can be covered by fingerprint and federal background‑check authority. She said staff have KBI input on draft language and will work with the reviser and legislative contacts to carry the change forward.
Why it matters: board staff said the change follows an audit that showed the agency lacks clear federal‑background authority for some APRNs who hold multistate licenses issued by other compact states. The board flagged potential implementation questions—whether a bill is introduced, who would carry it, and how the change would be timed with the board’s five‑year statutes and regulations review.
Agency technology also framed the discussion. Adrian, the board’s director of operations, said the licensing platform currently used by the agency will be end‑of‑life on June 30, 2027, and that the investigative platform (Evoke) and the licensing module both need replacement or migration. “Our licensing side of the software does go into life in June 2027,” he said, and recommended that finance committee consider cost estimates in December.
Staff described near‑term steps: (1) a finance and risk committee review in December to scope possible replacement costs and procurement options; (2) continuing a bolt‑on upgrade (MLO1) to improve the public portal while longer‑term options are evaluated; and (3) pursuing statutory language and the reviser process for KSA 74‑11‑12. Carol told the board she will start the reviser process and consult with the board on whether and how to ask a legislator to carry the bill.
The board did not vote on a specific procurement at the meeting; members approved the recommendation to bring cost proposals to the finance committee and to pursue the statute revision process. The board also instructed staff to follow required notice and public comment steps if regulatory revocations or changes are proposed.
What’s next: staff will report cost estimates and procurement options to the finance committee in December and return draft statutory language for board review and guidance on legislative sponsorship.
