Kansas State Board of Nursing to oppose bill that would void years of disciplinary orders, staff says

The Kansas State Board of Nursing voted informally to oppose House Bill 25‑28 after staff briefed members that the measure would require the board to void disciplinary actions going back 21 years, change how license dates are recorded and impose major staffing and fiscal burdens.

Board staff member Carol told the board the bill would “go back and void discipline” for up to 21 years and would change statutory language from an expiration date to a renewal date — a shift she and technology staff warned could break imports to national systems that depend on an expiration or lapse date. Adrian, the board’s director of operations, told members that “there is no canceled type of status within nurses, and that that would be deviating from any known national” dataset conventions and would cause import errors and e‑notify failures.

Why it matters: Board counsel Charles Matias said the bill’s references point to existing unprofessional‑conduct provisions (65‑11‑20(a)(7) and regulation 63‑1‑110) that cover conduct such as patient abuse, criminal convictions and impersonation. Counsel and multiple board members warned that mass voiding of orders could leave national data banks unchanged — because federal and national entities decide whether to remove records — creating potential confusion for employers, multi‑state licensees and the public.

Staff laid out the estimated price of compliance: Carol said implementing the bill as written would require roughly 21 additional full‑time equivalents, extra office space and new technology work. She described an appropriations proviso that would move $1,000,000 from the board’s fee fund into a newly named nurse fair treatment and recovery fund and said her fiscal note estimates initial costs near $1.6 million in fiscal 2027 and about $1.5 million in fiscal 2028.

Multiple board members raised public‑safety concerns about the bill’s time limits. Board member Brenda asked whether the voiding would apply only to license‑renewal issues or to all prior violations — including abuse, drug diversion and other criminal‑adjacent conduct — and said that scope would be “very concerning.” Ruth Burkhart said the bill’s combination of timing rules and reporting changes “would jeopardize so many things for public safety” and added, “I can’t support it under any condition.”

Board counsel recommended a two‑part approach: oppose the bill as drafted and provide the committee with a prioritized list of concerns and specific suggested amendments (sometimes called balloon amendments) to restore compliance with the Nurse Licensure Compact and the board’s reporting obligations. Charles told the group the committee needs to understand that language as written “could take us out of compliance with the compact,” which would immediately affect a large number of nurses and worsen workforce shortages.

Staff also warned members that the bill’s effective date tied to statutory publication (typically July 1) is not feasible given hiring timelines and specialized investigator qualifications; Carol said there is no realistic way to hire and operationalize the required staff and systems by that date.

Next step: The board instructed staff to prioritize and submit written concerns and suggested fixes, and members were encouraged to attend or view the House hearing on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. at the Capitol. Carol said the hearing would be broadcast and recordings are typically posted to the Kansas Legislature YouTube channel.

The board did not record a formal roll‑call vote in the meeting transcript; members expressed collective opposition during discussion and directed staff to present the board’s concerns to the committee.