Welcome to Kansas Medical Society
March 30, 2025 Newsletter
March in Kansas always yields unpredictability. The weather ranged from a blizzard to 80 degrees in the span of one week and we have had dust storms and delightful days in between. It seems appropriate that the sky outside the statehouse is only as unpredictable as the politics beneath the dome.
The session was largely defined by three priorities shared by the Kansas House and Senate leaders: completing a constitutionally required budget, passing property tax relief, and outlawing gender reassignment procedures, and treatments for minors. While they achieved these objectives during their abbreviated schedule, many other proposals were left on the table. The legislature returns on April 10th for a two-day session to wrap up any remaining priority legislation and to consider veto overrides if necessary.
As we head into the session each year we prepare for all outcomes, we consider our principles, priorities, and the politics likely to affect policy discussions. The 2025 session was uniquely defined by the leaders’ decisions to revamp the budget process and shorten the legislative schedule. Additionally, lawmakers were tasked with reducing the state budget and scaling back programs funded by an influx of COVID and other federal stimulus money. Legislative staff revisors who must write every proposal that is to become law so that it attaches to the appropriate statute, had to balance the entirety of the new budget process with all of the other requests from lawmakers, associations, and individuals seeking bills and amendments at any point in the process. As a result, very few proposals were drafted or could be appropriately amended within the timelines unless compromise had already been agreed to, or leaders pushed the issue.
Though we did not expect to see scope of practice issues pursued by legislative leaders, political winds changed, and HB 2223 became a major focus in the final weeks of the session.
HB 2223 as introduced would allow optometrists to perform certain surgical procedures, including the use of lasers, and to prescribe drugs without any limitation. Additionally, the bill included an unprecedented provision that would authorize the Board of Examiners which regulates optometric practice to approve any additional procedures not specifically prohibited within the bill—functionally ceding legislative authority over further scope of practice expansion to the state agency that regulates optometrists KMS opposed HB 2223 from its inception and has consistently argued that the bill does not adequately protect Kansas patients, and the professions should instead continue to meet to discuss modernizing the Optometric Practice Act without compromising quality and standards. Though legislative leaders had assured us the bill would not advance this session, it was nevertheless taken up by the Health Committee and quickly sent to the full House of Representatives where it passed 97-24. This was undoubtedly influenced by the constant presence of optometrists in the statehouse each day, as well as the many months they spent prior to the session inviting legislators into their practices and training programs. In addition, many legislators supportive of the bill faulted the lack of compromise between the professions over the last several years.
The Kansas Medical Society consistently opposes proposals that allow nonphysicians to independently practice medicine and surgery without physician supervision and without commensurate training, education, and regulations to protect patients. While some viewed this bill as being just a disagreement between Ophthalmologists and Optometrists over the medical and surgical care of the eye, the wider precedent for the House of Medicine at large should not be overlooked. If a regulatory board is allowed to unilaterally expand medical and surgical privileges for the nonphysicians it regulates, patients will be harmed and standards will be diluted.
To that end, KMS requested an amendment to HB 2223 that would have required new procedures or technologies to be reviewed by the existing Interprofessional Advisory Committee (IPAC). The IPAC exists to make recommendations to the Optometry Board on clinical or practice-related issues, including procedure coding matters and appropriate treatments for ocular diseases and conditions. The IPAC is composed of three optometrists and three ophthalmologists and is chaired by a non-voting optometrist. Under our amendment, the Board of Examiners could not approve the use of new technologies and procedures without an affirmative recommendation from the IPAC. The optometrists agreed to our requested amendment and we both testified to this before the Senate Health Committee in the final week of the session. The chair ultimately decided not to work the bill, but it will remain alive next session and certainly has gained momentum.
Much like the presence of the optometrists’ factoring into the unexpected advancement of this bill, your voices in explaining the dangers of this bill gave legislators pause. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in and we must continue to actively pursue individual relationships with legislators beyond the confines of the legislative session and issues.
As reported earlier, SB 67 also advanced early in the session but was able to be amended significantly from its original version. The bill would have allowed CRNAs to independently practice medicine without restriction, except by prohibiting surgery for the purpose of placing a medical reservoir. As amended at the request of KMS, the bill was limited to prescriptive authority and the ability to order durable medical equipment, which is exactly what the other categories of APRNs were granted two years ago. The bill has passed the House and Senate and awaits the Governor’s signature.
Outside of the scope of practice, a liability reform bill that we have supported for several years finally emerged. SB 54 would allow the disclosure of for-profit third-party funding for litigation. Across the nation, hedge funds and other for-profit entities have begun advancing money to plaintiffs or law firms to cover litigation costs as an “investment” with the hopes of excess verdicts and financial gains. SB 54 would allow the funding source to be disclosed to the jury. The bill passed the House and Senate and also awaits the Governor’s approval.
All in all, the session took some unexpected turns, but the Kansas Medical Society was successful in helping lawmakers respect professional distinctions that protect Kansas patients. Though the session is over, our work will continue as we work with professions to find agreements that do not compromise our principles. We also continue to educate lawmakers in the summer months as well as listen to their concerns and priorities for the coming year.
Though the session can feel a little like a whirlwind, leaving behind a bit of a mess to navigate—it is always a pleasure and a privilege to advocate on your behalf. There are some prevalent narratives that we must continue to unravel. Access is not a substitute for quality. Proficiency in a procedure is not equivalent to a comprehensive medical education. The Kansas Medical Society and each of our members are providing patient access at the highest quality, protecting and serving Kansas patients every day.
Thank you for your work and for allowing the Kansas Medical Society to advocate on your behalf.
