Kansas House Bill HB2059

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/25
• Refer: 1/22/25

Caption

Providing a Kansas income tax subtraction modification for certain amounts paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a member of a health care sharing ministry.

Summary

HB 2059 amends Kansas income tax law to create a new subtraction modification from Kansas adjusted gross income for amounts a taxpayer pays during the taxable year as a member of a health care sharing ministry, to the extent those amounts are included in federal adjusted gross income. The bill defines a health care sharing ministry as a faith-based nonprofit organization that meets several specified conditions, including limits on membership by faith, a member-to-member sharing structure, written monthly statements, no assumption of risk or promise to pay, and a disclaimer that the organization is not insurance. The bill places this new subtraction in K.S.A. 79-32,117, the statute governing Kansas additions and subtractions to federal adjusted gross income, and repeals the existing version of that section so the new language can be incorporated. In practical terms, it would reduce Kansas taxable income for eligible taxpayers who participate in qualifying health care sharing ministries, thereby lowering state income tax liability for those amounts. The change would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, and would operate alongside Kansas's existing list of income tax modifications. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess from the legislative history provided. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted tax benefit for participants in faith-based health care cost-sharing arrangements rather than a broad tax change. Its policy effect is narrow but specific, and it would likely be of interest to taxpayers who use these ministries as an alternative to traditional health insurance. The main point of potential contention is the bill’s treatment of health care sharing ministries as a tax-favored category tied to religious affiliation and non-insurance health coverage. Supporters would likely view it as tax relief and recognition of faith-based health care arrangements, while critics may question whether the state should extend a tax preference to a non-insurance model that is limited to members of a similar faith. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, however, any such disagreement is inferred from the bill’s structure rather than documented legislative debate.

Impact

HB 2059 would amend Kansas’s individual income tax modification statute, K.S.A. 79-32,117, by adding a new subtraction from federal adjusted gross income for qualifying payments made to a health care sharing ministry. This would reduce Kansas taxable income for affected taxpayers beginning with tax years after December 31, 2025, and would therefore lower state income tax collections to the extent taxpayers claim the subtraction. The bill also repeals the prior version of the statute and reenacts the section with the new modification included, leaving the rest of Kansas’s income tax conformity framework intact.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or amendment activity in the available history. The bill’s caption and text suggest a focused, policy-specific proposal likely intended to provide tax relief to members of health care sharing ministries. Overall, the measure appears neutral-to-supportive in tone, with no documented controversy in the supplied materials, though the subject matter itself may invite debate over religiously affiliated health coverage and tax policy.

Contention

The primary substantive issue is whether Kansas should grant an income tax subtraction for payments to health care sharing ministries, which are explicitly defined as faith-based nonprofit organizations with membership limited to those of a similar faith and that are not insurance companies. Supporters would likely argue that these arrangements function as health care cost-sharing alternatives and should receive tax parity with other health-related expenditures. Opponents could object to the religious qualification, the non-insurance nature of the arrangement, or the creation of a tax preference for a niche group. Because there are no transcripts or votes in the record provided, these points of contention are inferred from the bill text rather than documented debate.