Kansas House Bill HB2246

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/26/25

Caption

Enacting the consumer protection related to hospital price transparency act.

Summary

HB 2246 creates the “consumer protection related to hospital price transparency act” and requires Kansas-licensed hospitals to make pricing information more accessible to patients. Each hospital would have to post a consumer-friendly online list of its top 300 procedures with corresponding prices and plain-language descriptions, and provide written notice about a patient’s ability to request an estimate of expected out-of-pocket costs for an elective procedure, test, or service scheduled at least three days in advance. The notice must also be displayed in public areas such as registration and admission areas and on the hospital’s website. The bill also establishes enforcement and remedy provisions. The Kansas attorney general would be responsible for enforcement, including sending hospitals notice of the new requirements and referring noncompliant hospitals to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for federal enforcement under the existing federal price transparency rule. In addition, patients or patient guarantors could bring a civil action if a hospital was materially out of compliance and the noncompliance related to the billed items or services. If a court finds material noncompliance, it must order refunds of amounts paid, impose an equal penalty payable to the patient or guarantor, dismiss related collection actions with prejudice, award attorney fees and costs, and require removal of related credit reporting. The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new state-level transparency and consumer-remedy framework layered on top of federal hospital price transparency requirements. It would not prohibit hospitals from billing patients, insurers, or other third-party payors, but it would create consequences when hospitals fail to comply with the disclosure rules. The measure would affect Kansas hospitals, patients, patient guarantors, insurers, debt collection practices, and credit reporting tied to hospital medical debt. The general sentiment reflected in the vote was supportive but not unanimous: the bill passed the House 80-42, indicating substantial backing for stronger hospital pricing transparency while also drawing meaningful opposition. Because there were no committee transcripts provided, the record does not show detailed debate, but the structure of the bill suggests the main policy goal was consumer protection through advance price disclosure and enforcement. The likely points of contention are the scope of the disclosure mandate, the burden on hospitals to maintain and publish pricing information, and the private right of action with significant financial and credit-reporting remedies. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a tool to help patients compare costs and avoid surprise medical bills, while opponents may argue that the compliance requirements are administratively difficult, that pricing estimates can be complex or imperfect, and that the civil penalties and mandatory refunds could expose hospitals to substantial liability.

Impact

HB 2246 would amend Kansas law by creating a new act focused on hospital price transparency and patient remedies, while incorporating federal pricing standards by reference. It would require Kansas-licensed hospitals to publish procedure pricing and provide advance estimates, authorize the attorney general to enforce the act and refer violations to federal regulators, and allow patients or guarantors to sue for statutory remedies when a hospital is materially noncompliant. The bill would affect hospitals, patients, insurers, debt collectors, and consumer credit reporting related to hospital bills.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support for its consumer-protection goals, as shown by its passage in the House by an 80-42 vote. That margin suggests broad agreement that hospitals should provide clearer pricing information, but also notable concern or resistance from a sizable minority. No committee transcript was provided, so the specific arguments made in debate are not available.

Contention

The main areas of contention are likely the compliance burden on hospitals, the practicality of publishing accurate pricing for the top 300 procedures, and the enforcement mechanism that allows private lawsuits with refunds, penalties, attorney fees, dismissal of collections, and credit-report removal. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, informed consent, and protection from surprise medical bills, while opponents may focus on administrative complexity, potential litigation exposure, and whether state remedies duplicate or exceed federal requirements.