Kansas House Bill HB2364

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Report Pass: 2/10/26
• Engrossed: 2/18/26
• Refer: 2/19/26

Caption

Prohibiting certain health insurers from requiring cost-sharing for nonopioid prescription drugs or providing less favorable coverage for such drug than that for opioid or narcotic prescription drugs for the treatment of pain.

Summary

HB 2364 would require certain Kansas public health coverage programs and the state employee health benefits plan, including their managed care organizations, to treat nonopioid prescription drugs for pain no less favorably than opioid or narcotic pain medications. When a prescriber orders a nonopioid medication for acute pain, the bill prohibits an insurer from denying coverage in favor of an opioid, or from requiring a patient to try an opioid first before covering the nonopioid drug. The bill also directs health insurers to ensure that FDA-approved nonopioid pain medications are not disadvantaged in formularies through more restrictive coverage criteria, prior authorization, step therapy, or higher cost-sharing than the least restrictive or lowest-cost opioid or narcotic alternative on the formulary. It does not prevent insurers from preferring one opioid over another or one nonopioid over another; rather, it bars discrimination between the two categories when used for pain treatment.

Impact

HB 2364 would amend coverage rules for the Medicaid program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the State Employee Health Benefits Plan, along with any managed care organizations serving those programs. It would limit how these public and quasi-public health plans design formularies, apply utilization management, and assign cost-sharing for nonopioid pain medications, effectively creating a parity requirement between nonopioid and opioid/narcotic pain drugs. The bill would not broadly regulate all private health insurance, but it would change coverage standards for the specified state-linked plans and their administrators.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have strong support, as reflected in the House final action vote of 123-1. The available context suggests a broadly favorable view of the measure, likely tied to efforts to encourage nonopioid pain treatment and reduce barriers to accessing alternatives to opioids. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the overwhelming vote indicates little visible opposition.

Contention

The main policy issue is whether insurers should be prohibited from steering patients toward opioids or imposing higher barriers on nonopioid pain medications. Supporters, including the bill’s requester and the American Chronic Pain Association, likely favor easier access to nonopioid options and reduced reliance on opioids. Any opposition would likely center on insurer flexibility, formulary management, and cost-control concerns, especially around limits on prior authorization, step therapy, and tiered cost-sharing. The bill is narrowly drafted to preserve preference within the same drug class, which may have reduced controversy.