Kansas House Bill HB2526

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/26
• Refer: 1/23/26

Caption

Establishing restrictions on the use of step therapy protocols by health insurance plans.

Summary

HB2526 would limit the use of step therapy protocols by health insurance plans for certain prescription drugs used to treat advanced, metastatic cancer and associated conditions. Under the bill, a health benefit plan covering these conditions could not require an enrollee to first fail on, or have a documented history of failure with, a different drug before the plan covers an FDA-approved prescription medication, so long as the medication is consistent with best practices, supported by peer-reviewed evidence-based literature, and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The bill is narrowly targeted to cancer care and does not broadly eliminate step therapy across all conditions or all medications. It defines “advanced, metastatic cancer” and “associated conditions” to focus the protection on patients whose disease has spread and whose symptoms or treatment side effects may further jeopardize health if left untreated. The act would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Impact

HB2526 would amend Kansas insurance law by restricting prior authorization-style step therapy requirements for health benefit plans covering advanced, metastatic cancer and related conditions. It would prevent insurers from forcing patients to try and fail on alternative drugs before accessing an FDA-approved medication that meets the bill’s evidence and best-practice criteria. The practical effect would be to give oncologists and other healthcare practitioners more direct authority to prescribe appropriate treatments without insurer-mandated sequencing in these cases, while leaving step therapy in place for other types of care.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable support for the bill, as it was requested on behalf of the Susan G. Komen Foundation and referred to the House Insurance Committee, indicating a patient-access and cancer-care focus. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or recorded debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s wording, the measure appears designed as a targeted patient-protection bill rather than a broad insurance overhaul.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the restriction on insurer utilization management tools, especially step therapy, which insurers may view as limiting cost control and formulary management. Supporters are likely to emphasize timely access to medically appropriate cancer treatment and the risk of harm from delaying effective therapy, while any critics would likely focus on increased plan costs, reduced flexibility for insurers, and the possibility of broader precedent for other conditions. Because the bill is limited to advanced, metastatic cancer and evidence-based FDA-approved drugs, it attempts to balance access concerns with guardrails that may reduce opposition.