Kansas House Bill HB2564

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/26
• Refer: 1/27/26
• Report Pass: 2/16/26
• Engrossed: 2/24/26
• Refer: 2/25/26
• Report Pass: 3/11/26

Caption

Providing for the election of alternative payment methods by a dental provider and allowing such payment method to remain in force for the duration of a contract with a dental benefit plan.

Summary

HB2564 amends Kansas insurance law governing dental benefit plans and how dentists are paid for claims. The bill prohibits dental benefit plans, their contracted vendors, and health maintenance organizations from requiring credit card payment as the only acceptable payment method. It also requires notice to dentists about any fees tied to electronic payment options, requires clear instructions for selecting an alternative payment method, and requires express written acceptance before a dentist can be enrolled in credit card or electronic funds transfer payment arrangements. The bill further provides that a dentist’s chosen claim-payment method remains in effect until the dentist changes it or a new contract is executed. For automated clearing house payments, the bill bars fees charged solely to transmit the payment unless the dentist consents, while allowing a dentist’s agent to charge reasonable fees for related services such as transaction management, data management, and portal services. The bill also states that these protections cannot be waived by contract and that conflicting contractual terms are void and unenforceable.

Impact

HB2564 would amend and replace K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 40-2,227, creating enforceable protections for dentists in their dealings with dental benefit plans, vendors, and HMOs. It limits how payment methods can be imposed, restricts certain fees associated with electronic funds transfer and virtual credit card payments, and preserves a dentist’s selected payment method for the life of the contract unless changed by the dentist. The bill primarily affects dental insurers, third-party payment vendors, HMOs, and dental providers operating under claim-payment agreements.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support based on its strong final vote margins in both chambers: 119-3 in the House and 34-6 in the Senate. The caption and bill text suggest it was advanced in response to concerns from the Kansas Dental Association and was framed as a provider-payment fairness measure. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history indicates overall favorable sentiment toward the bill.

Contention

The main points of contention likely center on whether dental benefit plans and their vendors should be restricted from steering providers into credit card or EFT payment systems and from charging related fees without consent. Opponents may have been concerned about administrative flexibility, vendor payment practices, or the effect on plan operations, while supporters—particularly dentists and the Kansas Dental Association—appear to have favored stronger provider choice, fee transparency, and protection against unilateral payment-method changes. The Senate’s amended passage also suggests some level of negotiation or refinement, though the available record does not show the specific disputed provisions.