Kansas House Bill HB2566

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/26
• Refer: 1/27/26

Caption

Enacting the every body can move act to mandate the coverage and payment for prosthetic and orthotic devices in health insurance policies.

Summary

HB 2566, titled the "every body can move act," would require most individual and group health insurance policies in Kansas that cover hospital, medical, or surgical expenses to also cover prosthetic and orthotic devices. The required coverage would be at least as broad as federal Medicare-related standards referenced in the bill, and it would include devices that best meet an enrollee’s medical needs for daily activities, work, and physical activities such as running, biking, swimming, strength training, and bathing. The bill also requires coverage for related materials, supplies, instruction, and replacement parts when medically necessary, including when repair costs exceed 60% of replacement cost or when the enrollee’s condition changes. The bill further directs individual health plans to treat prosthetic and orthotic coverage as rehabilitative and habilitative services for purposes of essential health benefits requirements. It prohibits insurers from denying coverage solely because of a person’s actual or perceived disability and requires plan documents and denial letters to explain these rights. The bill also bars separate financial requirements that apply only to prosthetic or orthotic coverage, while allowing cost sharing consistent with other medical and surgical devices. Managed care plans would have to maintain access to at least two in-state prosthetic and orthotic providers, and if in-network care is unavailable, insurers would have to reimburse out-of-network providers at a mutually agreed rate subject to in-network member cost sharing. If enacted, the bill would amend the operation of Kansas health insurance law by imposing new coverage mandates on policies delivered, issued, renewed, or continued in the state on or after January 11, 2027. It would override conflicting state laws and expressly exempt the bill from certain Kansas insurance review provisions cited in K.S.A. 40-2248, 40-2249, and 40-2249a. The practical effect would be to expand insurance benefits for people with limb loss or limb difference and to standardize coverage and access rules for prosthetic and orthotic services across the market. The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented legislative debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears aimed at expanding access and reducing discrimination in coverage for people who use prosthetic or orthotic devices. The overall tone of the bill is rights- and access-oriented, with a focus on functional mobility and parity with nondisabled enrollees.

Impact

HB 2566 would require Kansas individual and group health insurance policies covering hospital, medical, or surgical expenses to add prosthetic and orthotic device benefits meeting at least the level of specified federal Medicare-related standards. It would also impose network, disclosure, nondiscrimination, and reimbursement rules on insurers, while preempting conflicting state laws and exempting the bill from certain existing Kansas insurance review statutes. The main affected parties would be health insurers, managed care plans, prosthetic and orthotic providers, and enrollees with limb loss or limb difference.

Sentiment

The bill’s apparent purpose is broadly supportive of expanded insurance coverage and access for people who need prosthetic and orthotic devices. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided record, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators or stakeholders. The text itself reflects a favorable policy stance toward coverage parity, mobility, and nondiscrimination.

Contention

The most likely points of contention are cost and utilization management. Insurers may object to the mandate to cover advanced prosthetic and orthotic devices, the requirement to cover devices that support athletic and bathing activities, the limits on separate financial requirements, and the obligation to reimburse out-of-network providers when in-network options are unavailable. Another possible issue is the bill’s nondiscrimination language, which restricts denials based on actual or perceived disability and could limit insurer discretion in coverage determinations. No specific opposing or supporting groups are identified in the provided materials.