Kansas Senate Bill SB189

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

Providing injured employees the freedom of choice to designate their healthcare provider and requiring the employer to pay for the services of such healthcare provider with regard to workers compensation.

Summary

SB 189 would substantially change Kansas workers’ compensation medical-benefit rules by giving an injured employee the freedom to designate the healthcare provider who treats the work injury, rather than relying on the employer’s selected provider process. The bill requires the employer to pay for the services of the employee’s chosen provider, while preserving a limited process for the director to authorize a different provider if the initial services are unsatisfactory and for the employer to submit two provider names in certain circumstances. It also keeps the existing allowance for an employee to seek an outside medical opinion or treatment up to $800, but bars that expense from being used to obtain a functional impairment rating or to support a medical opinion in claim proceedings. The bill also revises rules governing when an employer’s duty to provide medical treatment ends and how future medical benefits are handled after an award. It creates a presumption that medical treatment ends at maximum medical improvement, but allows that presumption to be overcome in cases involving invasive or surgical procedures, or by clear and convincing evidence in other cases. In post-award proceedings, it sets procedures for seeking, modifying, or terminating future medical care, gives priority to those hearings, and allows termination of future benefits if the claimant has not received authorized treatment within two years, subject to rebuttal by competent medical evidence. The bill further updates cross-references in the workers’ compensation statutes and preserves existing provisions for certain preventive hepatitis care for specified public safety workers. The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s caption and structure is pro-worker and pro-choice, emphasizing employee autonomy in selecting medical care after a workplace injury. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition in the materials supplied. The main point of contention likely centers on the shift in control over medical treatment from employers and their insurers to injured employees, along with the potential cost implications for employers and carriers. Another likely issue is the bill’s tighter framework for ending future medical benefits and limiting post-award medical claims, which could be viewed as a cost-control measure by employers but as a restriction on injured workers by employee advocates. The bill also retains and clarifies limits on independent medical opinions and on the use of certain treatment expenses in impairment-rating disputes, which may be relevant in contested claims.

Impact

SB 189 would amend Kansas workers’ compensation law, primarily K.S.A. 44-510h, 44-510k, and 44-525, to change how treating providers are selected and how medical benefits are continued or terminated after an injury award. It would require employers to pay for treatment by a healthcare provider designated by the injured employee, revise the process for substituting providers, and establish new standards and presumptions for ending future medical treatment at maximum medical improvement and for post-award medical-benefit proceedings. It would also preserve and restate existing special coverage for hepatitis-related preventive care for certain emergency and public safety workers, and it would update statutory cross-references and repeal the prior versions of the amended sections.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears intended to expand injured workers’ choice of provider and to make treatment access more employee-centered, which suggests a generally favorable posture toward workers’ rights in the workers’ compensation system. However, the absence of committee testimony or vote data means there is no direct record here of support or opposition from legislators, employers, insurers, or labor groups. The bill’s design also includes several procedural and evidentiary limits that indicate an effort to balance expanded provider choice with controls on long-term medical liability.

Contention

The likely dispute is over who controls medical care in workers’ compensation cases: injured employees under SB 189’s provider-choice model, or employers and insurers under the traditional managed-treatment approach. Employers and carriers may object to being required to pay for employee-selected providers and to the potential increase in treatment costs, while worker advocates may support the bill as improving access and autonomy. A second area of contention is the bill’s treatment-termination framework, including the presumption ending medical obligations at maximum medical improvement and the two-year no-treatment presumption for terminating future benefits, which could be seen as either necessary cost containment or an undue barrier to ongoing care.