Kansas Republican leaders have pledged to override Governor Laura Kelly’s recent veto of a bill designed to provide tax relief to families participating in health care sharing ministries (HCSMs), arguing the move would be a restoration of fairness and healthcare freedom.
The legislation, Senate Bill 368, would allow members of these faith-based organizations to file state tax deductions for “qualified” and shared medical expenses. While the Governor characterized the organizations as a “risky proposition” due to their unregulated nature, Republican leadership argued the veto deliberately drives up costs for families seeking alternatives to traditional insurance.
“The Senate will override this ridiculous veto and provide relief to Kansas families dealing with high healthcare costs,” said Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita, echoed this sentiment, stating that families deserve “more flexibility and more control over their healthcare decisions.”
The bill appears to have the momentum required for an override, having originally passed the House 87-36 and the Senate 33-7.
Senator Virgil Peck, R-Havana, shared his decades of positive experience with a health care sharing ministry. Peck, who has been a member with his wife for many years of their 48-year marriage, described the tax break as a simple “matter of fairness” to ensure HCSM members receive the same tax treatment as those paying traditional insurance premiums.
Peck testified that even though he is old enough to qualify for Medicare, he has chosen to maintain his HCSM membership because the “coverage and benefits are much better” than government or traditional options.
“In consultation with my medical provider, I determine what treatments I need and when I need them,” Peck said in his testimony. “I do not need to obtain prior approval (or) authorization from someone unfamiliar with me and any health issue I may be dealing with.”
Beyond personal autonomy, advocates emphasize that HCSMs allow Kansans to align their financial resources with their moral and religious values. Peck noted that these organizations provide assurance that “healthcare dollars are not going to pay for services or procedures that are contrary” to a member’s deeply held beliefs.
For many, the choice is also economic. Peck argued that many families choose HCSMs because they can afford the lower costs associated with these plans, which in turn keeps them “from relying on a government program.”
The fiscal impact of the bill is estimated to be a $2.8 million decrease to the state’s general fund through fiscal year 2029, a cost Republicans argue is a necessary investment in providing relief to taxpayers utilizing nontraditional healthcare plans.