Why It Matters
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of Senate Bill 368 has direct implications for thousands of Kansans who rely on or are considering health care sharing ministries as an alternative to traditional insurance coverage. The decision blocks a proposed state income tax deduction that supporters argued would ease financial pressure on families choosing faith-based health cost arrangements.
The veto also reignites a broader debate in Kansas and across the country over consumer protections, religious liberty, and the regulation of nontraditional health plans that fall outside the scope of the Affordable Care Act and standard insurance law.
What Happened
Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed Senate Bill 368 on Thursday, March 27, 2026, citing concerns that health care sharing ministries leave participants exposed to unmanageable medical costs and potential fraud. The bill, if enacted, would have allowed Kansas residents enrolled in health care sharing ministries to claim state income tax deductions based on qualified health care expenses or funds received through those organizations.
Health care sharing ministries are nonprofit organizations, typically organized around shared religious beliefs, in which members contribute monthly payments into a collective pool used to cover each other’s medical costs. Supporters describe the model as a community-driven, faith-based alternative to conventional health insurance.
In her veto statement, Kelly drew attention to a pattern of regulatory actions taken against such organizations nationwide. “There’s a reason that regulators across the country are taking action against these so-called health care ministries because too often, everyday people are left with huge medical bills,” Kelly said. “These health care ministries aren’t regulated, which opens the door to all sorts of fraud and abuse.”
Kelly emphasized that her decision was not intended to restrict religious practice, but to ensure that Kansans have access to health coverage that reliably pays for their medical care.
Key Concerns Raised During Legislative Debate
Several major health advocacy organizations submitted testimony opposing the bill during the legislative process. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Lung Association, and Blood Cancer United all raised alarms about the unregulated nature of health care sharing ministries.
According to their joint testimony, health care sharing ministries reserve the right to deny payment for services related to a member’s pre-existing conditions, even after that individual has been accepted as a member. The organizations also noted that these ministries are not required to comply with out-of-pocket cost limits or mandated benefit requirements that apply to traditional insurance plans under federal law.
An additional concern raised in testimony is that individuals enrolled in health care sharing ministries who find their costs inadequately covered may not qualify to enroll in an ACA marketplace plan mid-year, because leaving a health care sharing ministry does not constitute a qualifying life event under federal rules.
By the Numbers
- Health care sharing ministries operate in all 50 states, with an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million participants nationally, according to industry figures.
- Senate Bill 368 was structured to allow tax modifications tied to qualified health care expenses paid through or received from a qualifying health care sharing ministry.
- At least a dozen states have faced regulatory actions or issued consumer warnings related to health care sharing ministries in recent years.
- Health care sharing ministries are explicitly exempt from ACA insurance requirements under federal law, meaning members are not guaranteed the same consumer protections as traditional policyholders.
- Monthly contribution amounts for health care sharing ministry members can range from roughly $150 to over $500 depending on household size and the specific organization.
Zoom Out
Kansas is not alone in confronting questions about health care sharing ministries and their regulation. States including Colorado, Texas, and California have moved to either tighten oversight of these organizations or issue formal consumer advisories warning residents about coverage gaps and potential financial risk.
At the federal level, the Biden administration moved to clarify that health care sharing ministry plans do not qualify as minimum essential coverage under the ACA, though the legal and regulatory landscape remains contested. The debate reflects a national tension between expanding health care access through nontraditional models and ensuring baseline consumer protections for patients.
What’s Next
With Governor Kelly’s veto now on record, the Kansas Legislature has the option to attempt a veto override, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. Supporters of the bill, including the Kansas Catholic Conference, Americans for Prosperity, and Kansas Family Voice, are expected to assess whether sufficient votes exist for an override effort.
If the veto stands, proponents may revisit the legislation in a future session, potentially with amendments designed to address consumer protection concerns raised by the governor and health advocacy organizations.