Senate overrides governor on tax subtraction for health-care sharing ministries

The Kansas Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 368 notwithstanding a veto by Gov. Laura Kelly, approving a new state tax subtraction for health-care sharing ministries after a floor debate on March 26, 2026.

Senator Pack (Montgomery) moved the body to pass the bill despite the governor’s objections, describing it as a voluntary, limited subtraction that would treat health-care sharing ministries similarly to insurance for tax purposes. “There are limitations on the subtraction modification… cannot exceed $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family,” the sponsor said on the floor.

Opponents pressed for caution. Senator Holshire said the programs can be “riddled with fraud and abuse,” citing out-of-state examples of organizations that collected large sums while paying a small share of claims. “The people of Kansas deserve a real option for affordable health care, not weak alternatives,” Holshire said.

The governor’s veto message, read into the record, argued the measure would put people at risk by elevating unregulated health-care ministries and leaving Kansans with large medical bills. The clerk read Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto message before senators debated whether to override.

After a roll call and a temporary call of the Senate to secure members for a final tally, the chamber announced that a constitutional majority had been achieved and the motion to pass SB 368 notwithstanding the veto prevailed. The transcript records the final announced count in the roll call as 30 in favor and nine opposed.

What this means: The measure now moves on in the process as passed by the Senate according to the text adopted on the floor. The bill’s provisions would allow a limited subtraction for taxpayer participation in qualifying health-care sharing ministries; the text discussed on the floor places dollar limits on the subtraction. No administrative implementation steps or effective date were specified in the floor debate; those would be determined by the enrolled bill and implementing guidance.

The Senate’s action followed a contentious but fact-focused debate in which senators repeatedly warned voters to weigh the tradeoffs between expanded options and consumer protection. The chamber proceeded to other conference reports after the vote.