.png "Disability Rights Center of Kansas"){kind=logo}
Coalition Letter To Attorney General Kobach: Withdraw Kansas from Texas v. Kennedy
To: Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach
Fr: Big Tent Coalition of Kansas, Mike Burgess
KanCare Advocates Network, Barb Conant
Interhab, Meghan Shreve
Disability Rights Center of Kansas, Rocky Nichols
Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities, Sara Hart Weir
Southeast Kansas Independent Living, Shari Coatney
Minds Matter, Janet Williams
Self Advocate Coalition of Kansas, Lisa Barcus
The Arc of Douglas County, Angie Reinking
The Alliance for Kansans with Developmental Disabilities, Sheila McKinley
Statewide Independent Living Council of Kansas, Malinda A. Barnett
Little Lobbyists of Kansas Chapter, Melissa Sabin
LifeStreams, J.D. Kemp
Kansas Association of Centers for Independent Living, Deon Wilson
Beyond Barriers, Erica Rivera
Independence, Inc., Jill Dudley
Independent Connection, Angie Saenger
Independent Living Resource Center, Cindi Unruh
LINK, Angie Zimmerman
Three Rivers, Erica Christie
Resource Center for Independent Living, Deone Wilson
Life Patterns, Inc., Jon Gerdel
Dt: May 22, 2026
Re: Request to meet to discuss Kansas’ Participation in Texas v. Kennedy
We are writing to request a sit-down meeting with you to discuss the serious concerns of the disability community regarding how Kansas’ participation as a plaintiff in Texas v. Kennedy greatly harms Kansans with disabilities and taxpayers alike. As you can see, numerous disability organizations have co-signed this letter. According to the U.S. Census, there are nearly 400,000 Kansans with a disability. Collectively, the co-signers of this letter directly serve, protect, and advocate for all 400,000 Kansans with disabilities.
We appreciate that the amended complaint no longer seeks to declare Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act unconstitutional. However, we are deeply troubled by a relatively new claim in the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Final Rule on Section 504, issued on May 1, 2024. The Final Rule reinforces and strengthens important protections for people with disabilities, including the right to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate and protections for individuals at serious risk of institutionalization.
These protections are grounded in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C., which affirmed the right of people with disabilities to receive services in community-based settings whenever appropriate. That decision has transformed disability services in Kansas, allowing more individuals to live with dignity, independence, and self-determination in their communities. The Olmstead decision came about because former Kansas Senator Bob Dole utilized his significant legislative clout and understanding as a person with a disability to help spearhead the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Without the ADA, there would be no Olmstead decision. The ADA is a significant part of Senator Dole’s legislative legacy. The Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit is an affront to Senator Dole’s legacy in advancing disability rights, as this litigation will harm the ability of people with disabilities to have their rights protected under the Final Rule.
Importantly, community-based services are not only better for quality of life but also a more responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Providing services in home- and community-based settings costs significantly less than institutional care, while producing better outcomes for individuals and families. Preserving these protections in the Final Rule helps Kansas continue investing in approaches that are both fiscally responsible and aligned with the state’s commitment to independence and inclusion. As merely one example, a nursing home bed in Kansas can easily cost over $108,000 per year, whereas the average cost of a Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) slot on the Physical Disability (PD) Waiver is only $29,300 per year. For every person with a physical disability served in an institutional bed, it costs nearly $79,000 more per year for the institutional placement versus an HCBS placement. There are currently over 6,000 people served on the PD HCBS Waiver alone. The average institutional costs for those with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) are even greater, with each institutional bed costing well over $310,000 per person, per year, while the HCBS I/DD Waiver costs on average only $70,000 per person, per year. For every one person with I/DD served in an institutional bed instead of an HCBS placement, it costs taxpayers $240,000 more per year. There are currently over 10,000 people served on the I/DD HCBS Waiver alone. When you do the math, you can see how invalidating the Final Rule will create administrative barriers to the most integrated setting and most cost-effective HCBS services, which will blow a huge hole in the state budget and create a new burden for Kansas taxpayers with potentially upwards of several hundreds of millions of dollars of increased costs. Under federal Medicaid law, institutional levels of care are an entitlement, while community-based services are not. The Final Rule provides strong proactive protections to help people with disabilities access more integrated, less expensive community-based services. The increased cost to taxpayers grows even higher when you include all of the other HCBS Waivers populations in Kansas – the Frail Elderly Waiver (6,400), Brain Injury Waiver (1,300), Technology Assisted Waiver (1,000), and SED Waiver (3,000). All of these disability populations, as well as all other Kansans with disabilities, would be negatively impacted by the Texas v. Kennedy litigation that Kansas is currently signed onto, and Kansas taxpayers will pay a steep price for losing the integration protections in the Final Rule.
The Final Rule creates a crucial mechanism to help ensure proactive access to Olmstead-based protections. The lawsuit’s attempt to block the Final Rule threatens decades of progress in expanding community-based care. Codifying these standards in the Final Rule is essential to ensuring consistent enforcement across states and agencies. Without clear regulatory protections, the rights of people with disabilities become more vulnerable to inconsistent interpretation, weaker enforcement, and future rollback.
Kansas has invested heavily in home- and community-based services both because it was compelled to do so and because these services reflect Kansas values: dignity, self-determination, inclusion, and responsible stewardship of public resources. The Final Rule upholds those same values.
Please let us know when you are available to meet. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter at the earliest opportunity. For more information and to schedule this meeting, please contact Mike Burgess or Rocky Nichols. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to our request.