Latest news with #KurtisGregory
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Pure emotion' frequently drives debates on sports stadium deals
An aerial view shows Kauffman Stadium and Arrowhead Stadium in Missouri, home to MLB's Kansas City Royals and the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, respectively. Lawmakers in both Kansas and Missouri have pursued legislation to make hundreds of millions of dollars available for sports stadiums. (Photo by DutcherAerials via Getty Images) In promoting his bill to fund professional sports stadiums, Missouri Republican state Sen. Kurtis Gregory warned about the potential hit to jobs and tax revenues if the state were to lose a team. But on the floor of the Senate last week, he acknowledged that pride was also a prime motivator in his efforts to make hundreds of millions of dollars available to the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and MLB's Kansas City Royals, both of which are being courted to move several miles away into neighboring Kansas. A former University of Missouri football player, Gregory pointed to the Missouri-Kansas rivalry that dates back to the Civil War and characterized Kansas as 'kind of an archrival.' 'We just let the state of Kansas poach, you know, really the pride and joy of the western side of the state, and I would say the entire state of Missouri?' he said in his floor speech. 'And then I would also say, what's next? What's the next thing the state of Kansas is going to try and take from us?' Days after the 2025 legislative session ended in May, Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe called a special session for lawmakers to consider stadium funding and disaster relief bills. Last week, the state Senate approved Gregory's stadium incentives bill in the middle of the night by a 19-13 vote. On Wednesday afternoon, the state House approved the measure by a 90-58 vote, sending it to the governor's desk. The bill would fund up to 50% of construction or renovation costs and is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion over 30 years, the Missouri Independent reported. Stateline was unable to reach Gregory for comment. Economists have panned the ongoing stadium bidding war between Missouri and Kansas — which has offered to pay up to 70% of new stadium costs — as a waste of taxpayer dollars. But Gregory's comments highlight the emotional undercurrents frequently at play in sports stadium funding debates across the country. Experts nearly unanimously agree that public subsidies for stadiums are a poor investment, but that hasn't slowed a wave of local and state spending for billionaire team owners. More taxpayer money benefits pro sports owners amid 'stadium construction wave' Washington, D.C., could spend more than $1 billion to move the Washington Commanders some seven miles from a suburb in Maryland to a new facility planned for the old RFK Stadium site, described by the team's controlling owner as the 'spiritual home' of the NFL franchise. Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver who studies stadium deals, said these kinds of arguments ignore the economic reality of stadium subsidies. 'You're not talking economics. You're talking pure emotion,' he said. Despite mounds of evidence showing the public does not fare well on stadium investments, he said lawmakers and mayors still tout the potential for jobs and new tax revenues with stadiums and arenas. Oftentimes, teams and politicians stir fears about the possibility of losing franchises to another market to increase pressure, he said. But three of the most prominent stadium subsidy deals under consideration now — in Chicago, Kansas City and the district — involve teams looking to move within the same metro area. 'I would appreciate it if lawmakers were that transparent, and they're like, 'I don't care how much this costs, there's no price that's too high for us to pay to keep them here,'' Propheter said. But cities and states have more at stake than raw economics, said Irwin Kishner, a New York attorney who has represented pro teams in multiple stadium deals. He likened the stadium debate to those surrounding the Olympics: Research has found that host cities generally spend well in excess of the revenue generated by the games. But cities and nations still fiercely compete for the chance to host the high-profile event. 'It elevates the status of venues,' Kishner said. 'And I think it's very much the same thing with stadiums and arenas.' He said cities also face potential economic consequences of lost jobs and tax revenues if teams leave altogether. Oakland, California, for example, lost both its pro football and baseball teams to Nevada after local stadium talks fell apart. The NFL's Raiders now play in Las Vegas and MLB's A's are playing temporarily in West Sacramento, California, before moving into their under-construction stadium on the Vegas strip. 'What happened in Oakland is a classic example of what happens when a team doesn't get their building in the way they want it,' Kishner said. And those sorts of relocations can leave lasting marks, he said, pointing to the sour feelings that still persist in Brooklyn decades after MLB's Dodgers left for Los Angeles. Other cities have similarly iconic teams, such as the NFL's Chicago Bears. 'When push comes to shove, municipalities would be embarrassed to lose a team. I mean, could you imagine the Bears playing in St. Louis as an argument?' Kishner said. 'I think Chicago would have something to say about that in a very emotional way. And by the way, these things take generations to get past.' Currently, Chicago's stadium discussions are more localized. After first sharing plans to build a new stadium along Lake Michigan's shore in Chicago, the Bears are now pursuing a massive football stadium development in suburban Arlington Heights. Despite introducing various tax measures aimed to benefit megaprojects such as stadiums, Illinois lawmakers ended their session on May 31 with no action on the matter. My brain tells me it's not that big of a deal, but my heart and soul as a Chicagoan doesn't want them to leave. – Illinois Democratic state Rep. Kam Buckner Democratic state Rep. Kam Buckner, whose district includes parts of Chicago's South Side, said lawmakers have little appetite to invest heavily in stadiums. The MLS' Chicago Fire just announced plans to privately finance a new $650 million professional soccer stadium in the city's South Loop — the same area the MLB's White Sox are also eyeing as they explore a new baseball stadium. 'The days of widespread public money for private stadiums without public benefit — those days are over, and that is not just a sentiment in the state of Illinois. I think this is a sentiment across the country,' Buckner said. Still, he acknowledged the sway emotions can have in the matter. While the Bears leaving the city limits likely would not affect the region's economy, he said, it would still prove a blow to morale. 'My brain tells me it's not that big of a deal,' he said, 'but my heart and soul as a Chicagoan doesn't want them to leave.' Missouri's stadium debate has been simmering for years now: The Royals first announced plans in 2022 to move downtown from their stadium on the outskirts of the city. And the Chiefs — who share the sprawling stadium complex with the Royals — quickly followed with talks of wanting a new or renovated stadium. After voters in a county election last year soundly rejected extending a stadium sales tax to fund those plans, lawmakers across the border in Kansas passed legislation that would fund up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums. That measure expires at the end of June, pushing Missouri legislators to act. Neil deMause, a journalist who has written extensively about stadium subsidies, said such deadlines are arbitrary and meant to exact political pressure. While politicians once had plausible deniability about the pitfalls of stadium subsidies, the research is now overwhelmingly clear and well covered in the media, he said. (It's been nearly a decade since HBO's John Oliver dedicated an episode of his satirical news show to the folly of stadium finance.) Kansas v. Missouri stadium battle shows how states are reigniting border wars But politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to push stadium subsidies — whether they're touting the potential for wider real estate development or intangibles such as team pride and fears of losing franchises. 'It's this prescribed dance, where everybody sort of pretends to be doing due diligence, but at the same time, everybody knows it's going to happen,' deMause said. He said that appears to be the case in the nation's capital. In April, city and team officials for the Washington Commanders announced plans for a 65,000-seat stadium. The proposed deal, which must be approved by the full city council, would cost taxpayers some $1.1 billion over eight years. But deMause's analysis of the plan determined the public will be spending well in excess of that figure because of billions in free rent and hundreds of millions in property tax breaks. He estimates taxpayers will pay or forgo at least $7.5 billion on the deal. 'Everybody in and around the D.C. Council seems to be saying, 'Yeah, it sure is a lot of money, but the mayor really wants it, so it's going to happen. It's just a matter of whether or not we can improve it some,'' he said. 'It's a little bit like saying, 'World War II is going to happen — just try and keep the death toll down.'' Last week, Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser's office released a report it commissioned that projected the stadium would create billions in new economic output and local tax revenue in the coming decades — figures that were quickly disputed by skeptical economists and academics. Still, much of the district's stadium conversation has centered on intangibles such as hometown pride and nostalgia. Even NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell waxed about his childhood memories attending games at the old RFK Stadium at an April event announcing the deal. Sitting in front of a 'WELCOME HOME' banner at that event, the mayor said the RFK site was 'where they belong.' 'I want to start by saying welcome home,' she said. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri governor allows more spending, property tax cap as he pursues stadium deal
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall is sponsoring the bill to set aside state tax money to finance new and renovated stadiums for Kansas City sports teams (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). Gov. Mike Kehoe expanded the agenda of the special session Wednesday enough to win Missouri Senate passage of bills with money for disaster recovery in St. Louis, changes to property taxes policies and tax incentives to finance new or improved stadiums in Kansas City. Initially scheduled to go in at 10 a.m., the Senate finally convened about seven hours later. Talks over what sweeteners Kehoe needed to get his key objective — tax incentives to finance new or renovated stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals —- culminated in his revised agenda. 'After productive conversations with members of the Missouri General Assembly this week, we are amending our special session call to allow for additional legislation in the areas of disaster relief, tax policy, and budget investments,' Kehoe said in a news release. 'We appreciate legislators working together to use this as an opportunity to show up for our communities by acting swiftly to help those in crisis, while also making smart decisions that secure opportunity for the future.' Under the constitutional limits on a special session, the governor must 'state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary.' Any attempt to address an issue not listed in the call for the session can be ruled out of order. The special session began Monday and can continue for up to 60 days. Kehoe is seeking quick action because both teams have offers from Kansas to relocate. The spending bill passed 23-10 in the early morning on Thursday, winning with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans with only Republicans opposed. The bill to finance the stadiums went to the House on a 19-13 vote, with three Democrats joining 10 Republicans in opposition. For several hours the chamber stalled on the stadium bill, working late into the night. The bill includes all the tax provisions necessary to finance the stadiums, plus disaster relief provisions and an expansion of a tax credit program supporting amateur sporting events. Shortly before 1 a.m., the impasse cleared and bill sponsored by state Sen. Kurtis Gregory was given initial approval. Within a few hours, the final votes were held and the Senate adjourned until June 16. For several hours, debate focused on a proposal from state Sen. Joe Nicola, a Republican from Independence, to freeze the maximum increase in annual property tax bills at 5% in some counties. Then state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, said she had heard enough. 'This discussion that we've had the last several hours is just an effort for the governor to try to get a couple of votes out of the Freedom Caucus for the stadium funding scheme,' McCreery said. She said Kehoe agreed to Nicola's amendment and added it to the call to wear down opposition. Then she blamed Kehoe and Republicans for using a procedural move to shut down debate during the regular session on an abortion ban and repeal of the sick leave law approved by voters in November. Kehoe could have had the stadium plan passed if the procedural move was not used, McCreery said. 'Here we are tonight, masquerading that we care about people and the amount of money that they're paying for things,' McCreery said. Democrats don't trust Republicans, she said, and the Senate should not trust the House. Until the appropriation bill, which totals $361 million including $175 million in general revenue, passes the House. The House refused to pass a bill with $235 million of the same projects and $282 million of additional spending during the session. House Republican leaders waited for the Senate to adjourn on the last day for passing appropriations before revealing that the bill would be spiked. 'We should not be doing anything until (the spending bill is passed) and over the House, and then the House has to have it on its way to the governor before we should be taking any action on anything else,' McCreery said. The stadium funding plan would allocate state taxes collected from economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman to bond payments for renovations at Arrowhead and a new stadium for the Royals in Jackson or Clay counties. The cost is estimated at close to $1.5 billion over 30 years. State Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Republican from Marshall and sponsor of the stadium bill, said the public support for keeping the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri was both a good economic investment and a good investment in the state's image. 'What's at stake if those teams go across the state line is over $2 billion of economic activity inside of the state of Missouri, over 13,000 jobs, and we just let the state of Kansas poach the pride and joy of the western side of the state,' Gregory said. The teams must give Kansas an answer by June 30 on an offer to pay 70% of the cost of new stadiums. Missouri's offer is to cover about half the cost. Some senators have grumbled that the teams should make a commitment to stay in Missouri if the bill is passed. Gregory said their desire to stay should be apparent. 'I also contend that the teams want to stay in Missouri, because if they wanted to go to Kansas, I believe they would have already signed on the dotted line to move those teams,' Gregory said. The spending bill was increased because of demands from St. Louis Democrats that Kehoe address the uncertainty over when or whether President Donald Trump will declare a federal disaster for the May 16 St. Louis tornado. That brought a new $100 million appropriation for storm victims in the city of St. Louis. Previously, the disaster provisions in the call — $25 million for the Missouri Housing Trust Fund to be distributed by the Missouri Housing Development Commission and a tax credit for amounts paid as insurance deductibles — were all applied equally to counties included in disaster requests. Kehoe has submitted four storm events this spring, with damage in 37 counties, to Trump for disaster requests. Two have been granted. The magnitude of the St. Louis tornado — a 22-mile path of destruction that cost five Missouri lives and damaged an estimated $1.6 billion in property damage — surpasses all other damage so far in the state. Damage to public property in the two disasters that have been declared is estimated at $52 million. The other new money added to the spending bill settled an issue for state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Democrat from Columbia. A state contribution to the new research reactor at the University of Missouri, which Kehoe cut from $50 million to $25 million to find money for disaster aid, was returned to $50 million. The only opposition to the spending bill on the floor came from state Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove, who said the university should tap its $1.4 billion endowment to pay for the reactor. And Moon said he didn't like the disaster relief funds. 'The money that is going to be received by those who were hurt is nowhere near the amount that's going to cause them to be compensated and fully restored,' Moon said. If the state starts paying to repair property after storms, he said, people will not buy insurance. 'I don't think some of this is the proper function of government,' Moon said. 'Compassion, certainly. But unless people take personal responsibility and do the things they should be doing so that we don't have to, when is this going to end?' The tax change Nicola is trying to enact would cap increases in real property tax bills at 5% every two years, corresponding to the reassessment cycle. Officials in 34 counties would have the option of putting the cap in place through a ballot measure. The proposal is a response to rapid increases in property values and the resulting increase in tax bills. There was no estimate available of the potential cost to local governments. Nicola said there were enough protections to make sure all current revenue is maintained and new voter-approved levies are paid. 'Our property tax system in this state, in my opinion, is a disaster,' Nicola said. The amendment is the price of his vote, he told the Senate. 'I am a hard no on the stadium tax bill unless we get some solid property tax relief for my people in Jackson County,' Nicola said. 'I told the governor of this on Monday I can count on one hand how many of my constituents want me to vote for the stadium.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri Senate Democrats currently not focused on Chiefs, Royals
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — It is back to work for Missouri lawmakers as . The work's starting in the State Senate which filibustered the late arriving proposal and then adjourned its regular session. Republican State Senator Kurtis Gregory of Saline County has filed a bill that was first read Monday. His bill creates the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. Kehoe has pitched this plan to try to keep the Chiefs and the Royals in Missouri. Royals' affiliate buys Overland Park Aspiria campus' mortgage While Kregory did not elaborate on his bill on the floor, FOX4 was able to talk to Republican State Senate President Cindy O'Laughlin before session started Monday. 'I think for people this is controversial because people want to bring the owners into the conversation, but for them, it's a business decision,' she said, talking about the owners. 'So, for me, I think it boils down to, 'Do you want to make an offer that you think is reasonable? Do you want to keep the Chiefs and the Royals? And then they have to decide what they want to do.' O'laughlin said she's had indirect conversations with the ownership of both teams, saying she thinks they want to stay in the Show-Me State. Also, before session started Monday, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck from St. Louis County said state leaders need to focus on the tornado victims in his part of the state, the capital improvements bill that helped different parts of Missouri, and cancer research. Beck was also asked about the Chiefs and Royals stadium situation. 'So, my focus is that this is the first part of it is the appropriations bill and what we do for the people of St. Louis for the tornado, you know, the cancer research, and all those things,' he said. 'Until that happens, and it's through the House and on the Governor's Desk, then we can talk about the other one.' Beck was asked whether he's had pushback from caucus members on the west of the state when it comes to not currently being focused on the Chiefs and the Royals. Family sues Kansas City, KC Sports Commission & several others for 2024 Chiefs parade shooting 'Our caucus has been united in that we need to take care of the people of Missouri,' he responded. 'That's what's most important right now.' Beck said he does not know where his caucus is member by member on support for the teams' stadiums. He says it really hasn't been talked about much yet. O'Laughlin said stadium bills could be discussed in committees Tuesday before there's full debate Wednesday. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV The session starts at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
King Solomon had the right idea: Split the KC teams and give the babies to each state
When it comes to the Chiefs and Royals, Kansas and Missouri should apply a little wisdom from the Bible. They should split the baby. Kansas should get the Royals. Missouri should get the Chiefs. Or vice-versa, maybe. It doesn't matter all that much, does it? The point here is that both teams would stick in the Kansas City region, beloved and (more importantly) attended by thousands of ticket-buying fans on both sides of the state line. A both-states-get-a-team solution would offer Kansas and Missouri a chance to cooperate in building the future of the Chiefs and Royals instead of trying to outbid each other in a revival of the once-dormant 'border war.' And because leaders in both states are — foolishly, to my mind — dead-set on public support for sports palaces whose economic benefits will flow mostly to the teams' billionaire owners, the two-state solution would have another benefit: Taxpayers in each state would be on the hook for one gazillion-dollar stadium instead of two. All the love. Half the risk and expense. What's not to like? Big promises, small benefits Let's back up a second here: It's still not great that Kansas and Missouri are both maneuvering to offer public support to keep the teams around. Study after study after study has shown that taxpayer-funded stadiums almost never produce the economic payoff that boosters promise when trying to get backing from local governments and taxpayers. It's just not worth it. Anybody who tells you differently is selling something. Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that officials in both states — driven by civic pride, perhaps, or maybe just a little border war envy — aren't going to take that advice. The Kansas Legislature last year approved a plan to fund up to 70% of the cost of two new stadiums using so-called STAR bonds, to be paid back using tax revenues generated by the stadiums and any new surrounding retail developments. The Show-Me State has been a little slower off the mark. Gov. Mike Kehoe offered a late, vague plan to help fund stadium construction that the Missouri General Assembly smartly rejected. He will probably call a special session to try, try again. Legislators will probably find a way to get to 'yes.' 'I don't think that we want to let this opportunity pass,' Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican, told the Star. All this maneuvering has mostly been depicted as a state-versus-state competition. Why can't it be a cooperation instead? If World Cup can do it The model here, obviously, is all the work being done to bring World Cup games to the Kansas City region next year. Matches will be played at Arrowhead Stadium in Missouri, but the success of Sporting KC in its home field at Children's Mercy Park in Wyandotte County clearly played a role in bringing the tournament here. National team camps — and their thousands of fans from around the world — will be spread out on both sides of the state line. That's why Kansas and Missouri are making big infrastructure investments to make the whole thing work. Both sides are putting in money. Both sides will see benefits, hopefully, which proves that the future of the Chiefs and Royals doesn't have to be a zero-sum competition. There are a lot of details that would have to be worked out, of course. Questions about the Royals' desire to play baseball in downtown Kansas City, along with the remodeling of the existing Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs, are all in play. (Obviously, resolving these questions means ruling out a scenario where either team moves to Wichita.) But goodness, wouldn't it be nice if those decisions were made on the basis of what's best for the entire border-straddling community instead of a desperate winners-versus-losers contest that mostly benefits the already-rich-guys at the top of the food chain? According to the Sunday School lessons of my youth, King Solomon was playing a game when he told two mothers to split the baby that each claimed. He wanted to see who really wanted the child more. In this case, though, there are two 'babies' — the Royals and Chiefs. Play it smart, and maybe everybody gets to go home happy.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve bill exempting Missouri Farm Bureau health plans from federal rules
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory shakes hands following his introduction to the Missouri Senate (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). Missouri Farm Bureau will be allowed to sell health care plans to its members, Medicaid will cover the cost of hearing aids for adults and supplies of birth control will be extended under legislation that passed the legislature in the waning hours of the session on Thursday. The legislation, which was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall, now heads to the governor's desk. The underlying bill allows the Missouri Farm Bureau to sell health care plans that don't abide by the protections set by the Affordable Care Act. As a result, the Farm Bureau would be able to offer lower-price coverage options, which the organization and its supporters say is necessary to help uninsured farmers. 'This is a product that is going to get people coverage that otherwise cannot afford it,' Gregory said at a House hearing last month. 'This is a coverage product that is going to save lives. It is a product that's going to save people money.' State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Republican from Sedalia who carried the bill in the House, said Thursday that the Farm Bureau's health plans 'will not be the solution for everyone. But those without health care plans believe this will be beneficial.' This was the third year the bill has been proposed, and it's received significant pushback from Democrats and patient advocates, who argue it would leave some Missourians without protections. It's also faced opposition from insurance companies who argue it gives the Farm Bureau an unfair advantage over competitors. If the bill is signed into law, Missouri will join 10 states that have adopted similar carveouts for the Farm Bureau in previous years. Alabama and Florida also passed similar measures this year. Democrats added some protections to the Farm Bureau portion of the bill during negotiations, including mandating the organization to provide a clear disclaimer that the products it's selling are not officially regulated as health insurance, mandating the company can't cancel coverage for members because of a medical event and ensuring the state insurance department will handle complaints. The bill contains a wide swath of other health measures, including several added by Democrats during negotiations, especially by state Sen. Patty Lewis of Kansas City. Those include: provisions mandating that Missouri Medicaid cover hearing aids and cochlear implants for adults, expanding access to testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, requiring insurance companies that provide birth control medication to provide extended supplies and tweaking the law around telehealth to allow audio-only visits. There was little opposition voiced on Thursday. State Rep. Betsy Fogle, a Democrat from Springfield, said the negotiations 'were able to make a bill significantly better with wins for the majority party, wins for the minority party and ultimately wins for our constituents back home.' The bill passed by a vote of 147 to 1 on Thursday afternoon in the House. That followed a vote of 24 to 6 in the Senate. The Farm Bureau would offer lower prices by reverting to the pre-Affordable Care Act practice of what's called medical underwriting — carefully evaluating applicants' medical history and risk — to determine whether to cover them and at what price. The Farm Bureau is a nonprofit agricultural membership organization which partners with for-profit companies to sell various kinds of insurance to its members. Anyone can join — the fee is $30 per year. Historically the group has been primarily made up of people in farming communities. Gregory has estimated around 15,000 Farm Bureau members lack health insurance and would be the target audience to enroll in the benefit plan. Many farmers and other members of the Farm Bureau, proponents say, are uninsured because they can't afford to buy an individual plan on the Affordable Care Act marketplace or make too much money to qualify for subsidies. Garrett Hawkins, president of Missouri Farm Bureau, said in an interview with The Independent shortly after the bill passed that the organization's effort has been years in the making. Lack of health insurance options for farmers is 'an impediment to bringing the kids home to the farm. It's an impediment to bringing a spouse home to the farm who has pursued off-farm employment solely to get health coverage,' he said. 'This is a big deal.' Emily Kalmer, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said at a House hearing last month that even with concessions made at the urging of the bill's critics, patient advocates remain highly concerned. 'To be clear, this legislation still allows the Farm Bureau to sell unregulated products that won't have to comply with many of the other provisions we fought for over the years,' Kalmer said, including protections for preexisting conditions. Medicaid coverage for hearing aids and cochlear implants for adults would be expanded under the bill passed Thursday. Currently, Medicaid in Missouri, which is called MO HealthNet, only covers hearing aids for eligible children, pregnant women and blind people. There was little opposition to that change this year, but in prior years there has been some concern around the cost. The Medicaid hearing aid and cochlear implant provisions are estimated to cost up to $10.3 million in fiscal year 2027, and $2.7 million the following year, according to the fiscal note. 'I realize there are some costs to this,' said state Rep. Cameron Parker, a Republican from Campbell. 'But I do believe that the benefit of these services, the hearing instruments, the cochlear implants, outweigh the cost greatly.' The bill also requires health plans to cover extended supplies of birth control. Plans that provide coverage for hormonal contraceptives would be required to cover a supply lasting up to 90 days, or, for generic medication, up to 180 days — meaning patients would be able to pick up months-long supplies of the birth control pill at one time rather than needing to pick up the prescription more frequently. The Independent's Jason Hancock contributed reporting. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
