Page 23 – Show-Me Institute

Licensing Compact Exception Is Removed in Missouri

Posted on June 4, 2025January 13, 2026 by Scott Tanner

Missouri recently eliminated the “compact exception” for occupational licensing reciprocity. Show-Me Institute analysts have flagged this loophole numerous times, and it is gratifying to see these recommendations reflected in policy.

What Is the Compact Exception, and Why Does It Matter?

Currently, state law allows most professionals licensed in other states who relocate to Missouri an expedited path to receiving an occupational license. If the professional has been licensed for at least one year and remains in good standing, Missouri’s occupational licensing bodies must waive the state’s requirements and issue a license within six months of application.

This makes it easier for workers to relocate to Missouri. However, two key weaknesses remained:

The relevant oversight body can wait up to six months to issue a waiver for those who meet the reciprocity guidelines.
According to the old statue, Missouri’s licensing reciprocity “shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered a compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.”

The second issue—the “compact exception”—was addressed by the recent passage of Senate Bill (SB) 150. SB 150 resolves this issue entirely.

Under the current language, if a Missouri licensing board joins a compact, it could actually make things worse for Missouri consumers. For example, all states require cosmetologists to have a license. Today, Missourians could have access to cosmetologists moving from all 50 states, because licensing requirements would be waived in our state. Now suppose Missouri joins a cosmetology compact that only has six member states. Due to the compact exception, licensing reciprocity would not apply to the other 43 states that have not joined the cosmetology compact (unless the language of the compact explicitly says otherwise).

Let’s Keep the Momentum Going in Occupational Licensing

SB 150 also expedites licensing timelines for qualified spouses of law enforcement officers moving to Missouri. The bill mandates that spouses of law enforcement officers who have a professional license in another state and remain in good standing receive a temporary license for their occupation in 30 days or less. Currently, this expedited process is only available to spouses of military members. This change in SB 150 points to the need for broader reform. As mentioned earlier, Missouri law allows the relevant oversight body to issue a reciprocal license in six months or less. Six months is far too long to wait to begin working, and all professionals seeking work in Missouri should have their applications reviewed in a timelier manner.

SB 150 eliminates one weakness of Missouri’s universal licensing reciprocity regime. It is a meaningful win, and hopefully we’ll see more reform in the future to make Missouri a more attractive state to move to.

The Missouri Legislature Was Right To Overturn Proposition A

Posted on June 3, 2025January 13, 2026 by Scott Tanner

At the Show-Me Institute, our economists and analysts have long been opposed to minimum-wage increases put before the voters of Missouri. Wages should be a contract between employers and employees that are determined by markets, not something legislated by the state.

That means employers and potential employees should be free to negotiate, agree, or disagree on compensation, and then employ or refuse employment. Of course, I am also for an economy that offers good jobs at high wages; the best and in fact only path to that is economic growth that increases the demand for labor, coupled with an educational system that teaches and trains people so that they can pursue the career of their choice.

In other words, freedom and good government produce more opportunity for everybody. Who could have known that?

Proposition A, which was passed by the voters in November 2024, increased the minimum wage, but it did more than that. It also instituted a complex sick-leave policy for most businesses in Missouri. Many of those same businesses already had more generous leave policies of various types than the one mandated by the new law, but even those businesses were forced by Proposition A to adjust their policies to the new formula. In some cases, those adjustments were going to be less generous to employees in order to adhere to the new requirements.

This is a perfect example of how a law can appear to do one thing—in this case, help employees—while actually doing the opposite—in this case, heaping transaction costs on business, and especially small business, and thereby discouraging those businesses from hiring employees and growing their companies in Missouri.

It’s not the fault of voters that they did not know what the effect of the law would be. Proposition A contained nine pages of detail that even lawyers have difficulty understanding.

The supporters of Proposition A made it a statutory proposition instead of a constitutional amendment because a statutory proposition is easier to get on the ballot. Because Proposition A was only a statutory change, it was within the authority of the legislature to adjust it, and fortunately the legislature has done so by eliminating the onerous sick leave provisions, moderating the minimum wage provisions, and vastly simplifying the burden on small business.

But this whole episode shows why we need initiative petition reforms in Missouri. It is too easy for interest groups to raise large sums of money so that they can mislead voters about complex initiative propositions that are deliberately written to hide their true purpose and likely effects. Even a good ballot summary can’t accurately convey the meaning of nine pages of inscrutable legal jargon.

We’re all for the people deciding the direction of their own government; in fact, we participate every day in the marketplace of ideas with a view to influencing Missourians on behalf of good policy. The initiative petition process is an important tool, but it should be designed so that voters, with a reasonable effort, can be aware of exactly what they are voting on and the choices they are being asked to make.

2025 End of the Legislative Session Report

Posted on June 3, 2025January 13, 2026 by Show-Me Institute Staff

The 2025 Missouri legislative session delivered both meaningful reforms and missed opportunities. Progress was made in
areas such as education, health care, and regulatory reform, but other important policy changes needed to move Missouri
forward did not make it across the finish line. There’s more work to be done.

Here’s an overview of some of the legislation passed this session (some of which is still awaiting the governor’s signature):

$50 MILLION FOR MOSCHOLARS PROGRAM

• First public investment in the K–12 scholarship program, with $50 million approved in the state budget
• Could triple the number of students served, expanding access to private school, homeschooling, and
specialized support

TELEHEALTH AND HEALTH CARE REFORMS: SB 79

• Improves telehealth access by allowing both audio-only and audiovisual services on any HIPAAcompliant
platform
• Expands health benefit offerings by allowing certain organizations to offer health plans to members,
sometimes referred to as farm bureau or association health plans, without many of the burdensome state
and federal restrictions that apply to traditional insurance offerings

PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS: HB 595 AND HB 343

• Prohibits cities and counties from requiring landlords to participate in voluntary federal housing
programs such as Section 8 housing vouchers
• Bans caps on security deposits and restrictions on tenant screening criteria like income, credit, and
criminal history

CAPITAL GAINS TAX EXEMPTION: HB 594

• Exempts 100% of long-term capital gains from Missouri state income tax for individuals
• Applies to all individual income reported as capital gains for federal tax purposes, starting tax year 2025
• Designed to encourage investment and entrepreneurship by reducing the tax burden on productive
activity

EXPANDING LICENSE PORTABILITY: SB 150

• Expands access to temporary occupational licenses across most licensed professions in Missouri by
repealing the harmful compact exemption, ensuring that more professionals moving to Missouri can
start working without unnecessary delays
• Provides expedited occupational licenses to law enforcement spouses moving to Missouri, allowing
those licensed in another state for at least one year and in good standing to receive a Missouri license
within 30 days of applying

Download a copy of the report here.

Lawless: Ilya Shapiro on Free Speech in Higher Education

Posted on June 3, 2025January 13, 2026 by Show-Me Institute Staff

On April 10, 2025, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites, visited Washington University School of Law to discuss the ideological and bureaucratic challenges facing American higher education. In this lecture, Shapiro argues that elite universities have abandoned their core mission of truth-seeking in favor of activism, driven by bloated administrations and timid leadership. Drawing on personal experience and national trends, he explains how law schools, in particular, are failing to uphold classical liberal values such as free speech, academic freedom, and equal justice.

Listen to it as a podcast

The event was hosted by the Show-Me Institute, the Federalist Society, the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

Missouri’s Special Session and Giveaways to Billionaires with Patrick Tuohey

Posted on May 29, 2025January 13, 2026 by Susan Pendergrass

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri’s upcoming special legislative session, slated to begin on June 2, and the debate over taxpayer subsidies for stadiums. They discuss why stadium subsidies often fail to deliver promised economic benefits, how billionaire sports team owners leverage public funds for private gain, and the potential impact of a $50 million annual giveaway to the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. Tuohey explains the flawed logic behind the argument that Missouri must compete with Kansas in a “race to the bottom” and argues that the state should instead focus on core services like public safety, education, and infrastructure. They also cover the broader implications of using taxpayer dollars to benefit wealthy team owners, the political dynamics driving these proposals, and what citizens and lawmakers should consider as the special session begins.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on SoundCloud

Download a Transcript of the Episode

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction to the Special Session
01:59 Stadium Subsidies: The Chiefs and Royals
05:35 Economic Impact of Stadium Subsidies
09:43 Political Dynamics of the Special Session
12:34 Public Sentiment and Legislative Challenges
16:29 Conclusion and Future Implications

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

A Step Backward for Transparency

Posted on May 29, 2025January 13, 2026 by Scott Tanner

Why would anyone be against transparent pricing? Last year, after taking a step forward on hospital price transparency, Missouri’s general assembly reversed course.

For several years now, my colleagues and I have been writing about the benefits of price transparency in healthcare, and the fierce opposition the idea has faced in Jefferson City. Naively, I assumed that informing patients of the cost of healthcare services before they were provided would be uncontroversial. After all, what other expensive goods or services do consumers purchase without knowing what they’ll pay beforehand? But after several price transparency bills received hearings last year the points of contention became a little clearer.

During public testimony on House Bill (HB) 1837 last year, the Missouri Hospital Association stated that complying with the bill’s price transparency requirements would be financially burdensome. This was confusing because HB 1837 simply added state-imposed penalties if hospitals didn’t comply with federal transparency requirements that are already on the books. As I’ve written previously, back in 2019, the Trump administration issued an executive order requiring hospitals to publish a list of standard charges for 300 common procedures in a user-friendly, shoppable display. This was a requirement that has since been extended to health plans and was kept in place throughout the entire Biden administration.

But as I’ve also explained at length, Missouri hospitals have been reluctant to comply (at least in spirit) with the federal requirements. In the years since, state legislators across the country have begun filing bills to encourage greater compliance. At first, the Missouri bills languished in committee without receiving public hearings. Then, last year, bills received hearings in both chambers of the legislature and were even voted out of committee. Unfortunately, this year, the subject didn’t receive a hearing in the House and wasn’t successfully voted out of committee in the Senate.

It’s hard to know what changed since last year that led to the policy losing support among Missouri’s legislators, but I think it’s safe to assume that hospitals still oppose the effort. Going into next year’s session, I’ll continue highlighting the benefits of price transparency and the importance of policymakers taking action to help rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs. While it may be true that price transparency isn’t a silver bullet for all that ails America’s broken healthcare system, it’s a step in the right direction that shouldn’t be delayed because certain providers claim they can’t afford it. Missouri patients can’t afford the wait.

Senate Bill 68: Another Education Omnibus, Part 2

Posted on May 28, 2025January 13, 2026 by Scott Tanner

In Part 1 of the post, I detail the journey Senate Bill (SB) 68 took to become another education omnibus bill. When it first passed the Senate, SB 68 focused solely on prohibiting cell phones and other devices in school. It then grew to a more than 100-page bill with more than 30 additional policies attached—some of which are problematic.

Below, I will highlight problematic additions to the bill.

Phonics and Three-Cueing

The finally agreed bill now includes language to make phonics instruction (recognizing written words by connecting letters to their corresponding sounds) the primary instructional strategy for teaching word reading in early literacy. It also restricts the use of the three-cueing system (encouraging students to guess what an unfamiliar word is based on meaning, structure, or visual cues instead of sounding out the word entirely). The original amendment would have prohibited the use of three-cueing for teaching word reading, but the final version only prohibits “instruction in word reading relying primarily on the three-cueing system.” This change leaves the door open for its use and weakens the policy’s impact. I will write more about this in a future post.

New “Grade-Level” Category for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP)

The new version of SB 68 also includes the addition of a fifth performance category (called “grade level”) for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP). The MAP currently has four measures: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. “Proficient” is defined as mastery over all appropriate subject matter and introductory knowledge for the next grade. This sounds like an appropriate benchmark to set.

The new “grade-level” category essentially means partial mastery—a student “may be ready, with appropriate reinforcement” for the next grade. For parents, telling them their children are at “grade-level” makes it sound as if they are where they ought to be academically. But that is not what it means. Why is Missouri adding a new standard that is confusing at best and will make it harder to interpret scores? Do we really want to water down our standards when so many are at basic or below in the state?

Repurposing Scholarship Funds

Another provision allows unused funds for the Teacher Retention and Recruitment Scholarship (given to prospective teachers in high-need subject areas and schools) to be repurposed to non-high-need students in their final semester. These unused funds should be returned to the treasury to fund other existing priorities instead of being used for a new project entirely.

Open Enrollment—For a Select Few

Finally, SB 68 allows open enrollment for students whose parents are a contractor or regular employee of that district. This is a good opportunity for these families. But what Missouri needs is a universal open enrollment policy, which would help families and students in a variety of different circumstances. Why are only these families benefitted?

SB 68 illustrates the risk of omnibus bills: bad policies are often included, good policies get diluted, and elected officials can claim they had to swallow the bad with the good.

Senate Bill 68: From Simple Cell Phone Ban to Education Omnibus, Part 1

Posted on May 28, 2025January 13, 2026 by Scott Tanner

Missouri’s 2025 legislative session has been a popular one for the omnibus bill, as exemplified by the passage of House Bill 495 and Senate Bill (SB) 4. Now, after passing both the House and Senate, Senate Bill 68 could be the latest installment.

SB 68 was originally intended to prohibit students from using an “electronic personal communications device” during instructional time (the current version prohibits students from using these devices from the start of the school day to the end, barring emergencies and exceptions). It was a little over 3 pages long and received an endorsement from Governor Kehoe: “It’s simple—cell phones have no place in Missouri classrooms.”

Today, SB 68 is no longer simple, and it is not the same bill that the governor endorsed two months ago. After its trip through the House and subsequent conference committee, SB 68 has ballooned to 138 pages and now includes 30 policies.

SB 68 now includes sweeteners or concessions for certain members and interest groups.

Wasn’t the original SB 68, which focused solely on cell phones in schools, a good, straightforward bill with enough merit and momentum to pass on its own? I guess not, because as I will detail in the following post, it now includes several bad policies that taint the worthwhile cell ban.

Curious about what got added to SB 68? Click here to read Part 2.

Children Have a Right to a Safe Place to Learn

Posted on May 27, 2025January 13, 2026 by Mike Ederer

The U.S. Department of Education recently reminded states that under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), students must be given the option to transfer if their school is deemed “persistently dangerous.” ESSA requires each state to define what constitutes a persistently dangerous school, collect relevant data, and implement policies that allow students in such schools to move to safer alternatives.

This reminder came because most states are effectively ignoring the requirement. In 2024 only 25 schools nationwide were identified as persistently dangerous—15 of them in Arkansas alone. Missouri, despite ranking 50th in a recent analysis of School Safety, has never identified a single such school.

Missouri does have a definition on the books. Part of the definition is that a school must have an “act of school violence,” “violent behavior,” or a gun-free-schools violation in three consecutive years. Unfortunately, there is plenty of violence and violent behavior in Missouri schools. For instance, there were 128 weapons violations and 335 violent incidents reported in Missouri schools just last year. A school safety hotline reported that they received nearly 1,600 tips of safety threats, including physical assault, threats to kill, guns, and drugs.

Yet there’s a catch. For a school to be labeled persistently dangerous in Missouri, it must also have more than five expulsions in two of three consecutive years (or more than 10 if the school enrolls over 250 students). However, schools can control expulsions and DESE data indicate that there were no expulsions of any student in the entire state in 2021, 2023, and 2024. Just 10 occurred in 2022. Meanwhile, nearly 13,500 students received out-of-school suspensions lasting 10 or more days last year.

Does it seem reasonable that no student in the entire state was expelled last year?

It is a policy failure that no schools in Missouri are classified as persistently dangerous, despite clear indications to the contrary. By allowing schools to manipulate their data—and in particular, to avoid expulsions at all costs—we are allowing them to circumvent the law. And the law exists for a good reason: to give students trapped in unsafe environments a real chance at success.

Parents have the right to expect their children will come home safely from school each day. For children assigned to local schools that are persistently dangerous, ESSA is supposed to provide the opportunity to change schools. Missouri’s failure to take the law seriously has permitted persistently dangerous schools to operate without taking on the formal designation, and is a disservice to the children and families who are trapped in these schools.