HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION • TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910 (512) 463-0752 • http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us
Steering Committee: Dwayne Bohac, Chairman Alma Allen, Vice Chairman
Rafael Anchia Ken King Andrew Murr Angie Chen Button John Frullo Brooks Landgraf Eddie Lucio III Joe Pickett Joe Deshotel Donna Howard J. M. Lozano Ina Minjarez Gary VanDeaver
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
daily floor report
Tuesday, May 16, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 72 The House convenes at 10 a.m. Part Two
Twenty-two bills are on the daily calendar for second-reading consideration today. The bills analyzed in Part Two of today's Daily Floor Report are listed on the following page.
Dwayne Bohac Chairman 85(R) - 72
HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Daily Floor Report Tuesday, May 16, 2017 85th Legislature, Number 72 Part 2
SB 826 by L. Taylor Eliminating sequencing of required English and math high school courses 40 SB 291 by Whitmire Requiring hearing before issuing writ of attachment for certain witnesses 43 SB 1305 by Nichols Eliminating county energy transportation reinvestment zones 48 SB 42 by Zaffirini Creating certain court security measures, establishing a filing fee 51 SB 533 by Nelson Requirements, oversight of state agency contracting and procurement 56 SB 667 by Zaffirini Establishing a guardianship compliance and monitoring program 62 SB 1367 by Menéndez Authorizing epinephrine auto-injectors at institutions of higher education 65 SB 2082 by L. Taylor Expanding student roles under Work-Study Student Mentorship Program 69 SB 2087 by Hancock Creating a temporary health insurance risk pool 71 SB 74 by Nelson Adjusting contract requirements for providers in Medicaid MCO networks 76 SB 511 by Rodríguez Allowing for certain notarized designations of guardians 79
HOUSE SB 826 RESEARCH L.Taylor (Huberty) ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (CSSB 826 by Bohac)
SUBJECT: Eliminating sequencing of required English and math high school courses
COMMITTEE: Public Education — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 11 ayes — Huberty, Bernal, Allen, Bohac, Deshotel, Dutton, Gooden, K. King, Koop, Meyer, VanDeaver
0 nays
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 3 — 31-0, on Local and Uncontested Calendar
WITNESSES: For — Pauline Dow, North East Independent School District; Tyra Walker and Mary Williams, Texas School Alliance, TASA, Alief ISD; (Registered, but did not testify: Deborah Caldwell, North East Independent School District; Priscilla Camacho, San Antonio Chamber of Commerce; Seth Rau, San Antonio ISD; Richard Webster, Spring Branch ISD; Barry Haenisch, Texas Association of Community Schools; Michael Garcia, Texas Association of Manufacturers; Grover Campbell, Texas Association of School Boards; Michael White, Texas Construction Association; Kyle Ward, Texas PTA; Dee Carney, Texas School Alliance; Mike Meroney, Texas Workforce Coalition, BASF Corporation, Huntsman Corporation)
Against — None
On — Mark Wiggins, Association of Texas Professional Educators; (Registered, but did not testify: Kara Belew and Monica Martinez, Texas Education Agency)
BACKGROUND: The 83rd Legislature in 2013 enacted HB 5 by Aycock, which required the State Board of Education (SBOE) to set curriculum requirements for the foundation high school program established by the bill, including four credits in English, three credits in math, and three credits in science.
Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2), as amended by HB 5, requires the SBOE to provide for advanced courses that students may take to comply with curriculum requirements for advanced courses in English,
- 40 - SB 826 House Research Organization page 2
mathematics, and science following the successful completion, respectively, of
English 1, English 2, and English 3; Algebra 1 and geometry; and any advanced science course.
In 2013, the 83rd Legislature enacted HB 2201 by Farney, which also amended sec. 28.025(b-2). It requires the SBOE to allow a student to comply with curriculum requirements for the third and fourth mathematics or science credits by successfully completing an advanced career and technical course designated by the board as containing substantively similar and rigorous academic content.
DIGEST: CSSB 826 would reenact Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2) to harmonize differences between two versions of the subsection that were amended through the enactment in 2013 of HB 5 by Aycock and HB 2201 by Farney.
It also would amend Education Code, sec. 28.025(b-2) to allow a high school student under the foundation school program to enroll in an advanced English or mathematics course without first having successfully completed English I, English 2, and English 3 or Algebra 1 and geometry, as applicable.
This bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply beginning with the 2017-18 school year.
SUPPORTERS CSSB 826 would give high school students critical scheduling options by SAY: allowing flexibility in the sequencing of English and math courses. The bill would correct an unintended consequence of HB 5, enacted in 2013, in setting curriculum requirements for the foundation school program. It would allow students the option of concurrently enrolling in lower-level and upper-level English and math courses.
This flexibility would benefit students who wanted to graduate early from - 41 - SB 826 House Research Organization page 3
high school, those seeking to obtain an associate's degree along with their high school diploma, and those who might need to double up in a subject in order to graduate on time. One suburban district has estimated that 10 percent of its junior class is affected by the current sequencing requirement. Counselors and school administrators would work with students on their graduation plans to ensure that courses were taken in an appropriate progression.
The bill also would provide districts with instructional flexibility to offer a math course sequence of Algebra I and Algebra 2 followed by geometry, which could better align with instruction in science courses.
OPPONENTS CSSB 826 would address a problem that affects a small portion of SAY: students by eliminating the reasonable sequencing of English and math courses. It is generally not appropriate for a student to take advanced courses before passing foundational courses, and this bill could result in students failing an advanced class because they had not mastered the content in prerequisite courses.
OTHER CSSB 826 should be made effective for the current school year to help OPPONENTS those students who will lose their credit for Algebra 2 as an advanced SAY: math course because they took it at the same time they took geometry.
NOTES: CSSB 826 differs from the Senate-passed version in that the committee substitute would reenact sec. 28.025(b-2) to reflect the language in HB 2201 by Farney.
Two House companion bills, HB 1531 by VanDeaver and HB 1854 by Huberty, were referred to the House Committee on Public Education on March 9.
- 42 - HOUSE SB 291 RESEARCH Whitmire ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Alvarado)
SUBJECT: Requiring hearing before issuing writ of attachment for certain witnesses
COMMITTEE: Criminal Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 5 ayes — Moody, Canales, Hefner, Lang, Wilson
0 nays
2 absent — Hunter, Gervin-Hawkins
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 5 — 30-0
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 3881:
For — Kim Ogg, Harris County District Attorney's Office; Maisie Barringer
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 24.11 defines an attachment as a writ issued by court clerks, magistrates, or grand jury foremen in criminal cases, commanding a peace officer to take a witness into custody and to bring the witness to court to testify for the defendant or the prosecution.
Art. 24.12 allows a defendant or prosecutor to request and obtain a writ of attachment for a witness who lives in the county where a prosecution is taking place and who has failed to appear before a court after being served with a subpoena to appear and testify in a criminal proceeding.
Art. 24.22 allows a court to issue a writ of attachment for a witness who lives outside the county of prosecution if the witness has refused to obey a subpoena.
Under Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 24.14, courts issue writs of attachment after the defendant or prosecution has filed an affidavit with the court stating a belief that a material witness who resides in the county of prosecution is about to move out of the county. These may be issued
- 43 - SB 291 House Research Organization page 2
whether or not a witness has disobeyed a subpoena.
DIGEST: SB 291 would revise the procedure for requesting and issuing writs of attachment for witnesses in criminal proceedings and would require reporting on the writs that were issued.
Process to request writ. When a witness in the county in which a criminal case was being prosecuted had been served a subpoena to testify and had failed to appear, the prosecutor or defendant could request a writ of attachment, instead of being "entitled" to have one issued as provided under current law. The request would be filed with the court clerk and would have to include an affidavit from the defendant or prosecutor stating that there was good reason to believe that the witness was a material witness. The same requirement for an affidavit would apply to a request for a writ of attachment for a defendant from outside the county of prosecution who had refused to obey a subpoena.
When the defendant or the prosecutor believed that a witness was about to move from the county of a prosecution, either party could request a writ of attachment through the procedure established by the bill. In these cases, the affidavit also would have to state that the requestor had good reason to believe and did believe that the witness was about to move out of the county.
If the defendant or prosecutor requested a writ of attachment of a child witness, the request would have to include the affidavit described by the bill. This requirement would not apply to a writ issued for a witness who was in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department or other juvenile correction facilities.
Required hearings. The bill would require hearings before the issuance of writs of attachment in these cases. A writ of attachment only could be issued in these situations by the judge of the court in which the witness was to testify if the judge determined, after a hearing, that issuing a writ was in the best interest of justice.
The judge would have to consider the affidavit of the defendant or prosecutor that was submitted with the request for the writ. The court - 44 - SB 291 House Research Organization page 3
would be required to appoint an attorney to represent a witness at the hearing, including a hearing conducted outside the presence of the witness.
As soon as practicable after taking custody of a witness subject to a writ of attachment issued after a hearing, the sheriff would be required to submit to the court an affidavit stating that the sheriff had taken the witness into custody.
A witness who had been confined for five or more days under a writ of attachment could request a hearing to consider whether the continued confinement was necessary. The court would have to hold such a hearing as soon as practicable. Subsequent requests for a hearing could be granted only if a court determined that the hearing was in the best interest of justice. Attorneys appointed for the initial hearing would be required to represent the witness at these hearings.
Reporting on writs of attachment. SB 291 would require that within 30 days of the issuance of a writ of attachment by a district court, statutory county court, or county court, the court clerk would have to report on the writ to the Texas Judicial Council. The report would include:
the date the writ of attachment was issued; whether the attachment was issued in connection with a grand jury investigation, criminal trial, or other criminal proceeding; the names of the person requesting and of the judge issuing the writ of attachment; and the statutory authority under which it was issued.
The Texas Judicial Council would be required to include a summary of the information in its annual report to the governor and Texas Supreme Court.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply only to writs of attachment issued on or after that date.
SUPPORTERS SB 291 is necessary to protect the rights of witnesses subject to writs of SAY: attachment in criminal proceedings. The need for the bill was illustrated - 45 - SB 291 House Research Organization page 4
by a case in Houston in which a rape victim broke down during the trial of the accused rapist, was hospitalized for mental health issues, and then was jailed for weeks so she would be available to testify later in the trial. While in jail, she was housed with offenders and suffered trauma and abuse. The bill would revise the state's procedures for requesting and issuing writs of attachment to balance the rights of witnesses with the needs of the criminal justice system in rare cases to be able to ensure a witness came to court.
SB 291 would ensure that writs of attachment for witnesses were issued only when necessary and that any confinement continued only for as long as necessary. Instead of writs of attachment being automatically issued upon request, the bill would require a judge to hold a hearing in open court and to decide whether to issue the writ. The witness would be appointed an attorney, and a rehearing would be held if requested after a witness had been confined for at least five days.
In contrast to the treatment of the witness in the Harris County case, the procedures under the bill would ensure the witness had an advocate and was not lost in the system. A judge could set the hearing to allow the witness and lawyer time to meet beforehand, and in the rare case in which that did not occur, the lawyer still would be able to protect the basic due process rights of the witness. Having a lawyer and a judge involved would help to keep any confinement to a minimum and ensure frequent review. A witness whose liberty is at stake should be afforded a lawyer and a hearing, which are the same rights given to accused criminals.
The bill is necessary to ensure that these procedures occur throughout Texas. While the case that illustrates the need for SB 291 occurred in one county, the need to protect witnesses and their due process rights is a statewide issue and should be applied uniformly in all jurisdictions. The bill would not allow witnesses to avoid the consequences of a subpoena, but rather would ensure that when those consequences occurred, the process would be fair and adequately would consider the rights of the witness.
OPPONENTS It is unnecessary to change statewide law and established procedures SAY: relating to writs of attachment in response to the poor policies of one - 46 - SB 291 House Research Organization page 5
county. These problems have not occurred in other counties, and the issues prompting SB 291 could be addressed adequately by changes in local policies and procedures. There should not be a new process established that would allow a witness who had been properly subpoenaed by a court to attempt to avoid the consequences.
Some of the measures proposed in SB 291 could be difficult to implement. For example, the bill would require a hearing on a request for a writ of attachment and the appointment of a lawyer to represent the witness. It might be difficult to provide adequate representation at a hearing because it is quite possible the lawyer might not have met the witness beforehand, especially if the witness had been avoiding a subpoena.
OTHER It might be appropriate to require a review of a detention that resulted OPPONENTS from a writ of attachment sooner than after five days of confinement. SAY:
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 3881 by Alvarado, was considered in a public hearing of the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and left pending on April 17.
- 47 - HOUSE SB 1305 RESEARCH Nichols ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Darby)
SUBJECT: Eliminating county energy transportation reinvestment zones
COMMITTEE: Energy Resources — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 11 ayes — Darby, C. Anderson, G. Bonnen, Canales, Clardy, Guerra, Isaac, P. King, Lambert, Landgraf, Schubert
0 nays
2 absent — Craddick, Walle
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 4 — 31-0
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 2813: For — John Kennedy, Texas Taxpayers and Research Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Adrian Acevedo, Anadarko Petroleum; Katherine Carmichael, Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association; Teddy Carter, Devon Energy; Stan Casey, Concho Resources; Tricia Davis, Texas Royalty Council; Mark Gipson, Pioneer Natural Resources; Mark Harmon, Chesapeake Energy; Ed Longanecker, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association; Greg Macksood, PDC Energy; Ben Sebree, Permian Basin Petroleum Association; Todd Staples, Texas Oil and Gas Association; Bill Stevens, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers; Julie Williams, Chevron; Christina Wisdom, Occidental Petroleum Corporation)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Michael Pacheco, Texas Farm Bureau)
On — David Millikan, Texas Department of Transportation
BACKGROUND: Transportation Code, sec. 222.1071 establishes procedures for the creation of a county energy transportation reinvestment zone (CETRZ), which allows a county to establish an account that captures revenue from increases in property tax revenues in specific areas and is dedicated to transportation infrastructure projects in those areas. Sec. 222.110 allows any incremental increase in county sales tax collections to be directed to a
- 48 - SB 1305 House Research Organization page 2
CETRZ account.
Attorney general opinions GA-0981 and KP-0004 state that Texas Constitution Art. 8, sec. 1(a), which requires taxation to be equal and uniform, would likely cause a court to conclude that a county cannot dedicate certain property taxes to a specific zone through the use of a CETRZ.
In 2015, HB 4025 by Keffer was vetoed by the governor. The bill would have allowed money from a CETRZ to be used for any transportation project in the county, rather than only projects in the zone.
DIGEST: SB 1305 would repeal the statutory authority for a county to create a county energy transportation reinvestment zone, along with the authority to dedicate increments in property and sales tax collections to projects in those zones.
The bill would make conforming changes to amend the application requirements, distribution formulas, and reporting requirements for grants from the Transportation Infrastructure Fund.
This bill would take effect December 31, 2017, and would not affect the validity of bonds issued before that date or the amount of any tax rate beginning in the 2018 tax year.
SUPPORTERS SB 1305 would repeal a program that has resulted in pending litigation SAY: and potential financial liability for counties that have taken advantage of it. According to several attorney general opinions over the years, using tax increments to fund county energy transportation reinvestment zones could be unconstitutional, violating Art. 8, sec. 1(a) of the Texas Constitution. If counties continue to operate energy transportation reinvestment zones, they could be subject to large financial liabilities. Current litigation involving one county asks that it refund large amounts of property tax revenue collected while a county energy transportation reinvestment zone (CETRZ) was in operation on the basis that it was not collected equitably or uniformly.
While securing transportation funding for areas damaged by oil and gas - 49 - SB 1305 House Research Organization page 3
development is a worthy cause, past attempts to remedy concerns about the constitutionality of CETRZs have been vetoed by the governor on the grounds that they were still unconstitutional, so the Legislature should instead focus its efforts on finding alternatives. Additionally, the bill would maintain state assistance for counties through grants from the Transportation Infrastructure Fund so that counties would not have to bear the full burden of maintaining local roads.
OPPONENTS CETRZs are not unconstitutional, and SB 1305 unnecessarily would SAY: eliminate an important tool that counties need to offset damage to county roads caused by oil and gas development. No final decision as to the constitutionality of CETRZ has been made, as attorney general opinions are not binding. Moreover, even if a court were to rule them unconstitutional, there could be ways to amend the program to make it consistent with Art. 8, sec. 1(a) of the Texas Constitution.
Heavy trucks and construction equipment cause roads to break down quickly, and funds from the State Highway Fund cannot go to county road maintenance. The Legislature should find a replacement for CETRZs before repealing county authority to establish them.
NOTES: The companion bill, HB 2813 by Darby, was left pending in the House Energy Resources Committee on April 10.
- 50 - HOUSE SB 42 RESEARCH Zaffirini (Smithee), et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (CSSB 42 by Smithee)
SUBJECT: Creating certain court security measures, establishing a filing fee
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — committee substitute recommended
VOTE: 8 ayes — Smithee, Farrar, Gutierrez, Laubenberg, Murr, Neave, Rinaldi, Schofield
0 nays
1 absent — Hernandez
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 4 — 26-5 (Burton, Hall, Huffines, Nichols, V. Taylor)
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 1487: For — Bill Gravell and Bobby Gutierrez, Justices of the Peace and Constables Association; Richard Carter; Randy Harris; Julie Kocurek; (Registered, but did not testify: Carlos Lopez and Jama Pantel, Justices of the Peace and Constables Association; Amy Bresnen, Texas Family Law Foundation; Randall Chapman, Texas Legal Services Center; John (Lin) McCraw, Texas Trial Lawyers Association)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Ashley Nystrom, City of Waco)
On — Shannon Edmonds, Texas District and County Attorneys Association; Nathan Hecht and David Slayton, Texas Judicial Council; Allen Place, Texas Land Title Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Drue Farmer, Office of Court Administration; Gretchen Grigsby, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement)
DIGEST: CSSB 42 would establish a court security committee, a civil action filing fee, and a court security training program, and would make certain information classified or exempt from the Public Information Act.
Court security committee. The bill would require a presiding or municipal judge to establish a court security committee composed of:
- 51 - SB 42 House Research Organization page 2
the presiding or municipal judge, or the judge's designee; a representative of the law enforcement agency providing primary security for the court; a representative of the municipality; and any other person necessary to assist the committee.
The committee would establish the policies and procedures necessary to provide adequate security to the municipal courts served by the judge. The committee could make recommendations for uses of resources and expenditures for courthouse security to the municipality, but could not assign those resources or expenditures.
Additional filing fee. In addition to other fees, the clerk of a district court, county court, statutory county court, statutory probate court, or justice court would collect a $5 fee on the filing of any civil action or proceeding requiring a filing fee. A court could waive payment of this fee for an indigent individual.
The comptroller would deposit fees to the credit of the judicial and court personnel training fund. Money spent from these fees would be subject to state audit.
Court security certification. The bill would require a constable, sheriff, sheriff's deputy, municipal peace officer, or other person to hold a court security certification to serve as a court security officer for an appellate, district, statutory county, county, municipal, or justice court.
A court security officer would not be required to hold a certification before the first anniversary of the date the officer began providing security for the court.
Court security training program. The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement would be required to consult with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) of the Texas Judicial System to develop a model court security curriculum for court security officers. The commission would issue a certificate to each court security officer who completed the training program. - 52 - SB 42 House Research Organization page 3
The Legislature would be required to appropriate funds from the judicial and court personnel training fund to provide for court security training programs for individuals responsible for providing court security. The court of criminal appeals also would be required to grant legal funds to statewide professional associations and other entities that trained individuals providing court security.
Judicial security division. OCA would be required to establish a judicial security division to provide guidance to state court personnel on improving security for each court. The OCA would appoint a director of security and emergency preparedness to oversee the division.
The judicial security division would serve as a central resource for information on best practices for court security, provide an expert opinion on technical aspects of security, and provide training on recent court security improvements.
The bill would require the director of the division to develop a procedure to regularly notify county registrars, the Department of Public Safety, the Texas Ethics Commission, and any other state agency of the judges, judges' spouses, and related family members whose personal information would have to be kept from public records.
Public records exemptions. The bill would exempt certain information from the Public Information Act, including the home address, phone number, emergency contact information, or Social Security number of a current or former federal or state judge, a judge's spouse, or a current or former district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney whose jurisdiction included criminal law or child protective services.
The personally identifying information of a federal judge, state judge, or judge's spouse also would be confidential or omitted from:
a financial statement submitted by the Texas Ethics Commission, on receiving notice from OCA of a judge's qualification; a voter registration form; a deed or deed of trust, on receiving a written request; - 53 - SB 42 House Research Organization page 4
a tax appraisal record; and a driver's license, under certain DPS procedures.
A registered district voter could request that the registrar certify the judge lives in the district, but the registrar could not release the address of the judge.
Policy deadlines and effective date. Applicable state agencies, county clerks, registrars, and other county officials would be required to establish policies and procedures to comply with this bill no later than January 1, 2018.
As soon as practicable after the effective date of this bill, OCA would have to establish the judicial security division and each judge would have to establish a court security committee.
A person serving as a court security officer on the effective date of this bill would not be required to receive a court security certification before September 1, 2019.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
SUPPORTERS CSSB 42 would implement necessary court safety practices and create a SAY: funding mechanism for a security training program. An Office of Court Administration survey revealed that nearly two-thirds of judges in the state do not know of, or do not have, a court security plan. Considering recent violent incidents, such as the assassination attempt against a Travis County district court judge at her home in 2015, court security is imperative to protect judges, employees, and citizens.
The bill also would make the personally identifying information of judges and judges' spouses confidential on certain tax, voter registration, deed, and other forms, helping to ensure the safety of these individuals.
The bill would work with existing staff and resources, and would add only one new statewide position: the director of security and emergency preparedness. Further, while law enforcement officers do undergo extensive training, it is unrelated to providing security specifically in a - 54 - SB 42 House Research Organization page 5
courthouse.
The $5 filing fee for civil cases would pay for court security training and ensure that the weight of this requirement did not fall entirely on the local community. The fee also could be waived if the person was indigent or cannot afford it.
OPPONENTS CSSB 42 would create unnecessary new requirements and programs for SAY: court security, which could be achieved with existing infrastructure. There is no need to create another training program for law enforcement officers who already attend extensive training programs.
The bill also would impose a burdensome fee on every civil action filed. This fee would create another barrier for individuals who wish to bring a suit to court.
NOTES: Fiscal note. According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, CSSB 42 would have a general revenue related cost of $242,196 in fiscal 2018-19 to pay for salary and other expenses associated with the new director of security and emergency preparedness. The civil filing fee in the bill would result in an estimated gain of $10 million to the general revenue dedicated Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund 540 in fiscal 2018-19. The bill would make no appropriation, but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement its provisions.
According to the Office of Court Administration, local governments might incur costs associated with court security requirements of the bill. The potential costs are unknown and could vary among jurisdictions.
Comparison. CSSB 42 differs from the Senate-passed version of the bill in that the committee substitute would include the judge of a statutory probate court in the definition of "state judge" in provisions of the Public Information Act and the Election Code.
Companion. A companion bill, HB 1487 by Smithee, was left pending in the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee following a public hearing on March 14.
- 55 - HOUSE SB 533 RESEARCH Nelson ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Geren)
SUBJECT: Requirements, oversight of state agency contracting and procurement
COMMITTEE: Appropriations — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 23 ayes — Zerwas, Longoria, G. Bonnen, Capriglione, Cosper, S. Davis, Dean, Giddings, Gonzales, González, Howard, Koop, Miller, Muñoz, Phelan, Raney, Roberts, J. Rodriguez, Rose, Sheffield, Simmons, VanDeaver, Wu
0 nays
4 absent — Ashby, Dukes, Perez, Walle
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 20 — 31-0
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 3659: For — Nora Belcher; Texas e-Health Alliance; Caroline Joiner, TechNet
Against — None
On — Todd Kimbriel, Department of Information Resources; Bobby Pounds, Comptroller of Public Accounts
BACKGROUND: Government Code, sec. 2054.158 establishes the quality assurance team composed of the state auditor, the Legislative Budget Board, and the Department of Information Resources. The team is required to develop and recommend policies and procedures to improve state agency information resources technology projects and to improve the implementation of those projects.
Government Code, ch. 2262 governs statewide contract management. Sec. 2262.101 creates the state's Contract Advisory Team to assist state agencies in improving contact management practices. The team reviews solicitation documents and contract documents for contracts of at least $10 million and reviews finding or recommendations from the state auditor about an agency's compliance with the state's contract management guide. The six-member team is composed of representatives
- 56 - SB 533 House Research Organization page 2
from certain state agencies and the offices of the comptroller and the governor. Government Code, sec. 2262.051 governs the development of a contract management guide for state agencies and requires agencies to comply with it.
DIGEST: SB 533 would revise statutes related to state contracting and oversight of those contracts.
Chief procurement officer. The comptroller would be required to employ a chief procurement officer for the state. The officer would have authority over state agency procurement, including analyzing purchasing data to leverage state purchasing power and providing support and training to state agencies. The officer also could review major contract solicitations for information technology projects monitored by the quality assurance team (QAT) and would be required to make recommendations to the comptroller and Legislature based on the review. The officer also could review solicitations for major contracts reviewed by the Contract Advisory Team (CAT) and delegate to state agencies authority to contract for purchases in an amount specified by comptroller rule.
Department of Information Resources, legislative oversight. At the direction of the governor, lieutenant governor, or House speaker, the Department of Information Resources (DIR) would provide additional oversight of major information resource projects. The QAT's authority to recommend major projects for department oversight would be eliminated. DIR would receive authority to contract with a vendor to provide necessary oversight.
Quality assurance team. The bill would add the comptroller to the QAT and change the role of the state auditor to that of an advisor. The QAT would be required to create an automated project review system, and its duties would be expanded to include providing annual training for state agency procurement and contract management staff on contracting best practices.
CAT reviews, membership. SB 533 would lower from $10 million or more to $5 million or more the threshold for the value of contracts for which the CAT reviews and makes recommendations on solicitation and - 57 - SB 533 House Research Organization page 3 contract documents.
The chief procurement officer established by the bill would be able to add members from state agencies to the CAT.
DIR cooperative contracts program. SB 533 would raise the cap on purchases of IT hardware, software, and services that agencies could obtain through DIR's cooperative contract program from $1 million to $5 million.
The bill would revise the thresholds used to trigger the number of requests for pricing that agencies would have to obtain from vendors on DIR's cooperative contract list. Requests for prices from at least three vendors would be required on contracts that were valued at more than $50,000 through $1 million, rather than up to $150,000 under current law. The bill would require requests for prices from at least six vendors on contracts that were valued at more than $1 million through $5 million, rather than more than $150,000 through $1 million under current law. Agencies could continue to award contracts of $50,000 or less to a vendor on DIR's list without asking for other bids.
Vendor, employee interaction. The bill would require the comptroller to update the contract management guide with policies for interactions between state employees and vendors. It would not prohibit the exchange of information between agencies and vendors about future contracts or in monitoring current contracts.
Conflicts of interest. The current requirement for state employees and officials involved in procurement or contract management to disclose potential conflicts of interest specified by law or agency policy would apply to potential conflicts of interest that occurred any time during the procurement process or the term of the contract. Contracts of $25,000 or less solicited through purchase orders would be exempt from these conflict of interest provisions.
Posting requirements. The bill would exempt contracts posted on the Legislative Budget Board's major contracts database from the current requirement that information about state agency contracts be posted on the - 58 - SB 533 House Research Organization page 4
internet. If an agency did post a contract on its website, it could not post information made confidential by law, information the attorney general determined was exempt from the Public Information Act, or Social Security numbers.
Other provisions. The bill would add other provisions related to state contracting.
Architectural assessment. State agencies would be required to prepare a technical architectural assessment for each proposed major information resources project or major contact.
Project plans. State agency contracts for major information resources projects would have to comply with the comptroller's contract management guide.
Interstate purchasing. The comptroller would be authorized to enter into agreements to allow other state agencies and political subdivisions of other states to buy goods or services through comptroller contracts.
TEA, regional education service centers. The Texas Education Agency would be required to follow the state contract management guide for contracts with regional education service centers.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply only to contracts for which a state agency first advertised or otherwise solicited bids, proposals, offers, or qualifications on or after that date.
SUPPORTERS SB 533 would strengthen and clarify revisions to state contracting enacted SAY: by the 84th Legislature through SB 20 by Nelson. The bill would address issues that have come to light as SB 20 has been implemented and would help ensure that state contracting was transparent, accountable, and competitive.
The bill would establish the position of state procurement officer to help the comptroller continue to coordinate agency contracting and ensure the state obtained the best value when state agencies used contracts. The position would not expand the comptroller's contracting authority but - 59 - SB 533 House Research Organization page 5 rather would outline the office's current authority under one position. It would not alter the role of DIR or other agencies over certain types of contracts.
SB 533 would address concerns from state agencies and vendors that the current cap on the purchase of software, hardware, and technology services through DIR's cooperative contract program is too low and hinders the ability to use the program. Under cooperative contracts, DIR negotiates with vendors to obtain the best value for the state and maintains a list from which agencies make purchases. With the current cap at $1 million, some routine contracts such as word processing software for employees at a large agency can exceed the cap and require the agency to undertake the full competitive contract process for the purchase. In some cases, agencies might decide to make a purchase through another type of contract that has less oversight, such as a time and materials contract. By raising the cap from $1 million to $5 million, the bill would allow and encourage the use of cooperative contracts, which are subject to a high degree of oversight and offer good value for the state.
This change in the cap would be coupled with a lowering of the oversight threshold for contracts that the CAT reviews from $10 million to $5 million, closing a gap in oversight that exists under current law.
SB 533 would address a problem that arose after the 2015 contracting revisions, which led some state agencies to interpret the rules on interacting with vendors differently than other state agencies. The bill would make clear that the exchange of information between agencies and vendors was allowed and would establish uniform guidelines for all agencies by requiring the comptroller to update the contract management guide with polices to guide those interactions.
Other changes in SB 533 would ensure that the governor, lieutenant governor, and House speaker could direct oversight of major information resource projects and that best practices were followed by state agencies. The bill would prohibit the posting of sensitive information online, require the observance of conflict-of-interest provisions throughout a contract, and facilitate better tracking of the progress of major information technology projects through technical assessments. - 60 - SB 533 House Research Organization page 6
OPPONENTS No apparent opposition. SAY:
NOTES: According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, the bill would cost $574,000 in general revenue related funds in fiscal 2018-19 through the addition of three FTEs in the comptroller's office.
A companion bill, HB 3659 by Geren, was left pending following a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee on April 17.
- 61 - HOUSE SB 667 RESEARCH Zaffirini, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Smithee)
SUBJECT: Establishing a guardianship compliance and monitoring program
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 8 ayes — Smithee, Farrar, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Laubenberg, Neave, Rinaldi, Schofield
0 nays
1 absent — Murr
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 3 — 30-1 (Huffines)
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 3631: For — Terry Hammond, Texas Guardianship Association; (Registered, but did not testify: Tim Morstad, AARP; Kyle Piccola, the Arc of Texas, Jeff Miller, Disability Rights Texas; Debby Salinas Valdez, Elderly People of Disabilities, Belinda Carlton, Guardianship Reform and Supported Decision-Making Workgroup; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers - Texas Chapter; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness - Texas; Linda Litzinger)
Against — None
On — David Slayton, Texas Judicial Council, Office of Court Administration
BACKGROUND: The 84th Texas Legislature in 2015 provided funding for the Office of Court Administration to establish the Guardianship Compliance Project pilot program. Current funding is through August 2017.
Estates Code, ch. 1163 requires guardians of the estate of a ward to file detailed annual financial and property accounting.
DIGEST: SB 667 would require the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to establish and maintain a Guardianship Compliance Program. The program
- 62 - SB 667 House Research Organization page 2 would provide resources and assistance to courts handling guardianship cases by engaging guardianship compliance specialists and by maintaining an electronic database to monitor the required filings and annual reports by guardians.
Under the program, the guardianship compliance specialists would be required to:
review guardianships and identify reporting deficiencies; audit required annual filings; coordinate with courts to develop best practices in managing guardianship cases; and report to the appropriate court any concerns relating to a ward's well-being or to the existence of potential financial exploitation.
Courts would participate in the program in one of two ways, either by OCA choosing them to participate or by applying. If OCA chose a court, it would be required to participate. If a participating court acted, or failed to act, on a guardian compliance specialist's report of concern and the office had reason to believe that such action, or non-action, was judicial misconduct, the OCA's administrative director could notify the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The bill would require OCA to submit a performance report on the program to the Legislature by January 1 of each year, which would include:
the number of courts involved in the program and the number of guardianships reviewed; the number of guardianships found to be out of statutory compliance; the number of cases reported to a court because of concerns about ward well-being or potential financial exploitation; and the status of monitoring technology developed for the program.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017.
- 63 - SB 667 House Research Organization page 3
SUPPORTERS SB 667 would implement a 2016 recommendation of the Texas Judicial SAY: Council's Elders Committee to expand the Office of Court Administration's (OCA's) Guardianship Compliance Project to cover more of the 244 counties without statutory probate courts. OCA's pilot program revealed deficiencies in courts without sufficient resources to effectively monitor guardianship cases.
By expanding the program, the bill would help protect a growing population of vulnerable Texans. Currently, guardians in Texas manage about $5 billion in assets. Only 10 counties have statutory probate judges who are specialists in the Estates Code and guardianship filings. In the remaining counties, most courts cannot afford to hire staff dedicated to guardianship cases and may not have expertise in such matters.
Making the program available to more courts across the state would provide resources and assistance to judges in overseeing a guardian's compliance with statutory requirements and would bring attention and expert technical assistance to situations as needed.
OPPONENTS SB 667 would create an unnecessary layer of government and a new SAY: bureaucratic entity that would require a diversion of resources. Guardianship issues can be settled between the court and the guardians.
NOTES: The Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note estimates SB 667 would have a negative impact to general revenue related funds of $7.2 million through fiscal 2018-19 in staffing costs to implement the program.
A companion bill, HB 3631 by Smithee, was considered in a public hearing of the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence on May 2 and left pending.
- 64 - HOUSE SB 1367 RESEARCH Menéndez, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Howard)
SUBJECT: Authorizing epinephrine auto-injectors at institutions of higher education
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 7 ayes — Lozano, Raney, Alonzo, Clardy, Howard, Morrison, Turner
0 nays
2 absent — Alvarado, Button
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, May 1 — 31-0
WITNESSES: On House companion, HB 3851: For — Susan Tharp, San Antonio Food Allergy Support Team; (Registered, but did not testify: Troy Alexander, Texas Medical Association; Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Tom Banning, Texas Academy of Family Physicians; Andrew Cates, Texas Nurses Association; Dwight Harris, Texas AFT; Dustin Meador, Texas Association of Community Colleges; Paul Townsend, Children's Hospital Association of Texas; Clayton Travis, Texas Pediatric Society; Rebecca Tharp; Belinda Vadca)
Against — (Registered, but did not testify: Adam Cahn, Cahnman's Musings)
On — (Registered, but did not testify: David Auzenne, Department of State Health Services; Rex Peebles, Higher Education Coordinating Board)
BACKGROUND: Education Code, ch. 38, subch. E defines a epinephrine auto-injector as a disposable medical drug delivery device that contains a premeasured single dose of epinephrine that is intended to be used to treat anaphylaxis.
DIGEST: SB 1367 would authorize institutions of higher education to adopt and implement a policy for the maintenance, storage, administration, and disposal of epinephrine auto-injectors on campuses. The policy would require that personnel or volunteers who were authorized and trained be
- 65 - SB 1367 House Research Organization page 2 allowed to administer an epinephrine auto-injector to a person who was believed to be experiencing anaphylaxis on campus. The policy could allow for those personnel or volunteers to perform the same service for a person in shock at an off-campus event or while in transit to an off- campus event sponsored by the institution.
After consulting with an advisory committee on the administration of epinephrine auto-injectors established by the bill, the commissioner of state health services would be required to adopt rules on their maintenance, storage, administration, and disposal to include:
the number of epinephrine auto-injectors available at each campus; the process to check the inventory of epinephrine auto-injectors for expiration and replacement; and the amount of training required for personnel or volunteers to administer an epinephrine auto-injector.
The supply of epinephrine auto-injectors on campus would have to be stored in a secure location and accessible to authorized and trained personnel or volunteers. The bill also would require an institution to issue a report within 10 days of the administration of an epinephrine auto- injector to the physician who prescribed the epinephrine auto-injector and the commissioner of state health services. The report would be required to include:
the age of the person who was administered the epinephrine; whether the person who received the epinephrine shot was a student, a personnel member, or a visitor; the physical location where the epinephrine auto-injector was administered; the number of doses of epinephrine auto-injector administered; the title of the person who administered the epinephrine auto- injector; and any other information required by the commissioner of state health services.
The bill would require an institution that adopted a policy on
- 66 - SB 1367 House Research Organization page 3
administering an epinephrine auto-injector to have personnel or volunteers who were authorized and trained for that purpose. Institutions would have to provide annual training in a formal session or through online education on:
recognizing the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis; administering an epinephrine auto-injector; implementing emergency procedures, if necessary, after administering an epinephrine auto-injector; and properly disposing of used or expired epinephrine auto-injectors.
The bill would authorize a physician to prescribe epinephrine auto- injectors in the name of the institution and provide a standing order to administer the epinephrine auto-injectors that was not patient-specific and not covered by an established physician-patient relationship. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to dispense epinephrine auto-injectors without requiring information about the user.
A person who in good faith acted or failed to act under the bill's provisions would be provided immunity from civil or criminal liability or disciplinary action.
The commissioner of state health services would be required to adopt rules for the implementation of the provisions contained in the bill. An institution could accept gifts, grants, donations, and federal funds for the maintenance, storage, administration, and disposal of epinephrine auto- injectors on campus.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply beginning in the 2018 spring semester.
SUPPORTERS SB 1367 would allow institutions of higher education to adopt policies for SAY: epinephrine auto-injectors, which are already in use at public schools. This would allow for the administration of life-saving medication to individuals experiencing anaphylactic shock on college campuses and at related events.
Anaphylaxis occurs in some people as a reaction to certain triggers, - 67 - SB 1367 House Research Organization page 4
including food allergies or insect stings, which can leave affected individuals unable to breathe, leading to death. The administration of epinephrine can reverse the effects of anaphylaxis, and an epinephrine auto-injector in the hands of a trained individual can save the life of someone in shock who might otherwise die before the arrival of emergency medical services. This bill would give authorized staff and volunteers at institutions of higher education the tools to prevent some of these needless deaths.
OPPONENTS No apparent opposition. SAY:
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 3851 by Howard, was reported favorably by the House Committee on Higher Education and placed on the General State Calendar for May 8.
- 68 - HOUSE SB 2082 RESEARCH L. Taylor ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Clardy, J. Johnson)
SUBJECT: Expanding student roles under Work-Study Student Mentorship Program
COMMITTEE: Higher Education — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 6 ayes — Lozano, Raney, Alonzo, Alvarado, Button, Morrison
0 nays
3 absent — Clardy, Howard, Turner
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, May 4 — 31-0, on Local and Uncontested Calendar
WITNESSES: On House companion bill, HB 796: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Yannis Banks, Texas NAACP; Miranda Goodsheller, Texas Association of Business; Mike Meroney, Texas Workforce Coalition, BASF Corp., Huntsman Corp.; Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders; Stephanie Simpson, Texas Association of Manufacturers; Annie Spilman, National Federation of Independent Business/Texas; Stewart, ACC Mobility RN Program; Michael White, Texas Construction Association; Justin Yancy, Texas Business Leadership Council)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Rex Peebles, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board)
BACKGROUND: Education Code, sec. 56.079 requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to administer the Work-Study Student Mentorship Program, which allows college students enrolled at eligible institutions to be employed in a work-study program to mentor high school students or counsel them in centers designed to improve access to higher education.
DIGEST: SB 2082 would allow a college student employed in the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Work-Study Student Mentorship program to work to support student interventions at eligible institutions that were focused on increasing completion of degrees or certificates, such as
- 69 - SB 2082 House Research Organization page 2
interventions occurring through advising or supplemental instruction.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2017.
SUPPORTERS SB 2082 would help the state achieve the goals of its 60x30 Texas plan, SAY: which aims to have 60 percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 attain a degree or certificate by 2030. The bill would do this by expanding the possible roles of students participating in the state's Work-Study Student Mentorship Program to include supporting interventions focused on increasing the completion of degrees and certificates.
Allowing participants in the Work-Study Student Mentorship Program to support interventions such as advising and supplemental instruction would contribute to the development of an educated workforce that could meet the needs of businesses and spur economic growth in the state. Enlisting students to help their peers would be a cost-effective way to promote the completion of post-secondary education.
Although current law does not prohibit these types of mentorship programs, SB 2082 would help to align best practices among the state's colleges and universities by creating a statutory framework for institutions to employ work-study students for interventions to increase degree or certificate completion.
OPPONENTS SB 2082 unnecessarily would authorize educational institutions to create SAY: peer mentoring programs focused on helping students complete degrees and certificates. Statute currently does not prevent creation of these programs, and certain institutions already have them in place.
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 796 by Clardy, was withdrawn from the Local, Consent, and Resolutions Calendar on May 9.
- 70 - HOUSE SB 2087 RESEARCH Hancock ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Phillips)
SUBJECT: Creating a temporary health insurance risk pool
COMMITTEE: Insurance — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 8 ayes — Phillips, Muñoz, R. Anderson, Gooden, Oliverson, Paul, Turner, Vo
0 nays
1 absent — Sanford
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 26 — 31-0 on Local and Uncontested Calendar
WITNESSES: On House companion, HB 3226: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Patricia Kolodzey, Blue Cross Blue Shield; Amanda Martin, Texas Association of Business; Jamie Dudensing, Texas Association of Health Plans; Lee Manross, Texas Association of Health Underwriters; Becky Parker; Lacci)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Nancy Clark, Doug Danzeiser, and Anthony Infantini, Texas Department of Insurance)
BACKGROUND: SB 1367 by Duncan, enacted by the 83rd Legislature in 2013, dissolved the Texas Health Insurance Pool. In the years preceding the implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the pool had served as a health insurer of last resort for Texans who, due to medical conditions, were unable to obtain coverage through the private health insurance market.
DIGEST: SB 2087 would allow the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, if federal funds became available, to apply for such funds and use them to establish and administer a temporary health insurance risk pool. Its exclusive purpose would be to provide a temporary mechanism for maximizing available federal funding to assist Texas residents in obtaining access to quality health care at a minimum cost to the public. The pool could not be
- 71 - SB 2087 House Research Organization page 2 used to expand the state's Medicaid program, including Medicaid managed care.
Subject to federal requirements, the bill would allow the commissioner to use pool funds to provide:
alternative individual health insurance coverage to eligible individuals that did not diminish the availability of traditional commercial health care coverage; funding to individual health benefit plan issuers that cover those with certain health or cost characteristics in exchange for lower enrollee premiums; or a reinsurance program for health plan issuers in the individual market in exchange for lower enrollee premiums.
The commissioner could enter into an appropriate contract or agreement with a similar pool in another state for joint administrative functions, another organization for administrative functions, or a federal agency. The commissioner could contract for stop-loss insurance for risks incurred by uses of pool funds.
The bill would prohibit the commissioner from using state funds to fund the pool unless funds were specifically appropriated for that purpose. Federal funds could be used for administration.
Notwithstanding SB 1367, which abolished the Texas Health Insurance Pool in 2013, the commissioner could use funds appropriated to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) from the Healthy Texas Small Employer Premium Stabilization Fund (PSF) to fund the pool under the bill, except for paying salaries and salary-related benefits. The commissioner would be required to transfer an equal amount from the PSF to TDI to pay the direct and indirect costs of the pool. The commissioner also would transfer any money remaining outside the state treasury in the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company account established by SB 1367 to the PSF on the effective date of the bill.
The commissioner could use funds appropriated to TDI to develop and implement public education, outreach, and facilitated enrollment strategies - 72 - SB 2087 House Research Organization page 3
for the exclusive purpose of implementing the bill's provisions. The commissioner could contract with marketing organizations for this purpose.
The bill would allow the commissioner of insurance to apply for a state innovation waiver of applicable provisions of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and any applicable regulations or guidance with respect to health insurance coverage in Texas for a plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2017. The commissioner could take any action he or she considered appropriate for the application. The bill would authorize the commissioner to implement a state plan that met the requirements of a granted ACA state innovation waiver if the plan was consistent with state and federal law and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Any other law notwithstanding, a program created by the bill would not be subject to any state tax, regulatory fee, or surcharge, including a premium or maintenance tax or fee.
The commissioner could adopt necessary rules to implement the bill's provisions, including rules to administer the pool and distribute its money. In implementing the bill, the commissioner also could exercise any authority that could be exercised under Texas law by a reinsurer or a health benefit plan issuer authorized to write health benefit plans in Texas.
Beginning June 1, 2018, TDI would submit a report to the governor, lieutenant governor, and House speaker summarizing risk pool-related activities conducted in the previous year, as well as information relating to net written and earned premiums, plan enrollment, administration expenses, and paid and incurred losses.
This bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2017, and would expire August 31, 2019.
SUPPORTERS SB 2087 would provide flexibility for Texas to reconstitute the state's SAY: former high-risk health insurance pool or to implement another option using federal funds if the federal Affordable Care Act were reformed or - 73 - SB 2087 House Research Organization page 4
abolished.
The bill appropriately would prohibit pool funds from being used to expand Medicaid. No state funds could be used for the pool unless they were specifically appropriated for that purpose.
The bill would allow the Commissioner of Insurance to use pool funds to provide alternative individual health insurance coverage to eligible individuals, to provide funding to individual health benefit plan insurers covering individuals with certain characteristics in exchange for lower individual health premiums, or to provide a reinsurance program for carriers in the individual market in exchange for lower health plan premium rates. The alternative individual health coverage allowed under the bill would not diminish the availability of traditional commercial health care coverage.
SB 2087 would not give preference to one use of pool funds over another and would allow the implementation of a reinsurance option if needed.
The bill would give the commissioner the option to reinstate the pool or another option only if federal dollars were available and if it was a good deal for Texans. If the commissioner decided to reinstate the high-risk pool, there would be no cost to Texas taxpayers, because that cost had already been paid by taxpayers to the federal government. The high-risk pool as it existed before 2013 was an insurer of last resort and only for those who had preexisting conditions and could not get health insurance on the private market.
OPPONENTS SB 2087 should use federal funds, if necessary, to develop a reinsurance SAY: option that would cost significantly less for patients instead of reinstituting the former Texas Health Insurance Pool. A reinsurance program would work by backstopping insurers' claims on the individual market. This would be preferable to restarting the dissolved Texas Health Insurance Pool, which was a segregated high-risk insurance pool that offered costly insurance.
Health insurance already is available on the private market and there is no need for a high-risk pool to be reinstated as it could be under the bill. A - 74 - SB 2087 House Research Organization page 5
government-administered insurance program, even one with higher premiums than available plans on the private market, could distort Texas' insurance market. Any federal funds used to reinstate the pool also could come with strings attached, which might make it a bad deal for Texans.
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 3226 by Phillips, was approved by the House on May 2.
- 75 - HOUSE SB 74 RESEARCH Nelson, et al. ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Price)
SUBJECT: Adjusting contract requirements for providers in Medicaid MCO networks
COMMITTEE: Public Health — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — Price, Sheffield, Arévalo, Coleman, Collier, Cortez, Guerra, Klick, Oliverson
0 nays
2 absent — Burkett, Zedler
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 3 — 31-0, on Local and Uncontested Calendar
WITNESSES: For — Michelle Harper, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute; (Registered, but did not testify: Liz Garbutt, Children's Defense Fund- Texas; Paul Townsend, Children's Hospital Association of Texas; Gyl Switzer, Mental Health America of Texas; Sebastien Laroche, Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.; Greg Hansch, National Alliance on Mental Illness-Texas; Will Francis, National Association of Social Workers-Texas Chapter; Marita Rafael and Judy Vanderheiden, NCMS; Mark Mendez, Tarrant County; Katie Olse, Texas Alliance of Child and Family Services; Amanda Martin, Texas Association of Business; Rick Thompson, Texas Association of Counties; Jamie Dudensing, Texas Association of Health Plans; Sarah Crockett, Texas CASA; Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties; Lee Johnson, Texas Council of Community Centers; Joel Ballew, Texas Health Resources; Sara Gonzalez, Texas Hospital Association; Pamela McPeters, TexProtects (Texas Association for the Protection Children); Aidan Utzman, United Ways of Texas; Knox Kimberly, Upbring; Aman Patel)
Against — None
On — (Registered, but did not testify: Robert Dole, Michelle Erwin, and Tamela Griffin, Health and Human Services Commission; Monica Thyssen, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute)
BACKGROUND: Government Code, sec. 533.00255 requires the Health and Human
- 76 - SB 74 House Research Organization page 2
Services Commission to integrate behavioral health services, including physical health services and targeted case management and psychiatric rehabilitation services, into Medicaid managed care. A Medicaid managed care organization must develop a network of public and private behavioral health service providers to ensure children and adults have access to these services.
DIGEST: SB 74 would allow a behavioral health services provider in the network of a Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) to provide targeted case management and psychiatric rehabilitative services to children, adolescents, and their families. The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) rules and guidelines relating to contract and training requirements for Medicaid MCO providers that provide targeted case management and psychiatric rehabilitative services would have to pertain to those services.
The bill would prohibit HHSC rules and guidelines for Medicaid MCO behavioral health service providers from mandating that the provider:
offer a behavioral health crisis hotline or a 24/7 mobile crisis team; provide less intensive psychiatric rehabilitative services to children, adolescents, and their families if the provider had a referral arrangement for those services; or provide services not covered under Medicaid.
The HHSC executive commissioner would have to adopt or amend rules and guidelines by January 1, 2018, to implement the bill's provisions.
The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two-thirds record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2017.
SUPPORTERS SB 74 would encourage more providers to enroll as Medicaid managed SAY: care organization behavioral health service providers by clarifying the Health and Human Services Commission contract requirements. Allowing behavioral health service providers to offer targeted case management and psychiatric rehabilitative services for children, adolescents, and their families would address the state's systemic gap in available intensive care - 77 - SB 74 House Research Organization page 3
services, particularly in the foster care system. Expanding behavioral health care access for children and their families would help prevent vulnerable children from entering the juvenile justice system, foster care system, a hospital, or a residential treatment center.
OPPONENTS SB 74 could increase the use of psychotropic medications for children SAY: with mental health issues by expanding targeted case management and psychiatric rehabilitative services for children.
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 1758 by Price, was referred to the House Public Health Committee on March 14.
- 78 - HOUSE SB 511 RESEARCH Rodríguez ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/16/2017 (Wray)
SUBJECT: Allowing for certain notarized designations of guardians
COMMITTEE: Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 7 ayes — Smithee, Farrar, Gutierrez, Murr, Neave, Rinaldi, Schofield
0 nays
2 absent — Hernandez, Laubenberg
SENATE VOTE: On final passage, April 19 — 31-0 on Local and Uncontested Calendar
WITNESSES: On House companion, HB 1022: For — Lora Davis, State Bar of Texas Real Estate-Probate and Trust Law Section; (Registered, but did not testify: Craig Hopper, Glenn Karisch, Jeffrey Myers, Donald Totusek, and Melissa Willms, State Bar of Texas Real Estate-Probate and Trust Law Section; Guy Herman, Statutory Probate Courts of Texas; Reginald Smith, Communities for Recovery; Maria Castillo; Winkie Myers)
Against — None
BACKGROUND: Estates Code, sec. 1104.202 allows individuals who are not incapacitated to designate by declaration a person to serve as guardian if the declarant becomes incapacitated. The court is required to appoint a person named in a declaration to serve as guardian unless it finds that the person is disqualified or would not serve the ward's best interest. Under no circumstances may a court appoint a guardian whom the declarant has disqualified in a declaration.
Sec. 1104.203 requires that declarations naming a guardian be signed by the declarant, written wholly in the declarant's handwriting, and attested to by at least two credible witnesses who are not named as guardians or alternate guardians by the declaration.
DIGEST: SB 511 would add an option for declaring a guardian before the need arises under which a declarant would sign a declaration that could be
- 79 - SB 511 House Research Organization page 2
acknowledged by a notary public instead of being attested to in the declarant's presence by two witnesses. This option would be available only if the declaration did not expressly disqualify any individual from serving as the declarant's guardian.
A declaration to which was attached an optional form for an affidavit, as provided in the bill, would be considered self-proved.
The bill would take effect September 1, 2017, and would apply only to declarations executed on or after that date.
SUPPORTERS SB 511 would allow individuals to avoid the unnecessary expense and SAY: inconvenience of witness attestations for declarations of preferred guardians. This is consistent with an overall trend in estate planning to move away from these types of outdated practices.
A court still would have to appoint a guardian, at which time anyone who contested the validity of the declaration would have the opportunity to object to an individual's appointment. The bill would not affect declarations that disqualified a person from serving as a guardian, which still would require the two-witness attestation.
OPPONENTS SB 511 would remove the gatekeeping effect that the two-witness SAY: requirement has in guardianship declarations that protects against fraud or abuse of vulnerable persons.
NOTES: A companion bill, HB 1022 by Wray, was approved by the House on April 20 on the Local and Consent Calendar.
- 80 -