According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 114 are projected to be minimal for the State of Texas. The proposed transition of the Mental Health Program for Veterans and the Texas Veterans + Family Alliance Grant Program from the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to the Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) is not expected to result in a net cost to General Revenue. The transfer would involve reallocating approximately $27.9 million in General Revenue already appropriated in House Bill 1 for these veteran mental health initiatives​.

More specifically, beginning in fiscal year 2026, $3.956 million annually is expected to fund the Mental Health Program for Veterans, and an additional $10 million annually would go toward the new grant program established by HB 114 to support community mental health services for veterans and their families. These ongoing costs total $13.956 million per fiscal year and would be absorbed entirely by the TVC after the transfer is complete.

The analysis also assumes that HHSC will be able to fulfill any remaining functions and obligations of the bill within its current budget and staffing levels. Importantly, system changes needed for HHSC's Clinical Management for Behavioral Health Services (CMBHS) to track veteran services during the transition are anticipated to be covered by existing resources. Additionally, no significant fiscal impacts are projected for local governments, as the grant program requires non-state matching funds but does not impose unfunded mandates.

In sum, the bill represents a reallocation of funds rather than the introduction of new expenditures, and it is designed to increase efficiency by shifting program control to an agency more directly focused on veterans' needs.

HB 114 presents a well-intentioned and generally sound approach to improving the delivery of mental health services for veterans in Texas. By transferring program oversight from the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to the Texas Veterans Commission (TVC), the bill places veteran-focused care in the hands of an agency that is more mission-aligned and better positioned to understand the unique challenges facing Texas veterans. The bill also directs the development of a statewide suicide prevention action plan, promoting coordination with federal agencies, medical providers, and local veteran organizations. These components reflect a thoughtful and appropriate realignment of existing state responsibilities.

However, while the bill improves administrative focus and responsiveness, the inclusion of a new state-run grant program presents concerns. The program would distribute taxpayer funds to community-based providers, even though those providers are required to contribute matching funds from non-state sources. This approach, while aiming to encourage local investment, still relies on state appropriations and expands the government’s role in funding services that could be better served by the private sector, philanthropic efforts, or voluntary coordination among nonprofits. For those who support limited government and believe in empowering private enterprise without expanding taxpayer obligations, this element of the bill is problematic.

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 114 but also suggest amending the bill as described below. The bill's goals and structure are worthy of support, but the grant funding mechanism should be removed or replaced with a non-monetary support model that aligns with free-market principles. Alternatives could include coordination tools, technical assistance, data-sharing partnerships, or a voluntary registry of providers. This approach retains the bill’s core value—improved support for veterans—while ensuring that the state does not take on new long-term financial commitments or edge out private initiatives with public funding.

In conclusion, HB 114 deserves to move forward, but only with amendments that uphold fiscal responsibility and the principle that government should facilitate, not fund, local and private solutions to veteran mental health challenges.

• Individual Liberty: The bill supports individual liberty by seeking to improve access to mental health care for veterans and their families. By transferring the program to the Texas Veterans Commission—a more focused and mission-aligned agency—the bill enhances veterans' ability to access services that are specifically tailored to their needs. The inclusion of a suicide prevention action plan also prioritizes proactive outreach and individualized support, ensuring that veterans are treated with dignity and not lost in a generalized bureaucracy.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages personal responsibility through its emphasis on community-based, peer-to-peer support and its engagement with nonprofit and local partners. These models support the idea that veterans, their families, and their communities have a role to play in addressing mental health challenges, not just the state. The coordination required by the action plan also encourages shared responsibility across organizations and levels of government.
• Free Enterprise: The bill attempts to engage the private and nonprofit sectors by requiring matching funds from grant recipients, which encourages private investment and partnerships. However, the creation of a state-funded grant program still introduces a publicly subsidized funding mechanism that could disincentivize fully independent, privately funded solutions. In this sense, the bill supports private enterprise participation, but not without some level of government distortion in the market.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not create any new restrictions or burdens on private property rights. It deals strictly with service provision through voluntary grant applications and agency coordination, without affecting ownership, land use, or private transactions.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill draws the most scrutiny. While the agency transfer itself is a move toward limited government—consolidating responsibility within a more appropriate entity—the creation of an ongoing, taxpayer-funded grant program contradicts the principle of a restrained state. Even with matching fund requirements and a cap on administrative costs, the program adds a new function to government that could expand over time. If amended to remove or restructure the grant mechanism, the bill would strongly support limited government.

• HB 4446 (Same As)
• SB 2926 (Same As)