According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 163 is not anticipated to have any fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The analysis indicates that any administrative or compliance responsibilities introduced by the bill—such as changes to policies regarding epinephrine delivery systems—can be absorbed using existing agency resources without requiring additional appropriations.

For local governments, the fiscal impact is similarly minimal. The bill grants permissive authority to entities, including governmental bodies, to adopt policies for maintaining and administering epinephrine devices, but it does not impose any mandates. Because the bill does not require entities to procure or administer epinephrine delivery systems, local governments are not expected to incur significant costs as a result of this legislation.

The fiscal note also reflects input from a variety of state agencies, including the Health and Human Services Commission, Texas Medical Board, and Department of Licensing and Regulation. None of these agencies projected significant financial burden due to the proposed statutory changes. This further reinforces the conclusion that the bill’s implementation will be financially neutral across state and local levels.

HB 163 aims to expand the authority of all entities—including governmental entities—to maintain and administer epinephrine delivery systems such as EpiPens or similar FDA-approved devices. This broader scope, compared to previous law, empowers a wider range of public and private institutions to voluntarily adopt emergency preparedness policies to respond to life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The motivation for the bill is grounded in public safety, with the legislative intent referencing the tragic death of Dillon Mueller and citing the estimated 1,500 annual fatalities due to anaphylaxis.

From a policy and legal standpoint, the bill enhances local discretion and voluntary action without creating new mandates. It explicitly exempts entities already governed by other epinephrine-related statutory requirements, preventing overlap or duplication. Furthermore, it repeals outdated subsections that constrained applicability or excluded governmental entities altogether. These changes reflect a modernization and simplification of the statute, consistent with principles of limited government and regulatory clarity.

The bill also carries no fiscal impact at the state level and no significant burden on local governments, as confirmed in the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note. The permissive nature of the bill ensures that only entities willing and able to adopt such policies do so, avoiding unfunded mandates.

In sum, HB 163 is a liberty-enhancing public health measure that increases community capacity to save lives while preserving institutional autonomy. It aligns with the values of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and limited government and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 163.

• Individual Liberty: The bill empowers a broader range of public and private entities—including businesses, nonprofits, and governmental bodies—to voluntarily adopt policies regarding the maintenance and administration of epinephrine delivery systems. It does not impose mandates or restrictions on individuals or organizations. By expanding voluntary access to potentially life-saving tools, it increases individual and institutional freedom to prepare for anaphylactic emergencies. This respects the rights of individuals to safeguard health in the way they see fit, without government compulsion.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes a framework where institutions may choose to accept responsibility for the safety of people on their premises. It recognizes that those closest to emergency situations—such as school administrators, business owners, or event organizers—are best positioned to respond and should have the discretion to do so. This fosters a culture of preparedness and voluntary stewardship without resorting to regulation.
• Free Enterprise: The permissive structure of the bill avoids burdening small businesses or nonprofits with costly mandates. Businesses can decide for themselves whether to stock epinephrine based on operational needs and liability considerations. This flexibility allows markets to adapt voluntarily to consumer safety concerns without state coercion, consistent with a free-enterprise approach.
• Private Property Rights: By allowing private property owners—including business owners—to voluntarily develop epinephrine response policies, the bill affirms their authority to manage risk and safety measures on their premises. It does not impose obligations or penalties, preserving property owners’ autonomy in determining how best to handle public health contingencies.
• Limited Government: The bill reflects a classic application of limited government principles. It repeals prior statutory provisions that limited which entities could adopt epinephrine policies and instead gives all entities, including governmental ones, the freedom to participate. It also makes clear that entities already subject to other statutory requirements are not encumbered by redundant rules. This de-regulatory approach minimizes state interference and promotes clarity and efficiency in the law.