According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1700 would have no significant fiscal implication to the state. This finding is based on the assumption that any costs associated with implementing the bill’s provisions—particularly the development and adoption of standardized consent documentation rules by regulatory agencies—can be absorbed within existing agency resources.

The agencies likely to be involved in implementing the bill include the Texas Medical Board, Texas State Board of Dental Examiners, Texas Board of Nursing, the Behavioral Health Executive Council, the Texas Optometry Board, and the Department of Licensing and Regulation. Each of these bodies already exercises rulemaking authority over health professionals and has existing infrastructure for updating administrative rules, suggesting that the bill’s directives would not require new appropriations or significant operational changes.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated. Since the bill primarily addresses state-level rulemaking and does not impose mandates on local governments or require new infrastructure or staffing, the legislation is not expected to burden municipalities, counties, or local health authorities.

In summary, HB 1700 represents a policy shift in standardizing telehealth-related consent procedures, but it does so in a way that is administratively manageable within the current fiscal framework, without necessitating additional state or local funding.

HB 1700 addresses a growing need in Texas healthcare policy by requiring regulatory agencies to standardize how patient consent is documented and retained across telemedicine, teledentistry, and telehealth services. The bill arises from concerns identified during the COVID-19 pandemic, where gaps and inconsistencies in consent documentation—particularly in audio-only encounters—created confusion for both providers and patients. By establishing clearer, more uniform expectations for how consent must be captured for treatment, data collection, and data sharing, the bill seeks to improve transparency, enhance patient rights, and support compliance with both state and federal health regulations.

From a liberty-oriented policy perspective, HB 1700 supports individual liberty, personal responsibility, and private property rights by empowering patients to make informed decisions and retain control over their health data. These protections are especially critical in the evolving digital healthcare landscape. However, the bill grants broad rulemaking authority to multiple regulatory agencies without adequate legislative guardrails. This open-ended delegation risks overregulation, particularly for smaller or rural healthcare providers, and raises valid concerns about bureaucratic overreach that challenge the principles of limited government and free enterprise.

Because the core intent of the bill is sound and the concerns are procedural rather than fundamental, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 1700 while also strongly recommending they consider amendments. We acknowledge the bill’s value while calling for essential amendments to protect against unintended consequences. These amendments should include limiting the scope of agency rulemaking, mandating stakeholder consultation, allowing for flexibility for small providers, and requiring inter-agency coordination. With these changes, HB 1700 can become a well-balanced policy that enhances patient protections while preserving market access and institutional accountability.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by ensuring that patients are properly informed and give clear, documented consent before receiving telemedicine, teledentistry, or telehealth services. This is especially important in virtual settings, where traditional, in-person consent practices may not apply or be feasible. By standardizing how consent is captured, particularly in audio-only formats, the bill reinforces a patient’s right to make autonomous, informed decisions about their care and personal health data.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by requiring that patients explicitly consent to treatment, data collection, and data sharing, placing the responsibility on individuals to understand and accept the terms of their care. At the same time, it places responsibility on providers to ensure that consent is properly documented. This mutual accountability helps foster trust and integrity in the delivery of telehealth services.

• Free Enterprise: The bill presents a risk to free enterprise by granting state agencies broad authority to set rules without adequate legislative constraints. This could result in rigid or overly burdensome documentation requirements that disproportionately affect smaller or rural telehealth providers. Such mandates could discourage innovation or limit market access, especially for practices with fewer administrative resources. Amendments are needed to introduce flexibility, economic impact analysis, or small-provider exemptions to protect the competitive landscape.

• Private Property Rights: By codifying consent standards for data collection and sharing, the bill reinforces patients’ control over their personal health information—a key aspect of informational property rights. Standardized consent practices help ensure that individuals’ data is not used without permission and that providers are held accountable for how that data is handled.

• Limited Government: The greatest tension with liberty principles lies in the bill's delegation of broad rulemaking authority to multiple agencies. Without legislative sideboards, requirements for stakeholder input, or built-in oversight, the bill risks expanding bureaucratic power beyond what is necessary to implement the policy. To uphold the principle of limited government, the bill should be amended to constrain agency discretion, ensure transparency in the rulemaking process, and protect legislative oversight.

• SB 397 (Similar To)