According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2035 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill would require chemical dependency treatment facilities to issue written notice to a parent, managing conservator, or guardian when a minor is refused voluntary admission, informing them of their right to seek treatment at another facility.

The fiscal analysis assumes that any additional administrative costs associated with the implementation of this requirement, such as printing and distributing the written notice, can be absorbed within existing resources by the facilities and the Health and Human Services Commission. No new funding or appropriations are expected to be necessary to comply with the bill.

Additionally, there is no significant fiscal implication projected for local governments. The bill does not mandate new responsibilities or impose costs on local governmental units, as the regulatory and operational impact is limited to private or state-licensed treatment facilities regulated at the state level.

HB 2035 is a narrowly tailored, rights-affirming measure that strengthens parental authority in the context of adolescent substance use treatment. The bill requires chemical dependency treatment facilities that refuse to admit a minor to provide written notice to the parent, guardian, or managing conservator, clarifying their right to seek voluntary treatment for the minor at another facility. The bill does not alter the facility’s discretion to deny admission but ensures families are properly informed and not left under the false impression that no further options are available.

This legislation aligns well with the principles of Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility. It reinforces the authority of families to pursue needed care without adding substantive regulatory interference. Moreover, it supports informed decision-making without compelling facilities to alter admissions criteria or treatment practices. It also preserves the integrity of private healthcare providers' operations by limiting government involvement to a transparency requirement.

Importantly, HB 2035 does not grow the size or scope of government. It imposes no new agency responsibilities, reporting structures, or enforcement mechanisms. The fiscal note from the Legislative Budget Board confirms there is no significant cost to the state or local governments and that any minor administrative costs can be absorbed within existing resources. Therefore, there is no added financial burden on taxpayers.

The bill also does not impose a meaningful regulatory burden on private individuals or businesses. The only requirement is the issuance of a simple written notice—a modest and easily implemented administrative task that does not interfere with the core operations or clinical decisions of treatment facilities.

In sum, HB 2035 strengthens parental rights, promotes clarity and continuity in the treatment process, avoids expanding government power or spending, and respects business autonomy. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2035.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by empowering parents or legal guardians with clear, written information about their rights. When a treatment facility refuses to admit a minor, the bill ensures the parent knows they can still seek care elsewhere. This protects the freedom of families to make informed decisions regarding their child’s health, without being misled or discouraged by an initial denial.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages personal responsibility by making it easier for parents and guardians to take active, informed steps in securing treatment for their child. It ensures that responsibility for seeking care doesn’t end with a denial—it helps families understand their options and continue acting in their child’s best interest.
• Free Enterprise: The bill maintains the principle of free enterprise by allowing treatment facilities to retain full discretion over whom they admit. It does not interfere with business operations or decision-making; instead, it simply ensures facilities provide a written notice when denying admission. This fosters a more informed market without imposing anti-competitive restrictions.
• Private Property Rights: There is no infringement on private property or operational rights. Facilities are not required to admit any patient or alter their internal criteria; they are only required to provide notice. This respects their autonomy while adding a basic accountability measure.
• Limited Government: The bill is a textbook example of limited government in action. It addresses a specific problem—lack of clarity for parents—without creating new bureaucracies, enforcement bodies, or costly mandates. The state isn't expanding control; it's simply ensuring families receive accurate information at a critical moment.