According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 2189 are primarily tied to the provision of free high-quality instructional materials for health profession-related career and technical education (CTE) programs. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) would be responsible for supplying these materials at no cost to school districts. However, the total cost of this requirement cannot be definitively determined. If TEA can secure and distribute existing open educational resources (OER), the impact could be minimal and covered within existing agency resources. Conversely, if TEA needs to develop new instructional content internally, it estimates that producing six initial courses would take approximately 2.5 years and cost about $8.2 million in the 2026–27 biennium. This estimate includes the addition of three full-time employees (FTEs). The state currently offers 47 approved health science courses, which suggests the full cost could be higher over time.

The bill also mandates a feasibility study on shared laboratory resources, led by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) in collaboration with TEA. The Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note indicates that the costs associated with this study could be absorbed by the coordinating board using existing resources. Similarly, the review of dual credit health CTE courses—jointly conducted by TEA, THECB, and the Texas Workforce Commission—is not expected to result in additional costs that exceed current budget capacities.

For local governments, including school districts and colleges that might participate in shared resource arrangements or benefit from the provided instructional materials, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated. In summary, while the full cost of curriculum development could be substantial if TEA must build materials from scratch, most other provisions of the bill are structured in a way that minimizes fiscal strain on state and local entities.

Despite its good intentions, this bill represents an unnecessary expansion of government into areas that can and should be addressed by the private sector or local school districts. Instructional materials for health-related education already exist in the market, and many districts are capable of sourcing or developing their own content through competitive, innovative means. By placing this responsibility on the state, the bill undercuts local control and discourages market solutions.

Moreover, the bill includes multiple studies—on lab-sharing and dual credit alignment—that agencies either already have the authority to conduct or that could be implemented directly without further analysis. Mandating studies often serves as a political strategy to justify future spending or policy expansion, rather than delivering real outcomes. These studies may simply delay needed reforms or pave the way for more top-down mandates.

Finally, the fiscal impact—especially for the development of instructional materials—is vague and potentially open-ended, with an estimated cost of $8.2 million for just six courses. This sets a precedent for ongoing state obligations without clear guardrails or cost controls. The bill also risks becoming a gateway to further centralized education mandates that erode local choice and autonomy.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2189. It attempts to solve problems that do not require state intervention and may instead lead to greater bureaucracy, future mandates, and diminished educational innovation. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2189.

• Individual Liberty: The bill could marginally enhance individual liberty for students by expanding access to free, high-quality health career education. It aims to empower students—especially in underserved areas—to pursue meaningful, self-directed career paths. However, this is achieved through increased state involvement, which raises the question of whether liberty is being promoted through government expansion—a point some may see as contradictory.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill attempts to prepare students for responsible career decisions, it does so by shifting the burden of preparation from the individual or local community to the state. Instead of encouraging school districts to seek partnerships or develop curricula independently, it conditions them to rely on state-provided materials and studies. This may undermine the culture of initiative, self-governance, and accountability that personal responsibility requires.
• Free Enterprise: The bill risks displacing private sector solutions by having the state develop and distribute instructional materials. This encroaches on the role of private publishers and training providers who currently serve this space. When the government enters a market with subsidized products, it distorts incentives and can crowd out existing and future competition—especially in niche sectors like health science education.
• Private Property Rights: There is no direct impact on private property rights. The bill does not expropriate or restrict private ownership, nor does it impose new regulatory burdens on property holders. Its operations are confined to public institutions and state agencies.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill draws the most concern. It expands the role of the state in education policy, not only by providing free materials and initiating inter-institutional studies but also by embedding the state further into local curriculum development and dual credit programming. The use of studies—while temporary—suggests a longer-term ambition for increased state oversight. The bill moves beyond facilitation and into coordination and control, which runs counter to the principle of limiting the scope and scale of government.