According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal impact to the state is anticipated as a result of HB 3595. The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), which would oversee the implementation and enforcement of the new emergency preparedness requirements for assisted living facilities, is expected to manage any associated administrative costs within its existing resources without needing additional appropriations.

Regarding potential revenue, while the bill allows for the imposition of civil or administrative penalties against facilities that fail to comply, the Comptroller of Public Accounts indicated that the number of violations — and thus the amount of penalty revenue — is unknown. However, any revenue generated is expected to be insignificant and would not materially affect the state budget.

Similarly, the LBB notes there is no significant fiscal implication anticipated for local governments. Compliance and enforcement actions will primarily affect private assisted living facilities rather than imposing new mandates or costs on cities, counties, or other local entities.

While the intent of the bill — protecting vulnerable residents during emergencies — is commendable, HB 3595 represents an unacceptable expansion of government power and regulatory control. It significantly increases the regulatory burden on private businesses, particularly small and rural assisted living facilities, by forcing costly infrastructure upgrades and new compliance procedures.

The bill grows the size and scope of government, granting the Health and Human Services Commission new rulemaking, enforcement, and penalty powers. Although the immediate fiscal impact on taxpayers is projected to be small, expanding government programs almost always leads to higher costs and bureaucratic growth over time.

Ultimately, HB 3595 moves away from the principles of limited government, private property rights, and free enterprise. It mandates one-size-fits-all standards that could push smaller operators out of the market, reduce senior care options, and burden families with higher costs — all while increasing dependency on state regulation rather than encouraging innovation and voluntary best practices.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3595.

• Individual Liberty: The bill protects the physical safety and welfare of elderly and medically vulnerable individuals during emergencies like power outages. Ensuring people aren’t left in dangerous heat or cold respects their right to life and safety. However, it does so by expanding state control rather than empowering individuals or families to make choices independently.
• Personal Responsibility: Instead of encouraging individuals, families, or private facility operators to voluntarily plan and prepare for emergencies, the bill forces a government-mandated solution. This diminishes personal initiative and transfers responsibility from private actors to state enforcement.
• Free Enterprise: By imposing costly infrastructure requirements (like backup generators and new cooling/heating systems) and strict compliance rules, the bill burdens private businesses. It could make it harder for small or rural assisted living facilities to operate, potentially pushing them out of the market and limiting competition.
• Private Property Rights: The state mandates physical changes to privately owned buildings and restricts how owners can use and manage their properties. Facility owners no longer have the freedom to decide how best to handle emergencies on their property — they must comply with government-imposed standards.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the regulatory authority of the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), allowing for new construction standards, ongoing enforcement, and penalties. Even though the fiscal note suggests no immediate budget impact, it grows government involvement in private business affairs — a clear move away from a limited government framework.