According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated as a result of implementing the bill. The assessment assumes that both the Texas Department of State Health Services and the Texas Veterans Commission can carry out the bill’s requirements using their existing resources.

This means that the processes outlined in the bill—such as transmitting deidentified death certificate data to the Texas Veterans Commission and preparing annual public reports—are not expected to require new appropriations or result in a measurable increase in agency budgets. The agencies involved are considered to already possess the administrative capacity, infrastructure, and staffing needed to absorb the responsibilities outlined in the legislation.

Furthermore, there are no significant anticipated fiscal implications for local governments. The bill does not impose any mandates or costs on counties or municipalities, as the required data reporting and analysis responsibilities lie entirely with state-level agencies. Overall, HB 39 is designed to enhance state coordination on veteran suicide and homicide tracking without adding fiscal strain to government entities.

Texas Policy Research is NEUTRAL on HB 39. While the bill is well-intentioned and seeks to address a serious issue—namely, the underreporting and misclassification of veteran suicides and homicides in Texas—it does so by slightly expanding the scope of government data collection and reporting. The bill mandates that the Department of State Health Services submit deidentified information to the Texas Veterans Commission and that the commission produce an annual report assessing this data and recommending policy actions. Though these tasks are limited in scope and cost-neutral, they represent an incremental expansion of state duties that may concern those who prioritize strict limits on government functions.

From a liberty-oriented perspective, the bill does not infringe on individual rights, as the data collected is anonymized and focuses solely on aggregate trends. Still, the act of institutionalizing the state’s role in evaluating and reporting on sensitive death-related information—especially involving mental health and suicide—can be seen as shifting responsibility away from community, family, and individual efforts toward a centralized, bureaucratic solution. It raises valid questions about whether such data should be the domain of government, even in anonymized form, or whether it could be more appropriately handled through partnerships with private or nonprofit veteran organizations.

Additionally, while there are no direct fiscal, regulatory, or private property implications, the absence of a sunset clause or limitation on the scope of data that may eventually be collected suggests that the role of the state in this area could grow over time. This concern is balanced, however, by the bill's practical value in supporting the well-being of Texas veterans and ensuring that public policy decisions are made based on more accurate and targeted information.

In light of these trade-offs, a Neutral recommendation best reflects the bill’s balance of positive intent and modest concerns related to the principle of limited government. It neither clearly advances nor significantly undermines core liberty principles and should be evaluated in the context of ongoing discussions about the appropriate role of the state in addressing veteran mental health and suicide prevention.

• Individual Liberty: The bill respects personal privacy by requiring only deidentified data to be shared between agencies, meaning no personally identifiable information is disclosed. This preserves individual liberty in the immediate sense. However, any government collection and use of sensitive data—especially concerning causes of death and mental health—can present long-term privacy concerns. The principle of individual liberty calls for vigilance to ensure that even anonymized data does not become a precedent for future intrusive surveillance or broader data collection practices.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill places the burden of analysis and response on state institutions, suggesting a policy approach where responsibility for understanding and mitigating veteran suicide is handled by the government. While this may be practical from a public health standpoint, it can unintentionally reduce the emphasis on individual, familial, or community-based responsibility in addressing mental health and suicide prevention. A liberty-focused framework generally favors decentralized, voluntary, or civil society-based solutions over institutional ones.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate private businesses or impact market competition, labor, or commerce in any way. It is fully confined to inter-agency government activity. Therefore, it is neutral with respect to the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not address or alter property rights, land use, or ownership. No action is taken that would interfere with private ownership or the use of personal property. As such, this principle remains untouched by the bill.
• Limited Government: This is the area where the bill has the most significant, though still modest, impact. The legislation adds an ongoing responsibility to both the Department of State Health Services and the Texas Veterans Commission, which must now collect, process, and report data annually. While the fiscal note confirms this can be absorbed with existing resources, the creation of new duties—even administrative ones—represents a gradual expansion of the role of government, particularly in sensitive areas like mental health and mortality. The absence of a sunset provision or limits on future data types could allow this role to expand further.

• HB 1300 (Same As)