According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 4144 cannot currently be determined due to a lack of data on the number of eligible retired peace officers and firefighters who would qualify for the proposed benefit. The bill would require governmental entities to provide a one-time supplemental income benefit, capped at the lesser of $100,000 or the individual’s final annual salary, for retirees diagnosed with certain serious illnesses within three years of retirement.

The indeterminate fiscal impact stems from multiple unknown variables, including how many retirees would receive a qualifying diagnosis and whether governmental entities already provide equivalent benefits, which would exempt them from the new requirement. Additionally, while the benefit amount is capped and only applies to a specific population, the legislation lacks a funding mechanism or estimate of potential claims, which further complicates fiscal forecasting.

For local governments, the fiscal implications are similarly uncertain. Entities with retired public safety personnel may face significant costs depending on the number of qualifying cases and whether their current retirement or healthcare plans meet the bill’s exemption criteria. The bill allows for some flexibility in benefit delivery—either lump sum or three-month installment payments, which could marginally ease budgetary impact, but the lack of data makes comprehensive planning difficult at both the state and local levels.

HB 4144 seeks to establish a supplemental income benefit of up to $100,000 for retired firefighters and peace officers diagnosed with specific service-related illnesses—cancer, heart attack, or stroke—within three years of retirement. While the bill is motivated by a sincere effort to recognize the sacrifices of public safety professionals, a vote against the bill is warranted on philosophical and fiscal grounds rooted in principles of limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility.

First, HB 4144 represents a clear expansion of the scope of government. It introduces a new legal mandate for governmental entities to provide post-retirement financial benefits outside of existing pension systems or negotiated retirement health care plans. Even though the bill does not create a new bureaucracy, it does formalize a new statutory entitlement, effectively broadening the role of the state in compensating for health outcomes well after public employment has ended. For those who believe the government’s role should be tightly confined to essential services, this encroaches on territory traditionally managed by local agencies, individual planning, or collective bargaining.

Second, the bill lacks a defined fiscal boundary. The Legislative Budget Board explicitly states that the fiscal impact “cannot be determined,” because the number of potentially eligible retirees is unknown. This introduces an unacceptable level of financial uncertainty, especially for local governments that may be less equipped to absorb these costs. While there is a cap on individual benefits, there is no cap on aggregate exposure across jurisdictions. From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, committing taxpayer dollars to a program without reliable projections or cost containment mechanisms creates long-term budgetary risk.

Third, HB 4144 undermines principles of personal and institutional responsibility. By requiring taxpayers to fund post-retirement benefits for public employees after their service is complete, the bill shifts responsibility away from the individuals and local governments who should plan for such contingencies. If extended, such logic could justify future expansions to other professions or conditions, eroding the boundary between necessary occupational protections and broad post-employment entitlements. This "slippery slope" effect would further normalize the state's role in post-career health or income support.

Lastly, while the bill includes an exemption for entities already providing comparable coverage, it still imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate on the rest. This reduces flexibility and may penalize smaller jurisdictions that lack the resources to provide equivalent health coverage, pushing them toward higher costs or budget reallocations. Such a centralization of benefits policy contradicts the conservative preference for local control and subsidiarity.

In summary, although HB 4144 is well-intentioned and narrowly framed, it departs from fundamental conservative principles by expanding the size and obligations of government, creating open-ended fiscal liabilities, and weakening the ethic of individual and local responsibility. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4144.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty for retired peace officers and firefighters by acknowledging their heightened exposure to occupational hazards and offering financial relief when service-related illnesses manifest post-retirement. It protects their ability to access timely support without relying solely on private insurance or savings, recognizing the ongoing consequences of public service. From a liberty standpoint, it affirms the dignity and autonomy of first responders in managing life-threatening conditions with financial security.
• Personal Responsibility: While supporting injured retirees is compassionate, the bill shifts the financial burden from individuals and local employers to the broader taxpayer base. It reduces the incentive for local entities to negotiate stronger retirement health packages and for individuals to plan for long-term risks. This could dilute the ethic of personal responsibility by setting a precedent for state-level bailouts or supplemental guarantees in other employment contexts. In short, the bill blurs the line between risk assumed voluntarily and collective obligation.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate, restrict, or mandate any private sector activity. It imposes obligations solely on governmental entities and does not interfere with private insurance markets or the operations of private employers. Thus, it neither distorts competition nor infringes upon private-sector freedom, leaving the principle of free enterprise largely unaffected.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect private property ownership or land use rights. It neither expands nor contracts eminent domain powers, nor does it authorize the seizure or redistribution of private property. Therefore, it does not engage the principle of private property rights directly.
• Limited Government: This is the principle most challenged by the bill. The bill creates a new statutory benefit mandate, expanding the scope of what the state compels its agencies and political subdivisions to provide. While it includes exemptions and cost limits, it establishes a precedent for post-retirement benefits funded or required by the state, extending the government’s reach into areas traditionally governed by contract, local negotiation, or personal planning. The absence of a capped fiscal impact or sunset provision further challenges the principle of restraint in government growth.