According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 632 is not expected to have any significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The implementation of the bill, which amends existing pharmacy regulations to allow pharmacists to dispense insulin-related equipment or supplies in quantities matching the smallest commercially available package, can be accommodated within current agency resources. Specifically, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, which oversees such regulations, is not projected to require additional funding or staffing to enforce or administer the change.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Since the bill does not impose any new mandates or costs on local entities or require changes to local service delivery or infrastructure, local agencies and jurisdictions are expected to absorb any incidental administrative adjustments within their existing budgets.

Overall, the fiscal note confirms that HB 632 is a low-cost, low-disruption legislative proposal, with the primary effect being a policy adjustment to allow for more flexible emergency dispensing of insulin-related supplies by pharmacists, rather than any expansion of government spending or operations.

HB 632 addresses a specific limitation in “Kevin’s Law” (2021), which authorized pharmacists to dispense emergency insulin refills. The current law’s rigid 30-day cap does not align with real-world packaging, as insulin doses vary by individual and are often sold in prepackaged quantities that exceed a standard 30-day supply. HB 632 corrects this by permitting pharmacists to dispense the smallest commercially available package necessary for a 30-day supply, and similarly adjusts the standard for insulin-related supplies.

Importantly, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It imposes no new programs, agencies, or regulatory authorities. The Legislative Budget Board confirms there is no significant fiscal impact to the state or to local governments, and any minor administrative costs can be absorbed with existing resources. Additionally, there is no increase in taxpayer burden or expansion of government-funded services. Rather than imposing new rules, the bill eases an existing regulatory restriction, granting pharmacists greater professional discretion in emergencies while ensuring patients can access essential medication.

The bill represents a regulatory refinement, not expansion, that promotes public health access while upholding limited government and individual autonomy. It does so without creating mandates or increasing compliance costs for businesses or professionals. HB 632 is a narrowly tailored solution that strengthens the state’s healthcare framework without compromising fiscal discipline or regulatory balance. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 632.

• Individual Liberty: The bill directly enhances individual liberty by improving access to emergency medical care. Diabetics who rely on insulin no longer face arbitrary quantity limits that could delay or prevent them from receiving life-sustaining medication. It respects the individual's right to make personal healthcare decisions in consultation with their pharmacist, without unnecessary interference from the state.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill affirms the principle of personal responsibility by enabling pharmacists to act responsibly and use their professional judgment in emergency situations. It does not mandate any new services or shift responsibility away from patients; rather, it empowers individuals to take action when they can't immediately reach their doctor, promoting self-care and proactive health management.
• Free Enterprise: The bill supports a more rational and responsive marketplace for healthcare services. By aligning pharmacy law with how insulin is actually packaged and sold, the bill eliminates a regulatory mismatch that complicates service delivery. This promotes efficiency and flexibility for pharmacists and patients alike, without increasing costs or red tape.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect private property rights. It neither expands nor restricts ownership, land use, or contract rights. However, by reducing regulatory friction in how pharmacists provide services, it modestly supports the ability of private businesses (pharmacies) to operate without unnecessary government-imposed limitations.
• Limited Government: Crucially, the bill reflects the principle of limited government. It does not create new agencies, regulations, or spending programs. Instead, it simplifies and modernizes existing law, reducing unnecessary restrictions and trusting licensed professionals to act within their scope of expertise. This is a clear example of the government stepping back where it previously overreached.